Criminal Law Library Blog
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:
In a published opinion, the Appellate Division rejected an attempt by defendant medical providers to compel arbitration in an insurance fraud case.
Capitol Report: Governor’s Final State of the State Address Ushers Renewed Hope for NJSBA Priorities
Read this week’s Capitol Report for an update on Gov. Phil Murphy’s eighth and final State of the State address scheduled for Jan. 14. The report also covers a change in New Jersey election law that delays this year’s primary election by one week to avoid conflict with a Jewish holiday.
In 2-1 Ruling, Court Clears Way for Decade-Old Wrongful Imprisonment Suit
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled 2-1 that a Newark, New Jersey, police detective is not entitled to qualified immunity in a civil rights suit by a man who was falsely accused of murder.
Corporate Counsel Institute: Thriving in a Dynamic Landscape
The 2025 NJSBA Corporate Counsel Institute is the premier event to connect and collaborate with in-house counsel industry leaders. Register for the Jan. 15 program to learn the latest advancements in artificial intelligence, global risks and shifting regulatory and ethical frameworks that require corporate counsel to be more adaptive and strategic than ever.
Volkswagen Hit With Consumer Class Action Alleging Defective SUV Engines
Volkswagen was hit with a products liability class action claim over allegations that one of the company’s sport utility vehicle models has a design flaw that causes engine failure.
DECISION SUMMARIES:
Click on any decision below to get the full opinion
from the New Jersey Judiciary – January 9, 2025
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW | TAX
257-261 20th Ave. Realty, LLC v. Roberto, New Jersey Supreme Court, Justice Rabner. Plaintiff appealed the appellate division’s judgment affirming the trial court’s order vacating final judgment. Defendant purchased a property in 1997, and by 2022, it was valued at up to $535,000. Despite investing $200,000 in improvements, defendant failed to pay $606 in sewer taxes, leading to the City of Paterson placing tax liens on his property. Plaintiff purchased the tax sale certificates and later filed a tax foreclosure complaint. The trial court set the redemption amount at $32,973.15, but defendant did not respond, resulting in a judgment for plaintiff. Defendant moved to vacate the judgment, citing exceptional circumstances under Rule 4:50-1(f). Defendant argued the property was crucial for his retirement due to its significant equity. Defendant further argued that the Tax Sale Law violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment by allowing the forfeiture of surplus equity without just compensation. The trial court found exceptional circumstances to vacate the judgment, considering the substantial equity defendant stood to lose. The appellate division affirmed, influenced by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631, which found a similar foreclosure scheme unconstitutional. On appeal, the court held that the TSL, as it existed before 2024, was unconstitutional for allowing the forfeiture of surplus equity without just compensation. It recognized a property right to surplus equity in New Jersey and deemed private lienholders as state actors due to their role in tax collection. The court affirmed and modified the appellate division’s judgment, aligning with the reasoning in Tyler, finding no need to rely on Rule 4:50-1(f).
NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
CORPORATE ENTITIES
River Pointe Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Pulte Homes of NJ, Ltd. P’ship, Superior Court Law Division. Per Curiam. Plaintiff River Pointe Homeowners Association, Inc., filed a second amended complaint against defendants, Pulte Homes of NJ and related entities, seeking to pierce the corporate veil. Plaintiff filed suit against Pulte Homes and its corporate parents for deceptive advertising and improper marketing, with plaintiff seeking to hold the parent corporations liable for the actions of their subsidiaries. Defendants moved to strike and dismiss the complaint. The trial court allowed the amended complaint but dismissed plaintiff’s request to pierce the corporate veil without prejudice, indicating that this remedy could be pursued post-judgment if necessary. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the court imposed an additional burden on them by delaying the veil-piercing remedy. Plaintiff sought to pierce the corporate veil pre-judgment, asserting that the court’s decision would lead to an incomplete verdict. The court found that piercing the corporate veil was a remedy, not a cause of action, and should be considered post-judgment to manage discovery efficiently. The court’s decision to delay the veil-piercing application sought to streamline the complex litigation process and ensure a comprehensive trial record. The court emphasized that the delay would not affect the jury’s ability to assess liability under the Comparative Negligence Act or the Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law. The court also noted the extensive discovery demands and the need for a more structured process under the Complex Business Litigation Program. The court concluded that a remand for further discovery on the corporate veil issue would allow for a more complete trial record, enabling a final determination on the merits.
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
Flyte v. Baker, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the judgment in favor of plaintiffs in their corporate misconduct action alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of an operating agreement, conversion, unjust enrichment and piercing the corporate veil. The parties all worked at Hudson Black Inc. and had ownership interests in the company. Trial court converted the trial to a proof hearing after defendant failed to appear and awarded plaintiffs over $4.7 million in damages for fraudulent transfers from HBI to entities owned by defendant. Trial judge found overwhelming evidence that over a two year period, defendant engaged in a pattern of willful fraud and deceit by borrowing funds from HBI for his five companies with no intention of repaying the loans, falsifying HBI documents to obtain financing for his companies, and drafting a repurchase agreement without authorization transferring all of plaintiffs’ interests in HBI to his then wife. Defendant argued plaintiffs lacked standing and should have filed a derivative action, challenged the addition of HBI as a party and the dismissal of his former wife as a co-defendant without his consent and argued the damages calculations were incorrect. Court found no reason to require a derivative action and plaintiffs had standing. Court held the damage award was amply supported by credible evidence in the record and also found no procedural errors in amending the complaint to add HBI or in the dismissal of co-defendant former wife.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Rao, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the Law Division order that denied her appeal of the municipal court order finding her dog potentially dangerous under N.J.S.A. 4:19-23 and imposing mandatory penalties, including a tattoo, and other safeguards. In 2022, dog attacked a delivery person in defendant’s yard and then ran onto neighbor’s property and fatally attacked neighbor’s small dog. Dog had previously bitten a serviceperson working on defendant’s property and attacked another dog in 2020. Defendant alleged neighbor’s dog had a history of peeing and pooping on her lawn and had “nipped” her dog’s feet. Plaintiff argued the requirement of a tattoo was cruel, finding a veterinarian to perform the procedure was difficult, and municipal court judge erred in finding dog potentially dangerous. Law Division accepted municipal judge’s findings and found dog’s attacks were unprovoked, caused bodily injury and dog posed a serious threat of future harm. Defendant argued that state did not prove the dog was potentially dangerous and the tattoo requirement was unconstitutionally vague and unnecessary. Court agreed the dog was potentially dangerous under both statutory bases and found expert testimony was not needed to show a serious future threat of serious bodily injury to persons existed. Both the municipal court and the Law Division properly relied on the plain language of the statute in declining to depart from the mandated tattoo provision. Court rejected defendant’s vagueness argument and found her cruelty argument was not sufficiently raised.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Jones, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Defendant was indicted on first-degree murder and weapons charges following a fight which culminated in defendant stabbing victim to death. Eyewitnesses and surveillance footage captured the altercation. Defendant unsuccessfully moved to suppress statements he made during a police interview in which he admitted the fight, denied the stabbing and alleged he was drinking and taking Xanax that day. Video of the statement was played for the jury. Defendant’s PCR petition alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel by failing to object to jury’s unsolicited, unfettered access to his videotaped statement, failing to pursue an intoxication defense, and refusing to allow defendant to testify to support a passion/provocation defense. PCR court granted an evidentiary hearing on the issue of jury’s access to the video and found that while trial counsel’s performance was deficient in not objecting to the jury’s access to the videotaped statement, defendant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice. PCR court also found no evidence to establish a viable intoxication or passion/provocation defenses. Defendant argued PCR court erred in finding he suffered no actual prejudice. Court affirmed for the reasons detailed in the PCR court’s written decisions.