Appellate Law NJ Blog
  • Home
  • Bruce Greenberg

The Most Common Deficiencies in Appellate Division Briefs and Appendices

Posted by Bruce D. Greenberg on Nov 13, 2019 in Appellate Division, Practice Pointers | 2 comments

The bane of every appellate practitioner’s existence is the dreaded deficiency notice from the Appellate Division. Last night’s meeting of the New Jersey State Bar Association’s Appellate Practice Committee included a discussion of the most common deficiencies in briefs and appendices submitted to the Appellate Division. That discussion was based on information from the Clerk’s office. Here is the list of most common deficiencies:

No “Table of Judgments, Orders and Rulings Being Appealed” with references to the location in the appendix of any such items. That requirement was added as Rule 2:6-2(a)(2) in 2016, but some filings still overlook it.

Point headings, in both the Table of Contents and the Argument section of the brief, that fail to include in parentheses where in the record the opinion or ruling is located (or, if the issue was not raised below, a statement to that effect). This requirement, related to the above, was also added in 2016, as Rule 2:6-2(a)(1) and (6).

A Preliminary Statement in a brief that exceeds the three pages permitted by Rule 2:6-2(a)(7). That provision also bans footnotes in the preliminary Statement and, “to the extent practicable, citations.”

No separate Statement of Procedural History with references to the record. See Rules 2:6-2(a)(4) and 2:6-4(a).

For appellants, no separate Statement of Facts with references to the record. See Rules 2:6-2(a)(5) and 2:6-4(a). A Statement of Facts is optional for respondents.

If there is more than one transcript date, no transcript key in the appellant’s brief listing the transcript dates in chronological order with numbered designations (1T, 2T, etc.). Relatedly, references to transcripts in the brief of any party that does not include the designations or transcript page numbers. Rule 2:6-8 addresses this and elaborates on the proper way to cite transcripts and other items.

Brief pages containing more than 26 double-spaced lines, or lines with more than 65 characters, which includes letters, numbers, punctuation marks, or spaces. See Rule 2:6-10. Courier fonts (most of us use Courier New) in 12-point font comply with these requirements. Times New Roman does not.

No Table of Contents for the appendix listing each document, including separate identification of each attachment to each listed document. Each appendix volume must include the full appendix Table of Contents at the beginning of the volume, and the cover of each volume must show the pages of the appendix contained in that volume.

Principal pleadings missing from the appendix, in violation of Rule 2:6-1(a)(1).

Each page of the appendix not consecutively numbered. See Rule 2:6-1(b).

Briefs or appendices that are illegible, or not bound or stapled in the upper left corner. See Rule 2:6-10.

Covers not in the colors specified in Rule 2:6-6(b), or the use of glassine covers, which that Rule forbids.

Failure to list everything required on the brief cover, which is covered by Rule 2:6-6(a). The most frequent deficiencies involve the complete title of the case with trial court and appellate docket numbers and designations, the names of all parties (“et al.” is not appropriate), and the filer’s New Jersey attorney ID number.

The final two deficiencies relate to appeals from motions for summary judgment. Rule 2:6-1(a)(1) requires a statement of items submitted to the trial court on the summary judgment motion. That is mandated even though those items themselves are, or should be, already included in the appendix. Failure to include that statement is a frequent deficiency. The other deficiency relating to summary judgment appeals is the failure to include the statement of material facts, as required by Rule 4:46-2.

No one is perfect, and deficiencies can be cured. But this list may help in avoiding the most common pitfalls in Appellate Division filings.

2 Responses to “The Most Common Deficiencies in Appellate Division Briefs and Appendices”

  1. T. Gary Mitchell says:
    November 14, 2019 at 9:18 am

    As deficiencies, you mention “No separate Statement of Procedural History with references to the record. See Rules 2:6-2(a)(4) and 2:6-4(a),” and “For appellants, no separate Statement of Facts with references to the record. See Rules 2:6-2(a)(5) and 2:6-4(a).” But all too often lawyers who should know better, particularly state government lawyers, file briefs as appellants or respondents with “combined” statements of procedural history and statements of facts, claiming it is for the “convenience” of the court or because the procedural history and facts are “inextricably” related. Hahaha. Really it is because they are lazy or don’t know the difference. And equally all too often the Appellate Division Clerk’s office lets this deficiency pass. It should not.

    Reply
    • Bruce D. Greenberg says:
      November 15, 2019 at 10:56 am

      Gary: In my experience, there have been different views expressed by Case Managers as to the issue that you raise. I have heard it said that if a party offers justification for combining the Statement of Facts and the Statement of Procedural History, the Appellate Division will permit that. There are circumstances where combining the two sections makes logical and/or organizational sense. But, of course, the justification offered must be valid and can’t simply be boilerplate or a knee-jerk reaction.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About the Author

Bruce D. Greenberg, a partner of Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC, has more than 35 years of appellate experience.  He has argued dozens of cases in New Jersey’s Appellate Division, and he has handled oral arguments in the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals as well.  Mr. Greenberg’s appellate cases have ranged from . . more

 

Subscribe

  • reader reader
  • Subscribe to Appellate Law NJ Blog by Email

Archives

Links

  • An Appeal to Reason – California Appellate blog
  • Class Action Blawg
  • De Novo- Virginia Appellate Law blog
  • Florida Appellate Review
  • How Appealing
  • Maine Appeals Blog
  • New York Appellate Law blog
  • NJ Judiciary
  • On Brief – Iowa Appellate Law Blog
  • Third Circuit Blog
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Categories

  • Administrative agency actions
  • Administrative matters
  • Appellate Division
  • Attorneys fees
  • Case management
  • Chancery issues
  • Class actions
  • Constitutional law
  • Consumer protection
  • Contract interpretation
  • Criminal law
  • Discovery
  • Effect of decisions by other courts
  • Judges
  • Jury issues
  • Municipal land use
  • Notable opinion writing
  • Pleadings
  • Practice Pointers
  • Standards of review
  • Statutory interpretation
  • Summary judgment
  • Supreme Court of New Jersey
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Uncategorized
  • United States Supreme Court

Tags

Administrative agency actions Arbitration Briefs Chief Justice Stuart Rabner Court Rules Family Part interlocutory vs. final decisions Judge Allison Accurso Judge Anthony Parrillo Judge Carmen Alvarez Judge Carmen Messano Judge Clarkson Fisher Judge D. Brooks Smith Judge Douglas Fasciale Judge Ellen Koblitz Judge Heidi Willis Currier Judge Jack Sabatino Judge Jose Fuentes Judge Julio Fuentes Judge Kent Jordan Judge Marianne Espinosa Judge Marie Lihotz Judge Mary Catherine Cuff Judge Mitchel Ostrer Judge Patty Shwartz Judge Stephen Skillman Judge Susan Reisner Judge Thomas Ambro Judge Thomas Hardiman Judge Victor Ashrafi Justice Anne Patterson Justice Barry Albin Justice Fabiana Pierre-Louis Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina Justice Helen Hoens Justice Jaynee LaVecchia Justice Lee Solomon Justice Walter Timpone Law of the case Makeup of court Notice of appeal Prerogative writ appeals Standing Statute of limitations Waiver

Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by Wordpress