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:
Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
A hearing Friday over the Manhattan congestion plan grew contentious between New Jersey’s attorney Randy Mastro and the judge, even leading to interruptions of opposing counsel.
Don’t Miss These NJSBA Events in 2025
From professional development classes, networking opportunities and trips with colleagues, the NJSBA offers something for attorneys of every practice area in 2025. Here is a sneak peek at some of the highlights—so far—on the 2025 calendar of NJSBA events and New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education programs.
How We Won: Samsung Defeats Data Breach Class Action
As lawsuits fly over compromised information, a group of lawyers secured a dismissal for a high-profile client on the hot seat.
Missed the MCLE Deadline? Get the Credits You Need With NJICLE
The New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education’s award-winning seminars can help satisfy your mandatory CLE requirement. Check out NJICLE’s extensive library of on-demand videos and programs today.
New Methods for Clients and Families to Have Their Estate and Legacy Planning Complete
Clients expect their professional team to ensure their estate and legacy planning is discussed and complete
DECISION SUMMARIES:
from the New Jersey Judiciary – January 6, 2025
Click on any decision below to get the full opinion
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
There are no decisions approved for publication.
NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
CIVIL RIGHTS | JUDGES
Nabelsi v. Holmdel Twp., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Plaintiff appealed an order dismissing his complaint against Holmdel Township and other defendants for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff was subject to a temporary restraining order under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, which he allegedly violated through a third-party communication. This incident led to his arrest based on a warrant issued by defendant Lindsay Meehan, a municipal court administrator. Plaintiff asserted claims of constitutional violations, false arrest, and false light, arguing that his rights under the New Jersey Constitution were broader than those under the Federal Constitution. The trial court found that judicial immunity protected Meehan’s actions, the arrest warrant was facially valid, and plaintiff’s claims were untimely under the Tort Claims Act. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims, emphasizing that Meehan’s probable cause determination was within her statutory authority, and plaintiff’s arrest did not meet the threshold for a false arrest claim due to the valid warrant. Additionally, the court found no merit in plaintiff’s claims of broader constitutional protections or false light, as the arrest record was accurate and not misleading. The court agreed with the findings on judicial immunity, the validity of the arrest warrant, and the untimeliness of the TCA notice as supporting the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims. The court further found that Meehan merely forwarded the letter containing purportedly incorrect information about the outcome of plaintiff’s arrest, which was insufficient for plaintiff to allege fraud or malice on the part of Meehan.
CONTRACTS
The Law Office of Rajeh A. Saadeh, L.L.C. v. Abdou, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Plaintiff appealed the order awarding only partial attorney fees in his collection action against defendant, a former client. Defendant hired plaintiff to represent him and the retainer agreement allowed plaintiff to recover collection costs. After the representation ended, plaintiff sent defendant a Fee Arbitration Pre-Action Notice. Defendant failed to request arbitration and plaintiff sued for attorney fees. Trial court granted a default judgment for representation fees but reduced the collection-related attorney fees from $3,846.75 to $1,308.60. Plaintiff contended trial court acted arbitrarily in finding certain billing entries were “block billing,” “duplicative,” “excessive,” or “vague.” Court affirmed finding trial court appropriately analyzed plaintiff’s counsel’s submissions, which included counsel’s imprecise time entries and properly exercised its discretion. Trial court’s award represented trial court’s determination of the reasonable numbers of hours plaintiff’s attorney expended for each task minus anticipatory fees multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate for the attorney who performed the task.
CRIMINAL LAW
In the Matter of Registrant A.B., Appellate Division, Judge Walcott-Henderson. Registrant, a repeat sexual offender, appealed the decision classifying him as a Tier Three-High Risk offender under Megan’s Law. Registrant was adjudicated delinquent on three occasions for sexual offenses he committed as a juvenile and was convicted of first-degree aggravated sexual assault as an adult. He was also imprisoned for federal drug trafficking. State petitioned for his commitment to the Special Treatment Unit at the conclusion of his federal sentence. He was conditionally discharged from the STU in 2020. He contested his Registrant Risk Assessment Scale score, particularly the points assigned for the age of the victim, arguing that he was improperly scored because he was a juvenile at the time of his first offense and was otherwise less than four years older than his juvenile victims. State asserted that registrant was an adult at the time of tiering, and therefore it had correctly used an adult RRAS scale for tiering purposes, not a juvenile scale. Trial court upheld the score of 88. Registrant asserted RRAS improperly inflated his score in assessing a high risk factor to factor three and in not applying the juvenile exception. Court found trial court abused its discretion by not applying the juvenile exception, which was part of the RRAS guidelines and remanded for a new hearing.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Denofa, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed a modified order that denied his third petition for post-conviction relief and his motion for a new trial. Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and received a life sentence with 30 years of parole ineligibility. Defendant’s conviction was initially reversed on jurisdictional grounds but was reinstated by the New Jersey Supreme Court in 2006. Over the years, defendant filed multiple PCR petitions and a federal habeas corpus petition, all of which were denied. In the present third PCR petition, defendant claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, particularly regarding plea offers and jurisdictional issues, and sought a new trial based on alleged cumulative errors. The PCR court denied these claims without an evidentiary hearing, except for the issue of excessive sentencing, which had not been substantively addressed. However, the PCR court ultimately denied the petition. On appeal, defendant argued that the PCR court erred in not conducting an evidentiary hearing and that his life sentence was excessive. The court affirmed the denial of defendant’s third PCR petition and motion for a new trial, agreeing with the PCR court’s findings. However, the court reinstated defendant’s direct appeal limited to the excessive sentencing argument, which had been overlooked by the lower courts due to procedural complexities caused by defendant’s multiple filings, some of which were filed while prior appeals or petitions were pending.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Hill, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Defendant’s conviction and sentence arose from a series of criminal acts committed by defendant and his co-conspirators in 1994, including car theft, kidnapping, attempted murder, and murder. Defendant, along with Tony Frazier and James Lomack, stole a car, kidnapped Sandra McKnight, and later killed her. Defendant was convicted of multiple charges, including murder and carjacking, and was sentenced to consecutive life terms. In his motion to correct an illegal sentence, defendant argued that his sentence was illegal due to the imposition of consecutive life terms as the sentencing court failed to properly apply the Yarbough factors. He also argued that his sentence was unfairly disparate compared to his co-defendant’s and that the sentencing court did not consider his age at the time of the offenses. The trial court rejected defendant’s arguments, stating that the issues raised had been previously adjudicated and that the sentence was not illegal. The trial court also noted that the case of State v. Torres, 246 N.J. 246, did not apply retroactively to defendant’s sentencing. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of defendant’s motion, concluding that his sentence was within the legal guidelines and that his arguments regarding consecutive sentences and sentence disparity were not grounds for correcting an illegal sentence. The court emphasized that defendant’s contentions had been addressed on direct appeal and thus could not be relitigated.