Three New Appeals for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in three new appeals. All are from unpublished opinions of the Appellate Division.

In Constructural Dynamics, Inc. v. Arch Insurance Co., the question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “In this commercial automobile insurance policy coverage dispute, did the handling of property exclusion or the completed operations exclusion apply under the circumstances?” Reversing the Law Division’s denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment and that court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiff, a two-judge panel of the Appellate Division held that both exclusions applied. That resulted in the vacation of the summary judgment for plaintiff and its accompanying monetary award, as well as a remand for the entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant.

Moschella v. Hackensack Meridian Jersey Shore University Medical Center presents this question: “Should plaintiff’s complaint have been dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with the Affidavit of Merit Statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27 to -29?” In a two-judge decision, the Appellate Division affirmed the Law Division’s dismissal of the case for the failure of plaintiff, who was pro se, to comply with the Affidavit of Merit statute.

Finally, the question presented in New Jersey Division of Child Protection & Permanency v. J.C. is “Did the family court have authority, under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-12, to dismiss the case when there were continuing restraints in place?” A panel of three judges of the Appellate Division upheld the ruling of the Family Part that had dismissed DCP&P’s case while continuing restraints in effect.