The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in five cases. These are the first grants of the current Term.
In HC Equities, LP v. County of Union, which as docket numbers A-1/2-20, the question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Were the letters that plaintiff sent timely under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:8-8, and did they substantially comply with the notice requirements of the Act?” In an unpublished, per curiam opinion, a two-judge Appellate Division panel reversed the Law Division’s dismissal of plaintiff’s Complaint, holding that plaintiff had satisfied the statutory notice requirements.
Coleman v. Martinez presents this question: “Was it foreseeable that defendant’s client would commit an act of violence against plaintiff, such that defendant had a duty to take reasonable steps to avoid exposing plaintiff to danger posed by the client?” The Law Division granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, but a three-judge panel of the Appellate Division, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, reversed, finding “particularized foreseeability,” and therefore a duty running from defendant to plaintiff.
Pareja v. Princeton Int’l Properties is an appeal from a published Appellate Division, by a three-judge panel. That opinion was summarized here. The question presented is “Does a commercial landowner have a duty to take reasonable steps to render a public walkway abutting its property– covered by snow or ice– reasonably safe, while precipitation is falling?” After the Law Division had granted summary judgment to the defendant landowner, holding that the owner did not owe a duty in these circumstances, the Appellate Division reversed.
In Pritchett v. State of New Jersey, the question presented is “Was the punitive damages award against a public entity reasonable and proportional?” The Law Division upheld the jury’s punitive damages award. An unpublished opinion of a three-judge panel of the Appellate Division, however, remanded the issue for the Law Division to consider the criteria of Baker v. National State Bank, 161 N.J. 220 (1999), as to the proper amount of punitive damages.
The final case is State v. Andujar, the first criminal matter granted review in the current Term. The question presented there is “Was defendant’s conviction properly reversed where the State ran a criminal background check on a minority member of the jury pool after it unsuccessfully sought to remove the prospective juror for cause?” In an opinion reported at 462 N.J. Super. 537 (App. Div. 2020), the Appellate Division reversed defendant’s convictions for first-degree murder and weapons offenses.
Leave a Reply