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:
Gibbons Reps Asylum Seekers in $6M Suit Over 2018 ‘Inhumane’ Immigration Policy
A $6 million lawsuit was filed in New Jersey federal court Thursday over the prior Trump Administration’s 2018 Family Separation Policy that forcibly separated a three-year-old boy from his parents while he underwent heart surgery.
Make Plans to Join NJSBA Bowling Networking Tournament
The NJSBA’s annual “Battle of the Bars” bowling event returns to Bowlero North Brunswick on Feb. 27. Make plans to join for a night of bowling, fierce competition, networking, food and much more. Learn more and register here.
ABC’s $16M Settlement With Trump Sets Bad Precedent in Uncertain Times
President Donald Trump has won a $16 million dollar libel settlement from the American Broadcasting Corporation, a Disney company, which agreed to “make a statement of regret.” Trump is liable for sexual assault of E. Jean Carroll in a New York dress shop.
Dozens of Candidates Have Filed for NJSBA Leadership Positions
The NJSBA Nominating Committee will interview candidates this week. All deliberations are confidential. To learn more about the candidates and process, click here.
Regulating Charities: A Small Suggestion
The Christmas season is a time of gifting, not just to family and friends. Charities solicit, hearts open and charitable contributions are made. Mailboxes and computers overflow with solicitations.
DECISION SUMMARIES:
Click on any decision below to get the full opinion
from the New Jersey Judiciary – January 24, 2025
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
CONTRACTS
N.A.R. Inc. v. E. Outdoor Furnishings, Appellate Division, Judge Sabatino. Defendant/third-party plaintiff Eastern Outdoor Furnishings, a retailer of custom outdoor kitchens, appealed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of third-party defendant AMD Direct, Inc., a manufacturer of outdoor grills. Eastern Outdoor alleged that AMD violated the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act by terminating the parties’ franchise relationship. The trial court found no “written agreement” establishing a franchise and dismissed Eastern Outdoor’s claims. Eastern Outdoor argued that the NJFPA merely requires a “written arrangement,” not a comprehensive agreement, and contended that it had provided sufficient documentation to establish such an arrangement. On appeal, the court agreed with Eastern Outdoor’s interpretation of the NJFPA, holding that a series of documents could constitute a “written arrangement” satisfying the statute. However, the court found that the documents presented by Eastern Outdoor, including invoices, emails, and marketing materials, did not demonstrate a written grant of a license to use AMD’s trademarks, as required by the NJFPA. The court therefore affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment dismissing the NJFPA claims, as the documents failed to establish a qualifying written arrangement. The court also affirmed related trial court orders on discovery and expert opinion but remanded the case for the trial court to address Eastern Outdoor’s remaining claims of tortious interference and indemnification. (Approved for Publication)
NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
CIVIL PROCEDURE
Taffaro v. Moayer, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. In consolidated appeals, pro se plaintiff challenged the dismissal of his complaints against defendant and sought a change of venue. Plaintiff’s “jewelry case” alleged theft and emotional distress after defendant supposedly melted his jewelry without consent, and his “defamation case” claimed defendant defamed him in response to the “jewelry case.” The jewelry case was dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to appear at the calendar call after intentionally muting his microphone during scheduled virtual trials. Trial court also found plaintiff made no showing that any of the subpoenaed parties had any knowledge of the jewelry. The defamation case was based on defendant filing a counterclaim in the jewelry case and was dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to appear at trial. Plaintiff argued trial court erred by dismissing his cases with prejudice without proper hearings, denying his right to subpoena witnesses, alleged other cumulative errors and argued the prior vexatious litigant order was based on incomplete information. Court noted that plaintiff’s nearly two-decade litigation history in Bergen County courts engendered a 2022 order imposing restraints on him as a vexatious litigant. Court agreed plaintiff’s actions were vexatious and the dismissals were justified based on his litigation history and the procedural context of the cases. Court upheld the litigation injunction because plaintiff’s protracted litigation history demonstrated a pattern of frivolous and meritless litigation designed to harass the parties and witnesses. Trial court properly found the jewelry case had no merit because the asserted causes of action were “specious” or “non-cognizable.” The decision to deny the subpoenas was supported by ample evidence in the record including prior court orders prohibiting contact with the witnesses. Plaintiff’s challenge to the defamation case lacked sufficient merit to warrant discussion.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Four Thousand Nine Hundred Ten Dollars, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for reimbursement of costs of lost property, damages, fees and lost wages related to property subject to a dismissed forfeiture action. Defendant was charged with a weapons offense in 2016 and law enforcement seized $4,910 and a 2007 Dodge Ram truck. State initiated a forfeiture complaint in May 2016, which was stayed pending the resolution of the criminal case. Defendant was convicted in April 2018, the stay of forfeiture was lifted and a default judgment was entered against the seized property when defendant failed to appear for trial. Defendant’s motion to vacate the default was initially denied but later reversed on appeal due to due process concerns and remanded. Trial court dismissed the forfeiture action in June 2023 with the State’s consent. Appellate division denied defendant’s pro se motion for reimbursement for costs and lost property. Simultaneously defendant filed a motion in the Law Division seeking similar relief. Law Division denied the relief as moot and defendant appealed. Court affirmed the denial but clarified that the motion was procedurally improper because defendant should have filed a replevin action to seek the return of his property.
CRIMINAL LAW | EVIDENCE
State v. Lebron, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the amended judgment of conviction on two counts of distribution of controlled dangerous substances following a jury trial. Decedent was found dead due to cocaine and fentanyl, with heroin as a contributory cause. Rodriguez was arrested on an outstanding warrant near decedent’s home, was found with drug paraphernalia and under questioning, identified defendant as the supplier of the drugs that killed decedent. Prior to trial, defendant challenged the admissibility of Rodriguez’s identification of him from a single photograph, which defendant argued was suggestive and violated due process. Trial court found the identification was a confirmatory one since Rodriguez knew and identified defendant by his street name, “Brazzy.” Defendant challenged trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the photographic identification. Court affirmed concluding the identification procedure did not create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification and found trial court’s decision was supported by credible evidence. Nothing in the record demonstrated any evidence of suggestiveness in the photographic show-up that would have resulted in a substantial likelihood of mistaken identification.
FAMILY LAW
New Jersey Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. E.A., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Court consolidated the appeals of child’s biological mother and father seeking to reverse the termination of their parental rights. Parents were married and had four children in common as well as children from other relationships. Division received a referral that child and a brother were living with father without running water and the house was “filthy.” Division instituted a safety protection plan. Division was granted physical custody of minor and his brother in September 2019, father admitted he was too old at eighty to care for the children and moved to a nursing home. Mother’s psychological evaluation showed disruptive impulse-control and conduct disorder, and an unspecified personality disorder with narcissistic and avoidant traits. Mother moved into a home in March 2021 and father moved in with her. Mother was discharged from her individual therapy due to inconsistent attendance and another agency was unwilling to work with her because she made threatening comments to her clinician. As of August 2022, parents both failed to complete court ordered services and comply with court orders and child no longer wanted reunification with his parents and wanted to be adopted by his resource parents. Father moved into a permanent assisted living facility in June 2023 and refused to participate in a psychological evaluation. Resource parents testified they would not consider Kinship Legal Guardianship. Psychologist opined mother’s limited knowledge of parenting and “lack of empathy” rendered her unable to address child’s needs and child’s safety and protection were at risk of harm if he were left in parents’ care. Court affirmed finding the decision to terminate parents’ rights was based on substantial evidence, including expert testimony and the child’s expressed desire for adoption by his resource parents. Trial court addressed all four statutory factors for termination and both parents showed themselves unfit to care for child primarily due to the persisting issues of deplorable housing conditions, food insecurity, and domestic violence incidents. Division established it made reasonable efforts to reunite parents with child, and there were no alternatives to termination of their parental rights.