The Anticipated Catch-Up Post: Two Published Appellate Division Decisions

As indicated here, it was likely that there would be published opinions issued during this blog’s holiday break. It turns out that there were two such opinions, both by the Appellate Division. Here are summaries of those decisions.

J.D. v. A.M.W., 475 N.J. Super. 306 (App. Div. 2023). This opinion by Judge Smith addressed a Family Part decision that denied plaintiff’s application for a final restraining order (“FRO”) against defendant under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 et seq, The Family Part denied the FRO, ruling that plaintiff had not satisfied the second prong of Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2006). That prong looks at “whether the court should enter a restraining order that provides protection for the victim.” That inquiry, in turn, is guided by criteria that appear in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29. Though Judge Smith noted that the answer to the second prong is “most often perfunctory and self-evident,” and that appellate courts give great deference to the Family Part in such matters, the panel found, on the particular facts presented, that the Family Part had erred. The Appellate Division reversed and remanded the case for entry of a FRO.

Angus v. Metuchen Bd. of Educ., 475 N.J. Super. 362 (App. Div. 2023). As Judge Vernoia summarized in the first paragraph of his opinion, the issue in this appeal was “whether Title 18’s paid sick leave statute, N.J.S.A. 18A:30-1, permits the use of paid sick leave where a Board of Education, following the advice of medical authorities, excludes a teacher from working at school due to their exposure to COVID-19 from a person outside their immediate household.” Applying de novo review on the purely legal issue presented, the Appellate Division affirmed the result reached by the Commissioner of Education, who had affirmed the ruling of an Administrative Law Judge, in favor of the teacher. Judge Vernoia held, employing “well-settled principles of statutory construction,” that the plain language of the statute entitled the teacher to sick leave in this circumstance. But the Appellate Division did not adopt the reading of the statute that the ALJ and the Commissioner had employed. Instead, Judge Vernoia found that the portion of the statute that permits sick leave where an employee “has been excluded from school by the school district’s medical authorities on account of a contagious disease” afforded sick leave here even though the employee herself did not have the disease.

.