In the latter part of last week, the Supreme Court issued its first ruling of the month of June. The Appellate Division came down with only its second published opinion this month. Here are summaries:
Padilla v. An, 257 N.J. 540 (2024). Six years after the Appellate Division faced a case involving the liability of a vacant church for a slip and fall on a sidewalk that abutted the church, as discussed here, the Supreme Court decided this appeal. The question presented, as noted here, was “Are the owners of vacant commercial lots liable to pedestrians injured by poorly maintained sidewalks abutting those lots?” The Law Division had granted summary judgment to defendants, holding that they had no duty because, in summary, their property was not income-producing. The Appellate Division affirmed that ruling. But the Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote, reversed, applying de novo review. The majority adopted a bright line rule. “There is something profoundly unfair about commercial property owners purchasing vacant lots and having no responsibility whatsoever for maintaining the area where the general public traverses. We therefore hold that all commercial landowners — including owners of vacant commercial lots — must maintain the public sidewalks abutting their property in reasonably good condition and can be held liable to pedestrians injured as a result of their negligent failure to do so” (emphasis in original). The majority also observed that it could be difficult to determine whether and when a property is profitable (citing, among other cases, Schwartz v. Menas, 251 N.J. 556 (2022), a case I argued for the successful plaintiffs). Justice Pierre-Louis wrote the majority opinion, in which Chief Justice Rabner and Justices Fasciale and Noriega joined. Justice Solomon authored the dissent, joined by Justices Patterson and Wainer Apter.
State v. Wilson, 478 N.J. Super. 564 (App. Div. 2024). Judge Susswein wrote the panel’s opinion in this case, which was before the Appellate Division on leave to appeal. He observed that the case “presents two questions of first impression under New Jersey law concerning the scope and intensity of searches conducted pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Are police permitted to search a glove box based solely on the odor of marijuana emanating generally from the passenger compartment of a vehicle without first determining whether the odor is coming specifically from the vicinity of the glove box? And does the New Jersey automobile exception extend to a glove box that is intentionally locked, manifesting a heightened expectation of privacy in its contents as compared to the vehicle generally, to objects left out in the open, and to the contents of opaque containers in the vehicle that are closed but not locked?” Answering the first question “yes” and the second “no,” the Appellate Division reversed a ruling of the Law Division that had suppressed evidence. The novelty of the questions presented and the fact that a significant part of the appeal revolved around the proper application of State v. Cohen, 254 N.J. 308 (2023), it would not be surprising to see the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal if defendants seek it.