These News Briefs and Decision Summaries are from the the New Jersey State Bar Association. They are an exclusive benefit of the Association in partnership with the New Jersey Law Journal. A subscription may be necessary to access the full text of some of the items listed:
NEWS BRIEFS:
NJ Firm Narrowly Avoids Case Dismissal Over Lengthy Complaint Filed in Fed Court
A Missouri federal judge stopped short of dismissing a lengthy complaint filed by attorneys with a New Jersey-based health care boutique, finding the more than 70-page complaint was just concise enough to avoid violating federal pleading standards.
Experience Devils and Flyers Hockey While Networking with the NJSBA
Network with NJSBA colleagues on Jan. 29 at the Prudential Center in Newark as the New Jersey Devils take on the Philadelphia Flyers. Tickets include a pre-game reception with snacks, beer, wine and soda. This event is open to NJSBA members and their guests. Every member can purchase a ticket for one additional guest. Register here.
Avoiding Discrimination and Hurtful Language
The emphasis on ethics, fairness and avoiding discrimination within the law means that sometimes, changes in statutory language are necessary, including the way an applicable statute and orders label parents and children.
The NJSBA Docket is Here With the Latest Updates From the Legal Community
Check out the latest issue of The NJSBA Docket, a bulletin with news from the Judiciary, recent Supreme Court and appellate decisions and Association highlights. Be sure to subscribe to the The NJSBA Docket on LinkedIn.
Members Who Inspire: ‘Extremely rare’: Four decades on dialysis hasn’t stopped Watchung DWI attorney.
DECISION SUMMARIES:
Click on any decision below to get the full opinion
From the New Jersey Judiciary – January 13, 2025
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Payne, New Jersey Supreme Court, Justice Wainer Apter. The state appealed the appellate division’s judgment reversing the denial of defendant’s petition for compassionate release under the Compassionate Release Act. Defendant was involved in a series of crimes, including the murder of her husband for insurance money, attempted murder of a tenant, and the murder of an 18-year-old family friend, all motivated by financial gain. The trial court found that defendant met the Act’s medical and public safety requirements but denied her release based on the extraordinary aggravating factors of her crimes. The trial court’s findings highlighted the particularly heinous, cruel, and depraved nature of defendant’s conduct, which involved significant planning and manipulation of vulnerable individuals. The trial court also considered mitigating factors, such as defendant’s exemplary conduct in prison and family support but found them insufficient to outweigh the aggravating factors. The appellate division reversed this decision, prompting the State to seek certification, which the Court granted. On appeal, the parties disputed whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying compassionate release based on the extraordinary nature of defendant’s crimes. The state argued that the trial court’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, while defendant contended that the appellate division correctly found the trial court’s application of extraordinary aggravating factors to be an abuse of discretion. The court reversed, reinstating the trial court’s denial of compassionate release, emphasizing that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding defendant’s crimes extraordinarily heinous, cruel, and depraved. The court also noted that while mitigating factors must be considered, they alone cannot establish entitlement to compassionate release when extraordinary aggravating factors are present.
NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES
Bellifemine v. Meadowlands Hosp. Med. Ctr., MHA, LLC, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Plaintiff appealed four trial court orders in his breach of contract case barring the introduction of evidence, quashing a subpoena, granting summary judgment to defendants and denying reconsideration. Plaintiff was employed by defendant hospital from 2010 until its sale in 2017. He alleged defendants failed to compensate him according to his employment contracts from December 2013 onwards. He claimed damages of $255,000 based on conversations with an accounting department employee. Defendants raised breach of contract, statute of limitations, lack of damages, and accord and satisfaction as defenses and sought discovery of plaintiff’s personal and business tax records. Plaintiff failed to supply the requested discovery, trial court dismissed the complaint but motion judge reinstated the complaint. Trial court granted defendants’ motion to bar any evidence adduced after the discovery end date and denied plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery. Trial court found that plaintiff could not substantiate his damages claims, failed to provide necessary tax records, that the statute of limitations barred claims prior to November 2014 and granted summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiff argued the complaint was timely, the statute of limitations had to be equitably tolled and court incorrectly applied the sham affidavit doctrine to prevent equitable tolling. Plaintiff asserted that because defendants did not differentiate his payments among the different contracts, the payment application rule permitted him to apply these partial payments to the oldest claims falling outside of the six-year window, thus preserving the entirety of the amounts due to him within the six-year window. Court found plaintiff’s claims accrued in December 2013 and any claim prior to November 2014 was barred. However, court reversed the summary judgment for claims accruing after that date and remanded for a jury to determine if the plaintiff was owed a salary.
CREDITORS’ AND DEBTORS’ RIGHTS
Am. Express Nat’l Bank v. Rossetti, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff bank in action for debt owed on two credit card accounts. Defendant was issued two American Express credit cards, used them for purchases and received monthly statements without disputing them. Defendant defaulted on payments, plaintiff asserted breach of contract, account stated, and unjust enrichment. Defendant claimed she had settled the debt. After non-binding arbitration was held, plaintiff filed a trial de novo from the arbitration. Defendant argued she had requested discovery of phone recordings to prove she had paid the alleged settlement payments but never received them. Trial court granted oral argument to allow defendant to provide proof she had paid the settlement payments and satisfied the debt in full. Defendant failed to appear for oral argument and trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant argued plaintiff’s failure to provide transcripts of the phone recordings left her with no way to prove she did not owe the debt. Court found defendant did not raise any genuine factual issues and plaintiff had sufficiently demonstrated the existence of the debt and defendant’s liability.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Washington, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed his conviction by a jury of multiple charges, including second-degree aggravated assault and attempted burglary. Defendant was arrested following a complaint by his mother and was subsequently charged with aggravated assault and attempted burglary. During the trial, testimony from police officers suggested defendant’s propensity for criminal behavior, which defendant argued was prejudicial. Defendant was sentenced to a fifteen-year extended term under the No Early Release Act, with additional concurrent and consecutive sentences for other charges. The court affirmed his convictions but remanded for re-sentencing due to a failure to merge certain offenses. Following re-sentencing, defendant filed a post-conviction relief petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel, which was denied without an evidentiary hearing. In his PCR petition, defendant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request curative instructions in response to prejudicial testimony from police officers. Defendant contended that this testimony improperly influenced the jury by suggesting his criminal propensity and credibility issues. PCR court found that the defendant’s trial counsel’s actions were strategic to avoid drawing attention to isolated, fleeting comments, and did not constitute ineffective assistance. The PCR court also noted that the objections raised by trial counsel were overruled, and the jury was instructed on its role in determining credibility. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of the PCR petition, agreeing with the trial court’s assessment that defendant failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland standard. The court concluded that defendant did not show that the alleged errors resulted in an unjust outcome or that they affected the determination of guilt. The court found no basis for an evidentiary hearing and affirmed the trial court’s decision.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. S.A.B., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant S.A.B. appealed an order denying his petition for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, following his conviction for fourth-degree criminal sexual contact and third-degree endangering the welfare of a child. Defendant’s conviction stemmed from repeated sexual assaults on the victim, a minor who babysat defendant’s children, between March and June 2014. Victim testified that the defendant engaged in simulated sexual acts with her, which she reported to church leaders and the police, leading to defendant’s arrest and subsequent indictment. Defendant’s PCR petition asserted claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, specifically citing counsel’s failure to assert defendant’s right to a speedy trial, inadequate investigation, ineffective cross-examination, and insufficient trial preparation. The PCR court found that the defendant failed to satisfy the Strickland standard as he did not demonstrate that his counsel’s performance was deficient or that it prejudiced his defense. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision, agreeing that the defendant did not present a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel, as his claims were largely unsupported, speculative, and failed to show a reasonable probability of a different trial outcome. The court held that defendant failed to show that a speedy trial motion would have succeeded, or that his defense was prejudiced by the delay in bringing him to trial.