ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[directive] 18.  Do you understand that pursuant to the rules of the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender  [Yes] [No] a.  Supervision if you are residing outside the State of New Jersey at the time of sentencing, or upon entry of a guilty plea if a guilty plea is a condition of admission to the Pretrial Intervention Program, that return to your residence may be delayed pending acceptance of the transfer of your supervision by your state of residence?  b.  Do you also understand that pursuant to the same Interstate Compact transfer of your [Yes] [No] supervision to another state may be denied or restricted by that state at any time after sentencing, or upon entry of a guilty plea if a guilty plea is a condition of admission to the Pretrial Intervention Program, if that state determines you are required to register as a sex offender in that state or if New Jersey has required you to register as a sex offender?  Have you discussed with your attorney the legal doctrine of merger?
[brief] (Da045-048; 2T)  The trial court erred in denying [...]’s Motion for Reconsideration, dismissing [...] from the case, and finding that the indemnity provision of the Subcontract was ambiguous.  This Court should, therefore, reverse the trial court’s decision as a matter of law and remand the case to the trial court for consideration of [...]’s liability in the overall framework of [...]’s negligence claim and [...]’s conduct.  A. Standard Of Review.
[brief] ”  Under Rule 4:3-3(a), “[i]n actions in the Superior Court[,] a change of venue may be ordered by the Assignment Judge or the designee of the Assignment Judge of the county in which venue is laid. ”  Rule 4:3-3(a)(2) states the Assignment Judge may order a change of venue “if there is a substantial doubt that a fair and impartial trial can be had in the county where venue is laid. ”  However, these rules do not allow changes of venue, sua sponte, but require a motion wherein the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating good cause for such change.  Pressler & Verniero, cmt. on R. 4:3-3.
[directive] The judge should instruct all jurors in the array to pay close attention and may tell them to mark their printed copy of the questions with their yes or no responses.  The judge should instruct that, unless requested by a particular juror, the questions will not be read again, thus making this the appropriate opportunity for jurors to note their answers.  The judge should also instruct that if a juror is unsure of his or her answer or is uncertain as to the meaning of the question, the juror should bring that to the judge's attention when called upon.  Jurors will not place their names on the printed copies, and when a juror has completed the process, the printed copy will be returned to court staff and destroyed if written upon or damaged.
[directive] copied, viewed, accessed, Recording Specific BWC Locate to 9.2  Capacity permits system that a implement establish and shall BWCs deploys that department  Every incident/event, specific with associated a recordings all retrieve and locate to agency the shall be deploying BWCs department every Accordingly, charge. criminal investigation, or case, computerized.  be may which log, or ledger control BWC a maintain and develop to required that ensure system to a implement establish and shall BWCs that deploys department Every by established system  The fashion. timely in discovery a in provided are recordings BWC relevant reports arrest/incident/continuation police that ensure to provision a include should agency the electronically was report the in described activity investigative or incident the whether indicate control BWC corresponding the indicate feasible, when should, reports Police BWC. a by recorded number.  case incident the cross-reference should ledger/log control the BWC and number, ledger/log obligations discovery  State's the with complying of purpose the for recordings made B of WC  Copies of Director the by approved format media available readily in prosecutor a the to provided be shall Courts. the of Office Administrative the with consultation in Justice Criminal of Division the shall include Directive this of 13 section to pursuant developed practices best The fulfilling the in arise may that issues logistical the address to procedures and practices recommended section. this of requirements Issues. or Safety Special Raise That Privacy Recordin~;s ("Ta~~) . Identi to Provisions 9.3 department every issues, safety or privacy special raise may that recordings BWC identify To "tagging") (i.e., notation a permits that system a implement establish and shall BWCs deploys that captures 2) offense; criminal a of victim a of image the captures 1) recording: the when made be to college apartment, home, a (~, premises residential a in made was 3) child; a of image the medical or facility healthcare a facility, youth or school room, a etc.), hotel/motel room, dormitory 19 Page a captures 4) worship; or of place a treatment facility, mental health or abuse a office, substance special a captures 5) declined; the was de-activate BWC to request person conversation whose a with tactical confidential where search warrant and/or arrest execution an of or event operations for techniques officers, to direction give to used hand verbal signals and codes (~, information convincing for techniques a of warrant, execution during clearing rooms and interior movements captures image the recorded; been 6) have may etc.) execution, during warrant doors open to persons computer police a of screen the captures 7) or confidential informant; or officer undercover of an also See information.
[directive] The mandatory terms of community service for first or second offenses, or the mandatory 90 day term of incarceration for third or subsequent offenses, imposed under N.J.S.A. 2C:20-11c(4), do not apply to juveniles.  Similarly, since the Act speaks only of convictions and not adjudications of delinquency, adjudications of delinquency for shoplifting offenses should not be construed as prior offenses for the purpose of imposing mandatory penalties pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:20-11c(4).  Page 5 VI.
[brief] If that’s criminal harassment, Judge, you and I are going to be here every day for the -- in New Jersey with road rage, with -- at the Giants games.  Can you imagine if every time people have words we’re going to be filing harassment criminal charges?  So he’s pissed off, of course.  So this is two grown men having words, that’s it.  That’s not harassment.  There’s no purpose to harass.  He e-mailed the [...] lady very friendly four or five times, clearly documenting that it’s all about the snow.  The video is about the snow.  The pictures are about the snow.  The emails to [...] about the snow.
[brief] (Da12).  As noted by this Court on direct appeal, defendant's police statement was corroborated at trial in several respects.  (Da14).  The palm print on the wall at the murder scene—which expert testimony established was created after the blood was present—was a match to defendant.  (Da14).  Additionally, defendant's description of the number and location of stab wounds and his admission that he pushed the mattress over [...]'s body coincided with testimony from officers who responded to the murder scene.  (Da14).  The jury convicted defendant on all counts, and he is currently serving a life sentence with a forty-year period of parole ineligibility.
[brief] The cause of the fall is of question to me in that it is not mentioned anywhere in the medical records by any of the people who treated her, but only in the report of [...] and in her oral history to me today.  Further complicating this case is the fact that she had a gait dysfunction and balance disorder leading to prior fall documented before the accident for which I examined her.  In fact, she was using a walker at the time of the fall, which would further support that she was having gait problems before she fell.  Nonetheless, she did fall in a store, she did fracture her hip, she was treated surgically in an uncomplicated manner, she did have DVT that was treated with medication and in a follow-up ultrasound showed resolution of the clot as is expected.  She had preexistent arthritis of this hip that is unrelated to the trauma with a satisfactory reduction and healing of the hip fracture, as is documented.  One would not expect posttraumatic arthritis.  (Pa182).  The plaintiff’s medical expert witness, [...], also did not offer any opinions in his reports that the plaintiff’s fall was caused by any prior medical condition.
[brief] ” (Pa1-6).  With regard to the serious medical conditions from which [...] continues to suffer, the Board again merely listed the medical evidence submitted on [...]’s behalf but failed to offer any analysis as to why this evidence did not lend further support to [...]’s release.  (Pa5).  The Board claimed that it “considered” the fact that [...] is blind in one eye; suffers from a hyperplasia prostate condition; and will have financial support for life, to cover medical expenses and any other financial obligations he may incur, from a trust that was established for his benefit.
[brief] [Da016].  On December 15, 2023, the court below heard testimony regarding this issue.  [...] testified for a second time.  For the first time, and unlike his initial testimony, [...] testified that there was confusion about whether the door which led to Appellant’s apartment was part of the search warrant.  4T: 19:3-18.  As a result of the confusion the Sergeant First Class was called.  Id.  According to [...] the Sgt. First Class granted permission to go through the door and up the third floor where Appellant’s apartment was located.  4T: 13:5-14:3.  New Jerey State Police Sgt. First Class [...] (“[...]”) was the squad leader.  4T: 67:10-17.  [...] contradicted [...].  [...] indicated that the only door that he had a conversation about going past was the kitchen door which led from [...] into the common egress and not the door that led to Appellant’s third floor separate apartment.  4T: 115:19-118:25; 129:2-3.  [...] explained that they will always clear common areas like the stairwell in this case because it is accessible to anyone.  3T:79:22-80:6.  Both [...] and [...] agreed that the team was in possession of a Halligan tool to breach doors.  4T: 14:4-17; 82:23-83:2.  A Halligan tool is used to pry open a locked door by sliding it into the door jamb between the door and frame and crack it open.  4T: 22:2-17; 23:18-24:14.  If the door to Appellant’s apartment was locked you would need a Halligan tool to break into it.  4T: 119:1-11.  If a Halligan tool was used, you would see damage around the area of the locking mechanism because that is where you would pry it from.  4T: 126:6-12.  [...] lives at and owns the property located at 130 and [...].  4T: 133:5-17.  [...] indicated that, in addition to other damage throughout the property, the door to Appellant’s third floor apartment was damaged.  4T: 149:5-150:9.  More specifically, [...] indicated that there was damage around the locking mechanism, scratch marks to the door frame, and cracking.  Id.  [...] indicated that her handyman placed a metal bracket on the door near the locking area\(^3\) to maintain the integrity of the door.  Id; Da.053; Da054; Da055.  --- \(^3\)  In contrast, [...] testified that the door did not contain a lock.  1T: 103:8-15.  Despite being confronted with this damage, [...] was unequivocal that the door to Appellant’s separate third floor apartment was “never breached” and that the Halligan tool was not used on any interior door of the property.  4T: 20:2; 39:24-40:2; 42:13-23.  [...] testified that he never authorized any officer to kick down or damage any doors and that a tool was not used to breach any doors.  4T: 84:17-21; 119:16-22 e.
[brief] Secondly, with respect to the road dedication, I received a letter from [...], which I sent to the Chairman, because that I got within about ten days, I sent it to [...], the former representative from Boswell.  She actually wasn’t the engineer at the time, it was [...].  [...] got back to me, he reviewed the file and said, as a result of the application pre-approvals and release of the performance bond, everything that was required to be done by way of the plans, including the road work, had been done, which is why they released the bond.
[brief] The Legislature was attempting to ensure that, at the very minimum, a psychological examination or report was included in cases like this one.  Because the Legislature’s clear purpose in mandating psychological evaluations was to obtain accurate and complete information on the mental health of a defendant facing sentencing for certain offenses, more is required than a defendant’s self-report on his mental health history and condition.  The presentence report must include reliable information about the defendant’s mental condition that is relevant to sentencing considerations, including whether the defendant’s mental health condition related to the instant offense and the degree to which mental health treatment was possible.  See also See R. 3:21-2(a) (requiring that presentence reports include all relevant information).  Because an expert evaluation was required to provide this relevant and reliable information about [...]’s mental health condition, and the presentence report was incomplete without it, a remand for a psychological evaluation is necessary.
[brief] The [...] Report continues, in paragraphs 4 and 5, to offer hand written statements as to condition which might have been from personal observation, contending that the “soffit, fascia, gutter, window” are in need of repair.  (66a-70a).  Appellants admitted that a small section of the soffit siding needed repair, as did several windows, but the gutters and fascia did not.  (99a).  [...] also concluded that the Property lacks utilities.  (66a-70a).  However, the picture of the actual Property showed electrical meters on the side of the Property.  (139a).  [...]’s conclusion as to six months of vacancy could not have been based on knowledge when made in January 2022 as [...] had made no prior inspection.
[brief] Pa2749-Pa2752.  This finding was erroneous.  CCIP policies are, of course, insurance policies subject to the very same cancellation requirements as all other insurance policies in New Jersey.  As a result, there is no “whoops a daisy” exception to these requirements, as impliedly suggested by the trial court.  Even if [...] and [...] sought to completely cancel [...]’s insurance under the CCIP Policy at some point before the accident via [...]’s authority to effectuate that cancellation, no notice of cancellation of [...]’s insurance was ever sent to [...].  [...] and [...] were legally obligated to provide such notice, no matter the parties’ informal understandings of certain work that may or may not have been excluded.  In the absence of any such notice, [...] was entitled to continued liability coverage as if it were enrolled in the CCIP.  The public policy behind New Jersey’s requirement of formal notice of cancellation is rooted in decades of New Jersey caselaw, which makes no exception for contractor-controlled policies.  The trial court did not even address this caselaw.
[directive] 10% permissible except if by extortion.  2C:20-3/2C:20- Actor unlawfully takes property valued at $75,000 or more; or by extortion; or takes human Theft  2nd Degree $35,000 to $75,000  2b(1)(a)(b)(e) remains.  No 10% if by extortion.  42  Updated December 2, 2013
[brief] Trial court Order, entered August 26, 2022, dismissing the Appellant’s Complaint With Prejudice against Respondent [...] 90a-91a  Appellant’s Motion to Reinstate 92a-93a  Trial court Order, entered October 21, 2022, reinstating the Appellant’s Complaint 94a Appellant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the August 26, 2022, Orders 95a-97a
[brief] Asmad-Escobar, 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1044, at *6, 7.  See also Mhrez, 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1040, at *7, 8 (“Even when providing every favorable inference to the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint, nothing in it alleged defendant’s conduct was abusive, deceptive or unfair, which is the harm Congress intended to prevent. ”)  While Asmad-Escobar and Mhrez are unpublished and therefore non-binding, the reasoning and holding of these cases are persuasive.  Moreover, these decisions are not outliers.  Instead, Asmad-Escobar and Mhrez were decided on the heels of numerous decisions by a myriad of New Jersey judges represent Plaintiff in this case.  In other words, the same arguments have already been presented to the Appellate Division and have been rejected.
[brief] In those messages, defendant warned [...] three times not to “offend the wrong one” without making amends because “someday there will be ramifications. ” (25T:32-12 to 33-23).  Defendant also told [...] “all the false, irrational comments you made will not be forgotten,” and that he should not have had to write the line about offending the wrong one three times.  Ibid.  In those posts, defendant also admits to hitting [...] in the past, a blow that was not reciprocated:  “When I knocked you down, you got up and said no one ever hit me that hard.  I needed that. ”  (25T:34- Most tellingly, defendant said that [...] should “ponder upon” another case in which someone had gotten shot, and told defendant to google it.
[brief] That is, to [...].  However, since [...] conveyed her ownership rights in all business entities formed after their marriage to [...]\textsuperscript{93}, it is now [...] who has stepped into her shoes.  Presumably, this is not what the trial court intended, as the orders issued subsequent to the order granting partial summary judgment lie in direct conflict with this outcome.  These and other substantial issues could have been explored more deeply had oral argument been granted.  Had the parties had the opportunity to engage in argument, the trial court may very well have reached a different conclusion.  VII.
[brief] [...] is 84 years old and has been a New Jersey State Prison inmate since his convictions and sentences were imposed in 1979.  If the currently imposed 36-month FET is affirmed, [...] will have served nearly 50 years in State Prison.  Despite the serious nature of [...]’s convictions, he – like all New Jersey inmates – enjoys constitutionally guaranteed rights to due process and fundamental fairness in connection with his consideration for parole.
[directive] Indifference to the internal affairs function will have a negative impact on the administration of criminal justice and the delivery of police services to New Jersey’s residents.  Agencies that fail to make the internal affairs function a priority can lose the respect and support of the community.  The integrity of individual law enforcement agencies, and the reputation of the State’s criminal justice system, can also suffer if agencies fail to identify and correct officer misconduct.  In addition, law enforcement agencies that fail to implement a meaningful and objective internal affairs process may be found liable in civil lawsuits for their failure to effectively address officer misconduct.  It is for these reasons that the Attorney General has issued this revised policy and directed that the State’s law enforcement agencies implement the critical mandates set forth by the policy.
[brief] The operative facts are entirely different, because [...] did not change its ordinance to help [...]’ cause.  If the Board was wrong to consider [...]’ application, barring a revision to the City’s ordinance, then the development was only reviewable by [...]’s Board of Adjustment.  Accordingly, the approval issued by the Board is *ultra vires* and void as a matter of law, and the trial court’s decision to overturn it must be upheld.  *See, e.g.*, *Najduch v. Independence Twp.*, 411 N.J. Super. 268 (App. Div. 2009)(holding that planning board cannot grant site plan approval where “d” variance is required, and any such approval is both invalid and subject to collateral attack at any time); *see also*, *Nuckel, supra* (invalidating site plan approval and remanding application to combined land use board for consideration of site plan with “d” variance not considered).  The Court should affirm the decision below.
[brief] For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff, [...], requests that the Court reverse the decision of the trial court.  [...]  Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant  By: /s/ [...]  [...]  For the Firm  Dated: February 21, 2024  JD JAMESTOWNE, LLC  Plaintiff-Respondent v. [...]  Defendant-Respondent  SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NOS: [...] ON APPEAL FROM SUPERIOR COURT LAW DIVISION, DOCKET NO: [...] SAT BELOW: HON. [...], A.J.S.C. BRIEF OF RESPONDENT, [...]
[brief] [Pa650-Pa656].  On March 16, 2017 [...] was actively paying rent and in compliance with the terms of the lease.  [Pa650-Pa656] and [Pa680 ([...] Deposition) at 170: 2-9].  The lease provided that, “Care and Maintenance of Premises.  Lessee shall be responsible for all repairs required, excepting the roof, exterior walls, structural foundations, and: [this area is left blank] which shall be maintained by Lessor (Landlord).  Lessee shall also maintain in good condition such portions adjacent to the premises, such as sidewalks, driveways….which would otherwise be required to be maintained by Lessor (Landlord)” (emphasis added).  [Pa653 at Para 3).  The lease provided that “Common Area Expenses.  In the event the demised premises are situated in a shopping center or in a commercial building in which there are common areas, Lessee agrees to pay his pro-rata share of maintenance, taxes, and insurance for the common area”.  [Pa655 at Para. 17).  The lease provided that [...] was responsible for removal of snow and ice from the parking lot, including the snow and ice removal services that [...] provided on March 16, 2017.  [Pa 677 ([...] Deposition)at 74:21-22 and at 74:13-25 and Pa678 at 78:1-5 and Pa679 at 148:2-25].  [...] did not expect [...] to maintain the area where [...] allegedly fell and did not expect [...] to keep the area where plaintiff allegedly fell free from snow and ice.  [Pa682 ([...] Deposition) at 301: 5-23].
[brief] (T4 at 30:7-10, 31:14-17).  This legal conclusion was made in spite of the record showing its operation six days per week (T2 at 143:22-144:1), delivery trucks including eighteen-wheel tractor-trailers as early as 5:00 a.m.  (Pa 145-148; 150-152; 154; T1 at 56:6-57:20, 59:3-5, 60:6-9, 61:9-25, 63:25-64:3, 102:1-106:11, 187:19-189:8, 57:8-59:16, 69:12-71:7, 102:1-106:11; T3 at 20:24-21:14, 60:5-61:6), the idling of diesel refrigeration trucks for substantial periods of time with offensive noise and odor (Pa 154; T1 at 57:8-59:6), the illegal parking of delivery vehicles close to stop signs and crosswalks, U-turns and K-turns in the street and into the Plaintiffs’ driveway of delivery vehicles.  (Pa 150: T1 at 62:1-63:22, 105:22-106:11, 187:19-188:15).  In spite of this massive amount of undisputed evidence, the court below incorrectly concluded as a matter of law that those facts amounted only to “an annoyance” and not a nuisance.  Each one of us should consider such a commercial establishment moving next door to our home in a quiet residential neighborhood and whether we would just be annoyed by the obnoxious effects it would have on the quality of our residential life.  The Plaintiffs submit that the trial court’s fact-finding and legal conclusions were so wide of the mark that justice demands the intervention of this Court to correct these findings and conclusions.
[brief] Fowler v. Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc., 251 N.J. 300, (2022) (slip op. at 28); State ex rel. Comm’r of Transp. v. Marlton Plaza  Appropriate and proper jury instructions are essential for a fair trial.  *State v. Scharf*, 225 N.J. 547, 581 (2016); *Prioleau v. Ky. Fried Chicken, Inc.*, 223 N.J. 245, 256 (2015); *Velazquez v. Portadin*, 163 N.J. 677, 688 (2000); *State v. Green*, 86 N.J. 281, 287 (1981).