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:
Lawyers on TikTok Seek the Right Mix of Substance and Levity
If the U.S. government goes ahead with threats to shut down TikTok, the legal profession will suffer a loss. Some attorneys who use the popular social media platform say they like its ability to educate the public on legal issues, while others embrace its ability to help them generate name recognition.
Capitol Report: Public Notice Stopgap Bill Signed into Law; Long-term Solution Unknown
Read this week’s Capitol Report for updates on a stopgap bill to address the lack of public notices and legal advertisements with some New Jersey newspapers ending or reducing their print editions. The report also covers a bill to move the June primary election date and filing deadlines due to religious observance.
In a published opinion, the Appellate Division has sided with Honda Motor Co. by rejecting a claim that a car’s lack of safety features constitutes a violation of the New Jersey Products Liability Act.
NJSBA PracticeHQ Presents – How to Fight and Beat Procrastination
Join the NJSBA on Jan. 8 for a free lunchtime webinar on the psychological roots of procrastination, why we intentionally delay tasks and ways to overcome it. The program will provide research-backed strategies and real-world examples to equip you with the knowledge to beat procrastination.
Appreciating the Important Work the Middlesex County Civil Bar Panel Does
Although many civil lawsuits end in a settlement, parties and their legal counsel frequently face challenges in resolving them, especially through alternative dispute resolution methods (ADR) like mediation and arbitration. Though generally faster and cheaper than litigation, ADR can still be time-consuming and expensive, especially because parties must hire mediators or arbitrators. Fortunately, the Middlesex County Superior Court offers plaintiffs and defendants’ attorneys in civil actions another avenue to pursue settlements of their cases.
DECISION SUMMARIES:
Click on any decision below to get the full opinion
from the New Jersey Judiciary – January 2, 2025
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
There are no decisions approved for publication.
NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | LANDLORD TENANT LAW
Amaconn Realty, Inc. v. Rent Leveling & Stabilization Bd. of the City of Hoboken, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Appellant Trupiano appealed a trial court order ruling that defendant Hoboken Rent Leveling and Stabilization Board’s decision on plaintiff Amaconn Realty’s application for a hardship rent increase of appellant’s rent was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable. Appellant also challenged the increase in his rent from $720 to $2,440 per month. Plaintiff cross-appealed the portion of the ruling denying its request to make the hardship increase retroactive. Appellant began renting an apartment in 1991. Plaintiff purchased the building in 1993 and converted the building into condominiums by 2003. Appellant’s unit was not fully renovated because it was not being converted into a condominium. In 2017, plaintiff sought a hardship rent increase based on the equity investment in the unit. Board rejected plaintiff’s equity valuation because it was contrary to the plain language of the ordinance. Board calculated a new monthly base rent of $1,130. Appellant appealed and trial court found Board’s decision was arbitrary and unreasonable based on the evidence presented. On remand, Board concluded plaintiff’s expenses for the unit were $1,059.19 per month. Plaintiff appealed and trial judge affirmed Board’s determination of the real estate taxes as part of the reduction in expenses, but remanded the exclusion of the condominium maintenance fees, management fee, and the equity calculation for reconsideration. Board held hearings and set appellant’s new rent at $729. Plaintiff filed a complaint to vacate the Board’s ruling. Trial court found Board acted arbitrarily and set appellant’s new rent at $2440. Appellant argued plaintiff already made a fair return on its investment due to the sale of condominium units and no hardship increase was justified. He argued that due to the unique circumstances of his case, the ordinance’s definition of equity did not apply, capital improvements should not have been included in the equity calculation and it was error to include the condominium association fees. Court noted the central question regarded the trial judge’s interpretation of § 155-14 and § 155-1 of the Hoboken rent control ordinance and their effects on the hardship calculation. Court found trial court erred in interpreting “equity” under the ordinance, in not deferring to the Board’s reduction of the condominium fees and remanded. However, court found trial judge did not abuse his discretion in declining to make the rent increase retroactive.
BUSINESS TORTS
Truong v. Lakeland Bank, Appellate Division, Judge Walcott-Henderson. Plaintiff appealed an order that denied his motion to vacate the dismissal of his complaint against Lakeland Bank and others, based on res judicata. Plaintiff alleged that defendants wrongfully converted $5,200 from his Lakeland Bank account, following a failed marketing services contract with other defendants. Plaintiff initially filed a federal lawsuit, which was dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim, with an opportunity to amend within 30 days. Plaintiff did not amend, leading to a dismissal with prejudice. The trial court found that the federal court’s dismissal with prejudice constituted a final adjudication on the merits, thus barring the state court action under res judicata. On appeal, plaintiff contended that the federal court’s dismissal was not a decision on the merits and that the trial court erred in applying res judicata. The court agreed, holding that the federal court’s dismissal was procedural, not substantive, and did not address the merits of the case. The court reversed the dismissal of the breach-of-contract claim. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the statutory claim under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which was not legally viable. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the breach-of-contract claim.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Ford, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence on attempted murder and weapons charges. Victim was with an individual known as “Babysav” and they went to buy marijuana from someone Babysav knew. Victim was shot while looking at his phone and did not know who shot him. State’s case relied on circumstantial evidence, including social media interactions, to establish that defendant was Babysav and the shooter. Trial court denied the request for an identification charge, reasoning it was not applicable since there was no in-court identification. Jury found defendant guilty on all counts and he was sentenced to 17 years in prison with an 85% parole ineligibility period. Defendant challenged trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the State’s burden of proving identity, failure to properly respond to a jury question about the absence of evidence, the admission of prejudicial other bad-acts evidence and argued an excessive sentence. Court vacated defendant’s convictions and remanded for a new trial. Court found trial court erred in not giving an identification instruction, which was necessary given the State’s reliance on circumstantial evidence and the jury’s questions during deliberations. The absence of the general identification jury charge rose to the level of plain error and required vacating defendant’s convictions.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Suitt, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed his custodial sentence following a remand for resentencing after he was convicted of official misconduct and theft. Trial court initially imposed a noncustodial probationary sentence, waiving the mandatory two-year parole ineligibility term under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.5(a) and (b)(17). State appealed the waiver, and court found the trial court had abused its discretion and remanded for resentencing. On remand, trial court sentenced defendant to three years imprisonment with a two-year parole ineligibility period. Defendant argued the custodial sentence violated double jeopardy and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. In the alternative, he sought credit for time served on probation. Court found no double jeopardy violation because defendant had no legitimate expectation of finality in his probationary sentence due to State’s pending appeal. Court also rejected defendant’s ineffective assistance claims, noting his counsel’s failure to raise a meritless double jeopardy argument did not constitute deficient performance. Court also denied defendant’s request for credit for time served on probation and found defendant’s reliance on State v. Williams, 167 N.J. Super. 203 was misplaced.
FAMILY LAW
K.R.B. v. C.F.B., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed a final restraining order. The parties, who divorced in March 2022, had a history of domestic disputes, which culminated in a consent order prohibiting contact except under specific conditions and requiring the parties to stay at least 50 feet apart. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging defendant violated this order by approaching her and their children after a soccer game, leading to a temporary restraining order. The parties disputed whether defendant’s actions constituted harassment under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4, with plaintiff alleging that she feared for her safety due to defendant’s behavior. The trial court found plaintiff credible and defendant not credible, citing inconsistencies in his testimony and evidence of prior domestic violence incidents. The trial court determined that defendant’s actions at the soccer game amounted to harassment, violated the consent order, and caused plaintiff alarm. On appeal, the court affirmed the issuance of the FRO, agreeing with the trial court that plaintiff needed protection from future abuse, based on defendant’s pattern of harassment and the history of domestic violence.