The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in five new cases. All of them are civil matters. Three of the cases involved published opinions of the Appellate Division.
In D.T. v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, the question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Under the circumstances presented, is the Archdiocese of Philadelphia subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey?” As discussed here, in an opinion reported at 477 N.J. Super. 370 (App. Div. 2023), the Appellate Division found that New Jersey courts lacked personal jurisdiction over the Diocese.
Fuster v. Township of Chatham presents this question: “Are plaintiffs entitled to this body worn camera recording of an interview under the Body Worn Camera Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.3 to -118.5, the Open Public Records Act, and the common law right of access?” The Appellate Division held that plaintiffs were not entitled to the recording. That court’s opinion, which affirmed a ruling of the Law Division, was reported at 477 N.J. Super. 477 (App. Div. 2023), and was discussed here.
In In the Matter of A.D., the question presented is “In an action seeking guardianship of an alleged incapacitated and vulnerable adult, under what circumstances can a court grant applications for fees and costs submitted by court-appointed attorneys and guardians?” As discussed here, the opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at 477 N.J. Super. 288 (App. Div. 2023), found that counsel were not entitled to fees and costs in the circumstances of this case, upholding the decision of the Law Division.
Here is the question presented in Rappaport v. Pasternak: “In this matter, where an arbitrator found that plaintiff was wrongfully terminated and awarded him monetary damages but divested him of his interests in various limited liability realty companies, did the Appellate Division err in modifying the arbitration awards?” The Appellate Division’s ruling was issued per curiam by a three-judge panel. Aside from the modification, the panel affirmed the Chancery Division in all other respects.
The final case, Spill v. Markovitz, presents this question: “Should the verdict form in a medical malpractice case allow the jury to apportion a percentage of fault to a potential defendant if the court lacks personal jurisdiction over that potential defendant?” A three-judge panel of the Appellate Division affirmed the Law Division’s ruling denying the apportionment.