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:
A More Nuanced Issue’: NJ Supreme Court Considers Appellate Rules for Personal Injury Judgments
The New Jersey Supreme Court held that litigants who accept a final judgment in a personal injury case may still appeal as long as they have made that intention clear, and that resolution of the appellate issue will not affect the judgment other than increasing the benefit, according to a decision filed Wednesday.
2025 McLaughlin Awards to Recognize Excellence in Civil Law Practice
Mark your calendar for the 2025 James J. McLaughlin Awards on Feb. 11, an annual tribute to the highest standard of civility, legal competence and professionalism in the practice of civil law. This year’s awards will honor retired state Supreme Justice Faustino J. Fernandez-Vina, Michael G. Donahue, managing shareholder of Stark & Stark, and include a posthumous recognition of Monmouth County Assignment Judge Lisa P. Thornton. Register here.
‘Younger and Invigorated Bench’: Biden’s Legacy in New Jersey Federal Court
As President Joe Biden’s term comes to an end, his impact on New Jersey’s federal bench has been significant.
Explore the Future of DEI at the 2025 NJSBA Diversity Summit
The NJSBA Diversity Summit is a must-attend educational and networking event on diversity, equity and inclusion in the legal profession. This year’s hybrid program on Jan. 28 will explore the national conversation around DEI, the challenges ahead and the outcomes that DEI policies, practices and procedures are aiming to achieve. Continuing legal education credits are available. Register here.
3rd Circ Orders SEC to Explain ‘How and When the Federal Securities Laws Apply to Digital Assets’
In a 72-page opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit directed the Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday to clarify for Coinbase Global Inc. “how and when the federal securities laws apply to digital assets” like cryptocurrencies and tokens.
DECISION SUMMARIES:
Click on any decision below to get the full opinion
from the New Jersey Judiciary – January 15, 2025
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
DISPUTE RESOLUTION | INSURANCE LAW
Allstate New Jersey Ins. Co. v. Carteret Comprehensive Med. Care, PC, Appellate Division, Judge Gilson. Plaintiffs, a group of related insurance companies, appealed an interlocutory order that ordered their claims of insurance fraud under the Insurance Fraud Prevention Act and the New Jersey Anti-Racketeering Act to arbitration under the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act. Plaintiffs made allegations against over thirty defendants, including medical practices and physicians, claiming they conspired to fraudulently obtain over $1.7 million in personal injury protection benefits through misleading medical claims from 2008 to 2022. Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgments, damages, and other reliefs, asserting violations of the IFPA, RICO, and other state laws. In compelling arbitration, the trial court found that AICRA’s arbitration provision encompassed a broad array of disputes regarding PIP benefits, including fraud-based claims. On appeal, plaintiffs contended that AICRA did not mandate arbitration for IFPA and RICO claims, emphasizing the right to a jury trial and the distinct legislative intents of the involved statutes. Defendants argued that AICRA’s language required arbitration of all disputes regarding PIP benefits, including fraud claims, and cited federal and state arbitration acts in support. The court reversed the trial court’s orders, holding that insurance fraud claims under the IFPA and RICO were not subject to PIP arbitration under AICRA. The court emphasized the distinct legislative goals of the IFPA and RICO, which aimed to combat insurance fraud and racketeering, and concluded that these claims should be pursued in court with the right to a jury trial. (Approved for Publication)
NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Allman, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief and request for compassionate release. Defendant, a former auxiliary police officer, was working as a security guard at a party and was wearing a vest and cap with “police” on it, had a silver police badge around his neck and was carrying a firearm. Police questioned him and he identified himself as a retired police officer. Officers found his license to carry was expired and he was charged with unlawful possession of a handgun and impersonating a law enforcement officer. State denied defendant’s request for a Graves act waiver. Defendant pled guilty to second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun in exchange for the State recommending dismissal of the other charge, along with a Supplemental Plea Form for Graves Act Offenses. Defendant asserted that at the time he signed the plea forms, his trial counsel intended to again petition for a Graves Act waiver with a new submission highlighting defendant’s poor medical condition. Trial court accepted defendant’s plea, his subsequent Graves Act waiver petition was denied and he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with a forty-two-month period of parole ineligibility. PCR court found defendant’s allegations were “vague, conclusory, or speculative,” because the record was “at odds with his allegations” and the record showed trial counsel informed defendant of the potential parole ineligibility period under the Graves Act. Defendant argued his counsel failed to adequately inform him of his sentencing exposure under the Graves Act, he was entitled to compassionate release and the factual basis for his guilty plea was incomplete. Court found defendant failed to demonstrate that his counsel’s performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced by any alleged deficiencies and affirmed for the reasons expressed by the PCR court. The court also found defendant was not entitled to compassionate release under Rule 3:21-10(b)(2) until he served the mandatory portion of his sentence.
EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Kozak v. Bd. of Tr., Police & Firemen ‘s Ret. Sys., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Appellant, a former Corrections Sergeant, appealed the Board of Trustees’ decision denying his application for accidental disability retirement benefits following an assault by an inmate. The Board had awarded him ordinary disability retirement benefits for psychological reasons but denied ADRB, citing insufficient evidence that his injuries were directly caused by the assault. Appellant had been placed on administrative leave in 2016 due to a comment perceived as threatening; he later claimed harassment by coworkers and was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder. After the inmate assault, he was treated for both psychological and orthopedic injuries. The Board found his psychological disability stemmed from an underlying paranoid delusional disorder, not the assault, and that the incident did not meet the “terrifying or horror-inducing event” standard required for ADRB. Appellant’s appeal was heard by an Administrative Law Judge, who found the testimony of the Board’s experts more credible than that of appellant’s experts. The ALJ determined there was insufficient evidence of a permanent orthopedic disability and that the psychological disability was not directly caused by the assault. The ALJ’s decision was adopted by the Board, and appellant’s appeal was denied. On appeal from the Board’s decision, the court affirmed, finding it was not arbitrary or capricious and was supported by substantial evidence. The court emphasized the deference given to agency determinations and found no basis in the record to overturn the Board’s findings regarding the nature of the assault and the cause of appellant’s disability.
INSURANCE LAW | LEGAL ETHICS AND ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE
Allstate New Jersey Ins. Co. v. Carteret Comprehensive Med. Care, PC, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Plaintiffs, a group of related insurance companies, appealed the orders denying their motion to disqualify two law firms from representing groups of co-defendants in an insurance fraud case. Plaintiffs alleged defendants conspired to fraudulently obtain over $1.7 million in PIP benefits through false medical claims and asserted claims under the Insurance Fraud Prevention Act, the New Jersey Anti-Racketeering Act, the Anti Self-Referral Law and the Corporate Practice of Medicine Doctrine. Seventeen defendants organized themselves into two groups and each group hired one law firm. Plaintiffs asserted that such representation violated RPC 1.7(a)(2) due to significant risks of conflicts among defendants. Plaintiffs also asserted that for each group of jointly represented defendants, one defendant was paying the legal fees for all other jointly represented defendants. Defendants argued there were no actual, concurrent conflicts of interest and they had signed consent waivers. Trial court found no existing conflicts and noted that defendants had signed informed consent waivers. Plaintiffs argued for a per se rule against joint representation in cases subject to the Comparative Negligence Act. Court declined to establish a per se rule, emphasized a fact-specific analysis and found significant risks of conflicts due to potential apportionment of liability and damages among defendants. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision regarding the Mandelbaum Firm, since the Sood defendants provided sufficient informed consent waivers. However, it vacated the order concerning the Randolph Firm because not all CCMC defendants provided informed consent. The court also addressed the issue of one defendant paying legal fees for others, finding it permissible if informed consent was obtained and no interference with legal representation occurred.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
River Drive Dev., LLC v. Borough of Elmwood Park, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Borough appealed the decision granting summary judgment to plaintiffs LLCs and finding that two roads had been dedicated and accepted as public roads. Plaintiffs developed their 20-acre property and constructed two access roads. Developer received its first site plan approval in 2002 and the developer agreement required all streets to be constructed “in strict compliance with the rules, regulations, specifications, requirements, and [o]rdinances of [the Borough].” A final site plan approval in 2010 required the Roads to be upgraded to the Borough’s standards “prior to “the Roads being “dedicated to the Borough.” During an October 2018 hearing on developer’s application, Borough’s planning board questioned whether the two roads were public roadways and plaintiffs’ counsel responded that the roads had already been dedicated and accepted for public use and were public roads under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-53(j). In January 2021, developer’s counsel sent a letter to the Borough requesting Borough to enter a resolution acknowledging that the Roads had been dedicated to and accepted by the Borough and were public roadways. Borough rejected the offer to dedicate the roadways as public roadways. Trial court declared the roads to be public roads that had been dedicated and accepted by the Borough as a matter of law. Borough argued it could not be compelled to accept the roads, conditions for acceptance were not met and the roads were “By-Road[s].” Court found Borough’s arguments were based on factual contentions that were not supported by competent evidence in the record and legal contentions inconsistent with the law. Court found plaintiff dedicated the roads to Borough in a 2010 resolution approving the construction of apartment buildings and the related 2010 tax map. Additionally, the roads were inspected and approved by the Borough’s engineer.