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:
Law Firm Found Liable for Malpractice in Suit Over Hazing Death
A New Jersey judge has ruled that a law firm is liable for malpractice in its handling of a suit over a college student’s death in an alleged hazing incident.
Capitol Report: Domestic Violence Bills Get Assembly Judiciary Nod
This week’s Capitol Report shares news on several bills in the Assembly Judiciary Committee addressing domestic violence. The NJBA is monitoring each bill. The report also covers an Assembly bill that would allow individuals with DWI offenses to install an ignition interlock device rather than lose their driver’s license. Read the full report here.
Who the Hell Knows’: Lawyering—and Judging—in the Age of Trump
What impact will President Donald Trump’s attacks and those by his point men have on the legal profession?
Retired U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer will make a special appearance at the NJSBA Annual Meeting and Convention in Atlantic City for a captivating discussion on his judicial philosophy. Don’t miss the chance to take part in unparalleled educational and networking opportunities from May 14-16. Early-bird registration ends on March 17.
DeWalt and Stanley Black & Decker Face Lawsuit Over Allegedly Defective Miter
Stanley Black & Decker and its subsidiary, Dewalt Industrial Tool, are facing a products liability lawsuit in New Jersey over allegations that a defective saw caused a man’s injuries.
DECISION SUMMARIES:
Click on any decision below to get the full opinion
from the New Jersey Judiciary – March 13, 2025
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
There are no decisions approved for publication.
NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
CIVIL PROCEDURE | CONTRACTS
Synergy Global Outsourcing, LLC v. Hinduja Global Solutions, Inc., Appellate Division, Judge DeAlmeida. Defendants Hinduja Global Solutions, Inc. and HGS Healthcare, LLC appealed a decision that granted a motion for reconsideration, quashed a subpoena ad testificandum served on non-party Wilson Mitchell, and dismissed the action without prejudice. Plaintiff Synergy Global Outsourcing, LLC filed a complaint against defendants in Texas, alleging breach of a broker agreement. Defendants counterclaimed, alleging fiduciary breaches by Ali Ganjaei, a former general counsel of the parties and member of defendants’ boards of directors. The parties disputed the applicability of the first-filed rule to the present matter, with Mitchell arguing that a New York action concerning discovery from HBI Group relating to the Texas action was filed before the New Jersey motion to quash, and thus, the New Jersey court should defer to the New York proceedings. The trial court initially denied Mitchell’s motion to quash but later granted reconsideration, finding that the first-filed rule applied, and that the New York action involved substantially similar parties, claims, and legal issues. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s application of the first-filed rule, finding no abuse of discretion and no special equitable considerations justifying deviation from the rule. The court concluded that the New York and New Jersey matters involved substantially similar parties and issues, and the HGS Parties failed to demonstrate any compelling reasons to retain jurisdiction in New Jersey.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Watkins, Appellate Division, Judge Smith. Defendant appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief without a hearing. Defendant allegedly threatened to kill a woman, Walker, who reported the threat to police. Later that day, defendant jumped in front of a car driven by Damon and threatened to kill her and Walker who was a passenger in the car. Later that day, Damon saw defendant approach her car, pulling a mask over his face. She drove off and heard gunshots. Bullets struck the car and a passenger in the car. Defendant was charged with aggravated assault, weapon possession and other counts and was convicted on all charges. Defendant claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to adequately cross-examine and impeach State’s witnesses, failing to request a supplemental jury charge regarding identification and not calling certain police officers as defense witnesses. He also asserted appellate counsel was ineffective for not appealing the denial of trial counsel’s motions for a mistrial. PCR court found that witnesses were cross-examined and trial counsel’s decision not to call officers as witnesses was strategic and did not constitute ineffective assistance. PCR court also found appellate counsel was not ineffective because trial court provided curative instructions to the jury following the denial of the mistrial motions. Court found defense counsel adequately cross-examined witnesses, defendant only speculated about how the officers would have testified and offered no facts to support his claims and defendant was not prejudiced by appellate counsel’s strategic decision not to appeal trial court’s two mistrial denials.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Venable, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence following a jury trial, arguing errors in the trial court’s handling of expert ballistics testimony, exclusion of third-party guilt evidence, and jury instructions. Defendant’s conviction stemmed from a shooting where a bicyclist fired into a car, killing one person and injuring another. Defendant was linked to the crime through surveillance footage and witness testimony, although no eyewitnesses directly identified him as the shooter. The trial court admitted expert testimony on ballistics, which defendant challenged as unreliable under the Daubert standard; however, the trial court applied the Frye standard, finding the testimony admissible. Defendant also sought to introduce evidence of a third party’s criminal history to support a defense theory of third-party guilt, which the trial court denied, citing lack of direct evidence linking the third party to the crime. The jury found defendant guilty on multiple counts, including murder and conspiracy, and he was sentenced to an aggregate term of seventy-five years. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred in admitting the ballistics testimony, excluding third-party evidence, and failing to provide proper jury instructions on identification and alibi. Defendant also challenged the excessiveness of his sentence. The court found no error in the trial court’s decisions, affirming the conviction and sentence, noting that the trial court properly applied the Frye standard to the expert testimony, and that the exclusion of third-party evidence was justified due to lack of evidence connecting the third party to the crime. The court also found that the jury instructions, while not including specific identification or alibi charges, adequately conveyed the state’s burden of proof. The court upheld the trial court’s sentencing, finding it appropriately considered defendant’s criminal history and the seriousness of the offenses.
HEALTH CARE LAW
M.K. v. Div. of Med. Assistance & Health Serv., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Petitioner appealed the decision imposing a 400-day ineligibility penalty on his Medicaid benefits and denying an undue hardship waiver. Petitioner suffered from multiple sclerosis which rendered him bedridden. He was admitted to a skilled nursing facility in 2022 and applied for Medicaid benefits. He was approved but penalized for asset transfers totaling $150,000 made within five years of his application. Petitioner argued the transfers were to reimburse his sister-in-law for healthcare expenses paid for him while he was in India. However, no loan agreement was provided nor any medical bills. ALJ found petitioner failed to rebut the presumption that the transfers were made to establish Medicaid eligibility since he did not provide sufficient evidence such as a loan agreement or medical bills. ALJ also found there was no evidence the transfer penalty would deprive petitioner of medical care. Petitioner argued Division improperly concluded that evidence of a formal loan agreement between him and his family members was necessary, because family members “often pay expenses for each other” without a written agreement. Court affirmed, agreeing that petitioner did not meet the burden of proof to demonstrate the transfers were for purposes other than Medicaid eligibility and failed to show that the transferred assets were beyond his control and unrecoverable. Court also concluded petitioner failed to meet the first prong of the undue hardship waiver.
HEALTH CARE LAW | INSURANCE LAW
Atl. ER Physicians Team Pediatric Assoc., PA v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendants appealed an order concerning document review and the production of electronically stored information in plaintiff’s New Jersey Anti-Racketeering Act, New Jersey Health Claims Authorization, Processing and Payment Act and breach of contract action over defendants’ alleged underpayment of healthcare insurance claims. Plaintiff emergency medical service providers alleged defendants underpaid claims by leveraging plaintiffs’ obligation to provide emergency care. Trial court’s order, issued after a series of discovery negotiations and hearings, required the production of all documents returned by the agreed-upon ESI search terms, regardless of whether they were responsive or relevant except those privileged or containing highly proprietary information. Defendants contended the order violated Rule 4:10-2(a) by compelling irrelevant document production and imposed undue burdens. Court found trial court’s rationale was flawed since it misapplied the relevancy standard, improperly shifted the gatekeeping role and erred concluding the nature of ESI somehow precluded the relevancy standard under Rule 4:10-2(a) from applying. Court vacated the ESI Order because it compelled defendants to produce irrelevant documents