Criminal Law Library Blog
December 12, 2024.
These Legal News Briefs and Decision Summaries are an exclusive benefit of the New Jersey Bar Association (NJSBA) in partnership with the New Jersey Law Journal (NJLJ). A subscription may be necessary to access the full text of some articles. Click on any decision listed to get the full opinion.
NEWS BRIEFS:
Wilmer’s Bharara to Lead Probe Into Alleged State Police Traffic Enforcement ‘Slowdown’
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin announced that Preet Bharara, a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and current partner with Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr in Manhattan, will lead the investigation into the alleged slowdown in State Police traffic enforcement.
Capitol Report: NJSBA Monitors Several Bills as Year Ends
Read this week’s Capitol Report for an update on the final days of the 2024 legislative session in Trenton. The NJSBA is monitoring several bills expected to move in the state Legislature, including measures that address criminal law and election matters. Read the full report here.
Dispute Over Failure to Accommodate Disability Ends in $900K Settlement
New Jersey has agreed to a $900,000 settlement of a lawsuit claiming it failed to accommodate an employee’s spinal injuries from a car accident.
Only a Few Weeks Left – Meet the Dec. 31 MCLE Deadline with NJICLE
Don’t delay! The New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education’s award-winning seminars can help you meet the mandatory CLE deadline. NJICLE offers live and virtual seminars, on-demand videos and programs to satisfy your diversity, ethics and New York cybersecurity credits. Check it out here.
Insurer Has No Duty to Defend ‘Laidlow’ Claims, NJ Supreme Court Says
The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held that an insurance carrier has no duty to defend allegations of recklessness against an employer that had previously paid a workers’ compensation claim for an injured employee.
DECISION SUMMARIES:
Click on any decision below to get the full opinion
from the New Jersey Judiciary – December 12, 2024
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
CONSUMER PROTECTION
Hogan v. Volkswagen Group of Am., Inc., Appellate Division, Judge Sabatino. Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., regarding a claim under the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Warranty Act, commonly known as the Lemon Law. Plaintiff purchased a new SUV marketed and sold by defendant, which developed a windshield crack two days post-purchase. Despite plaintiff’s prompt reporting and repeated requests for repair, the manufacturer delayed replacing the windshield for ten months and refused to provide a loaner vehicle, which caused plaintiff to restrict his use of the vehicle due to safety concerns as the crack increased in size. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that the crack constituted a “substantial impairment” under the Lemon Law and the delay in repair was unreasonable. The trial court granted summary judgment to defendant, reasoning that the eventual repair of the windshield negated plaintiff’s claim. On appeal, the court reversed, emphasizing that a jury could find the crack to be a substantial impairment and the repair delay unreasonable, thus entitling the plaintiff to remedies under the Lemon Law. The court noted that the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Code prohibited motorists from operating vehicles with “unduly fractured” windshields, making plaintiff’s decision to restrict his use of his SUV reasonable. The court reinstated the Lemon Law claim and remanded the case for a jury trial, while also addressing other claims in an unpublished portion of the opinion. (Approved for Publication as Redacted)
NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
CONTRACTS
ASAP Realty, Inc. v. Birnboim, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Plaintiff, in a second appeal following remand, challenged the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to defendants in action over a home renovation project. The parties entered a written home improvement contract. Plaintiff sought payment for completed work and defendants counterclaimed under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Jury found in favor of plaintiff for the contract amount but also found plaintiff committed CFA violations from which defendant suffered no ascertainable loss. Trial court awarded fees and costs under Rule 4:58-2 to plaintiff but denied defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees under the CFA. Appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of plaintiff but reversed and remanded the order denying attorney fees on defendant’s CFA claims. On remand, trial court awarded attorneys’ fees and costs to defendants. Plaintiff argued the award was untimely, excessive, and non-compliant with the appellate court’s remand instructions. Court noted defendants’ fee application was not limited to CFA-related work and did not account for their limited success. Court found trial court did a reasonable analysis but some of the fees awarded exceeded the remand order and trial court did not adequately reduce the fees to reflect defendants’ limited success on their CFA claim. Additionally, defendants had not voluntarily paid the judgment entered on behalf of plaintiff and court allowed plaintiff to offset any remaining amount of the judgment owed to it against the reduced attorneys’ fees awarded to defendants.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Morgan, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief following his conviction for first-degree felony murder and robbery of a taxicab driver. Defendant and co-defendant were indicted for multiple charges, including the murder and robbery of the taxicab driver. The evidence presented at trial linked defendant and co-defendant to the crime through phone calls to United Taxi and co-defendant’s testimony about their plan to rob taxicabs. Defendant was found guilty in March 2015 and filed subsequent appeals, including a direct appeal where his conviction and sentence were affirmed. Defendant’s PCR petition, filed in May 2019, alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to a constructive amendment of a conspiracy count and the admission of prior bad acts evidence related to an earlier attempted robbery. The PCR court found no constructive amendment occurred as the indictment put defendant on notice that the conspiracy charge encompassed the prior attempted robbery and deemed trial counsel’s strategy reasonable, as it aimed to highlight defendant’s non-involvement in the prior attempted robbery to suggest non-involvement in the taxicab robbery. On appeal, the court affirmed the PCR judge’s findings, concluding that the trial strategy was sound and that the evidence related to the prior incident was directly tied to the conspiracy charge and thus was not strictly prior bad acts evidence. The court upheld the denial of the PCR petition, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determinations, and affirmed the conviction.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Lasisi, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed her conviction for disorderly conduct. Defendant represented herself in municipal court, where she was found guilty. She subsequently appealed to the law division, which upheld the conviction. Defendant’s conviction arose from incidents where she allegedly used racial slurs and made threats against her neighbor, Gregory Ackles. Ackles testified to these events, identifying defendant as the perpetrator, while defendant and her father provided conflicting accounts and denied her presence at the scene. The trial court found Ackles’ testimony credible and consistent, while it deemed defendant’s and her father’s testimonies lacking credibility and consistency. The law division, reviewing the case de novo, concurred with the municipal court’s credibility assessments and found no merit in defendant’s claims, particularly noting the in-court identification of defendant by Ackles as compelling evidence. On appeal, defendant asserted claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, violations of her Americans with Disabilities Act and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act rights, improper admission of hearsay, and insufficient evidence to support her conviction. The court affirmed the conviction, noting that defendant did not assert her ineffective assistance of counsel, ADA, and HIPAA claims before the trial court and finding sufficient credible evidence in the record to support the guilty verdict for disorderly conduct. The court dismissed defendant’s additional claims as lacking merit.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. M.K.H., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. State appealed the reversal of prosecutor’s office’s decision to reject defendant’s admission into a pre-trial intervention program. Defendant was charged with third-degree endangering the welfare of a child for possession of child sexual abuse material. Defendant sent images over Snapchat and possessed multiple images on electronic devices. Defendant pled guilty, and State recommended probation with specific conditions. State rejected defendant’s PTI application based on the nature of the offense, the defendant’s motivation and age and a 2019 incident of anti-social behavior. Trial court found State’s decision to reject PTI was a clear error in judgment, that State’s reliance on the 2019 incident was inappropriate and State failed to consider all relevant factors, such as defendant’s age and personal circumstances. Court found trial court’s determination that State was not permitted to rely upon information from the prior juvenile investigation of defendant was not an abuse of discretion since the use of that information was clearly barred by precedent. Court reversed the trial court’s order admitting the defendant into PTI and remanded the case for the State to reconsider its rejection of the PTI application, excluding any evidence from the prior juvenile investigation.