Two “Affirmed on the Opinion Below” Rulings From the Supreme Court

Yesterday and today, the Supreme Court did what it does not often do: affirm a decision of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons expressed by the Appellate Division, rather than writing its own fully-expressed opinion.

Yesterday’s ruling, in Granata v. Broderick, 231 N.J. 135 (2017), affirmed a decision by Judge Guadagno that was reported at 446 N.J. Super. 449 (App. Div. 2016).  As the Supreme Court summarized it, the Appellate Division ruled that “an attorney’s pledge of anticipated attorneys’ fees can be considered an account receivable and secured under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and that the lender here complied with the requirements of the UCC to perfect its security interest by filing a financing statement covering the collateral of the anticipated attorney’s fees.”

Today, the Court issued its decision in EQR-LPC Urban Renewal North Pier, LLC v. City of Jersey City, 231 N.J. 157 (2017).  There, the Court affirmed a per curiam opinion of the Appellate Division that had dealt with a dispute between plaintiff urban renewal entities and the City regarding whether financial agreements between them incorporated 2003 amendments to the Long Term Tax Exemption Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:20-1 to -22.  The Law Division had granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs, but the City obtained leave to appeal.  The Appellate Division (Judges Reisner and Hoffman) reversed and remanded the case.

Since the Appellate Division’s decision was per curiam, it was not previously published.  As a result of today’s ruling by the Supreme Court, the Appellate Division’s decision was converted to a published opinion, though still per curiam.  It appears here, and will be reported at ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2016).