ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] The State misconstrues [...]’s arguments in Point I.C of his initial brief.  [...] was not arguing that the sentencing court’s reference to the “no free crimes” and “separate and distinct” rationales were separate bases on which to reverse.  Rather, [...] argued that if this Court agrees with [...] that the sentencing court’s findings for Yarbough factors 3A and 3C were erroneous, this Court cannot nonetheless find that the “no free crimes” and “separate and distinct” rationales were alternative sufficient bases on which the consecutive sentencing decision could be sustained.  CONCLUSION
[directive] Collateral Issues  7.12.1  The work of an internal affairs function should not be limited to resolving complaints by narrowly focusing on whether the subject officer engaged in misconduct.  In many cases, the examination of collateral issues presented by the complaint can be as important as the resolution of the allegation itself.  For example, while investigating an allegation of excessive force during an arrest, the officer’s actions in making the arrest may be improper.  In such cases, even though the investigation may exonerate the officer of the excessive force allegation, internal affairs must still examine whether the officer should have been effecting the arrest at all.  7.12.2
[brief] **PROCEDURAL HISTORY**  This action was initiated by [...] by way of Complaint filed in August 2019, as amended May 4, 2021, which set forth various allegations with respect to the Redevelopment Agreement and the Operating Agreement.  Through the Amended Complaint, [...] sought relief as follows: (i) specific performance compelling [...] to construct [...] Garage and release the surface lot parcel to [...] for construction of the Office Project and Residential Project, and enjoining [...] from expending resources on any parking facility “in the vicinity” of the Project Garage; (ii) a demand to compel accounting of [...]’s operations and finances of the Project Garage; (iii) reformation of the Redevelopment Agreement and Operating Agreement to create new parking rate standards for the Project Garage; (iv) reformation of the Redevelopment Agreement to account for the Office Project, Residential Project and Authority Garage not being constructed, directing all capital and operating expenses of the Project Garage be paid from general revenue of the Project Garage and directing that [...] retain all net revenue of the Project Garage; (v) rescission of the Operating Agreement; and (vi) demand for alleged damages related to breach of contract, breach of the obligation of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty with respect to the Redevelopment Agreement and Operating Agreement.  The Authority, on February 18, 2022, filed a motion for summary judgment as to all counts of the Amended Complaint, which motion was denied on March 22, 2022.
[brief] As of December 28, 2021, there were “102.6 million videos attached to the hashtag ‘#balaclava’” on TikTok, and, on Google, “the question ‘how to knit a balaclava’ [had] grown more than 5000% in the [previous] 12 months. ”  Ibid.  -  By 2022, the balaclava had worked its way into the fashion lines of top designers, like [...] and [...], and popular [...] claimed that the detectives also observed “a heavy amount of foot traffic” “leading to those four males,” and “then after that, one of those four males was observed concealing themselves in between two cars and immediately breaking contact.
[brief] Moreover, as discussed above, [...] sat on its rights for 20 years before filing this action.  “[O]ne who seeks equity, must do equity. ”  Apaporis, LLC v. Amy Yueh, 2008 WL 509819, at *6 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. Feb. 25, 2008).  [...]’s conduct pre- and post-commencement of litigation should have precluded any finding that the equities somehow favor [...].  The trial court’s decision to apply the 2% enhancement because the “equities” favor [...] is without basis.  [...] respectfully submits that this Court should vacate the trial court’s holding as to interest.  **CONCLUSION**
[brief] [...] commenced this action on September 4, 2018.  Da1.  [...] filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 12, 2019 ("SAC").  Da50.  [...]’s Answer on May 7, 2019, did not include any reference to “arbitration. ”  Da162.  After approximately six years of litigation and extensive discovery among multiple parties, [...] for the first time filed a motion to compel arbitration on August 1, 2024.  Da428-31.  Following briefing and oral argument on September 13, 2024, the Honorable [...] denied [...]’s motion due to [...]’s failure to preserve arbitration in its answer, [...]’s six-year delay to move to compel arbitration, and for other reasons set forth on the record in the hearing transcript.  Da248-56; Hearing Tr. 63:22-79:18.  On September 30, 2024, [...] filed notice of this interlocutory appeal.
[brief] ”  (Pb20).  Plaintiff appears to be arguing that he objected to [...]’s finding that the Fifth Amended Complaint was the operative pleading.  Plaintiff is incorrect.  First, when the District Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend, it specifically stated in the Order that “[t]he operative amended complaint in the case is Doc. No. 101-2. ” (Da030, 9/10/19 Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend; Da023, District Court Docket Report, ECF #107).  As evidenced by the District Court document notation at the top of Da293-358, that the Fifth Amended Complaint is “Doc No. 101-2”.  (Da293-358).  The fact that the Fifth Amended Complaint was not entered into the Superior Court eCourts case jacket, either because of an error with District Court or Plaintiff’s failure to file it, does not mean that any of the Plaintiff’s subsequent proposed amended pleading are the operative complaint.  [...] never granted any motion to amend, so neither the “SAC” as Plaintiff’s terms it (Pa9-95; Pa136-141) or the “revised SAC” could be the operative pleading.
[directive] $500 to $1,000 10% permissible  Other Public a reasonable official request to move.  Persons  Places  Actor knowingly or recklessly maintains a condition which endangers the safety or health of  Maintaining a 2C:33-12(a-c) a considerable number of persons or knowingly maintains any premises or place where Disorderly Persons  $100 to $1,000 10% permissible  Nuisance people gather for the purpose of engaging in unlawful conduct.
[brief] On 1-2-23, plaintiff filed the complaint, which includes a jury demand.  31a-110a.  The complaint is pled as a putative class action, pleading these causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) promissory estoppel; and (4) claims against the does only.  31a-110a.  The complaint doesn’t seek damages for personal injuries but economic loss in the form of paying out of pocket for: (1) water known to be contaminated by chemicals at unacceptable levels; (2) other sources of water to replace the water sold; and (3) home water filtration systems or other kinds of filtration products to treat the water so that its contaminants are eliminated or alleviated.  35a-36a, §12-13.  The complaint also seeks injunctive remedial and other equitable remedies.  36, §14.  On 1-6-23, defendant was served with the complaint (which included a notice to produce) and interrogatories and when responses weren’t forthcoming, plaintiff demanded the overdue responses.
[brief] In Medici, although not as to an inherently beneficial use, the Supreme Court acknowledged the history of several of the same motel use applications, yet the governing body declined to authorize that use in the zone.  As in the case at hand, the Supreme Court held that proof that the proposed use was not inconsistent with the zone plan was impossible for applicant, and the zoning board could not have found otherwise, as follows:  In this context, the applicant had the formidable burden of proving that the grant of another use variance for a motel at this site was not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance as reflected by the governing body's failure to authorize motels as a permitted use in the zone.  No such proof was offered.  **No such finding was made, or could have been made, by the Board of Adjustment.
[brief] Primarily, there is no evidence in the record that the Township is one that has a considerable or even noteworthy past of hostility and obstruction toward affordable housing units and the satisfaction of its obligations for same.  Respondents’ rebuttal to this undeniable fact is laborious citations to the trial court’s opinion which suggest that the Mayor’s opinion on the application, a so-described one-off event, established the basis for an extraordinary Mt. Laurel remedy.  This is belied by the trial court’s same opinion that expressly sets forth that this event was a “singular transgression” and that the Township had taken notable steps to voluntarily comply with its Third Round housing obligations.  M51-52.  The cases cited in support of this conclusion by both the Respondents and the trial court are distinguishable from the present matter and fail to provide the support they seek.  As noted previously, New Jersey courts have cautioned that builders’ remedies in the form of removing a board’s authority and appointing a master in its place should rarely be used.
[brief] No food or drink allowed.  That sentence does not suggest that food or drink by itself is disallowed while food and drink together are OK. ”  Ibid. defendant’s assets. ”  N.J.S.A. 49:3-69(a)(2).  If the trial court applied a strict, disjunctive interpretation of “or” throughout N.J.S.A. 49:3-69(a)(2), then the trial court would have had to choose whether it was going to enter a temporary or permanent injunction against the defendants in this case.
[brief] However, as defense counsel explained when requesting the charge, there was some evidence presented that [...] was still alive when he was hit with the tire iron, even though the tire iron did not cause his death.  (7T 79-16 to 80-8; see also 5T 128-12 to 13, 144-24 to 145-4 ([...]’s testimony))  If the jury credited this evidence, then hitting [...] with a tire iron would be aggravated assault, separate and apart from the homicide.  The court’s denial of the request to charge on aggravated assault, finding no rational basis to sustain the charge, was harmful error.
[directive] This is a public document, which means the document as submitted will be available to the public upon request.  Therefore, do not enter personal identifiers on it, such as Social Security number, driver’s license number, vehicle plate number, insurance policy number, active financial account number, or active credit card number.  Tout plent, petisyon ak lòt papye ki soumèt ba tribinal la fèt pou an angle.  Complaints, motions and other papers submitted to the court should be in English
[brief] The Honorable [...], J.S.C. presided over the trial.  On May 22, 2023, Appellants orally moved for a directed verdict pursuant to R. 4:40-1(a) at the close of Plaintiff’s case-in-chief.  5T:5:11-6-25—12:1-13.  The court heard oral argument on the record and denied Appellants’ oral motion for directed verdict.  5T:11:6-25—12:1-13.  On May 25, 2023, the jury returned a verdict against Plaintiff on her religious discrimination claims under LAD but decided in Plaintiff’s favor on her hostile work environment claim based on disability discrimination and LAD Retaliation.  DA079-DA084.  The jury awarded Plaintiff the following damages: (i) $500,001 for emotional distress damages under LAD; (ii) $110,000 in economic loss damages; (iii) $1,000,002 in punitive damages.  DA079-DA082.  On May 26, 2023, the Honorable [...], J.S.C. entered an Order of Judgment memorializing the jury’s verdict.  DA083-DA084.  Pursuant to R. 4:49-1, on June 13, 2023, Appellants filed a Motion for New Trial.  DA085-DA087.  After the parties submitted briefs and the court conducted oral argument, the trial court denied Appellants’ motion and issued a written opinion on August 23, 2023.  DA088-DA124.  On September 14, 2023, Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal and a Motion to Stay the Judgment pending appeal.  DA125-DA141.  On October 4, 2023, the Honorable [...], J.S.C. entered an Order granting the Motion for Stay.  DA142-DA143.  **STATEMENT OF FACTS**
[brief] Id.  While [...] certifies A. 6260 is substituted by S. 49 and is read three times on January 10, 2022, the bill did not have the required twenty-four hour-break between the second and third readings.  (Pa236-37).  The Constitution plainly requires that all bills be read three times in each house before final passage after one full calendar day following the second reading.  N.J. Const. art. IV, § 4, ¶ 6.  The Constitution specifically states: “[a]ll bills and joint resolutions shall be read three times in each house before final passage but only after “one full calendar day following the day of the second reading.
[brief] The following facts were deduced from defendant's trial.  A.  A shooting occurred on East Jersey Street.  On July 6, 2019, Officer [...] was dispatched to [...] in [...] at 7:06 p.m. (2T18-14 to 20-25).  When he arrived, it was a "chaotic scene" with people saying, "Someone had been shot."  (2T21-4 to 8).  He found a "male lying on the floor who had sustained injuries."  (2T21-9 to 10).  The male was the victim, [...], also known as [...], who ultimately died from a gunshot wound to the head.  (2T21-16 to 23; 2T57-7 to 13; 3T14-11 to 21).  Witnesses at the scene gave descriptions of the shooter.
[brief] The question for the jury is whether the employer acted reasonably given what it knew or had reason to know about its employee’s potentially harmful characteristics.  To establish a *prima facie* claim requires proof of a risk of harm to third parties.  “The focus . . . is on the risk the employer created by exposing members of the public to a potentially dangerous individual. ”  *Di Cosala*, 91 N.J. at 172.  Claims for negligent training and supervision should have been dismissed at trial because Plaintiffs did not present any evidence of incompetence, lack of specialized skill, or of a disposition or trait that [...] had reason to know posed a danger to customers.
[brief] LETTER BRIEF AND APPENDIX  ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY  Honorable Judges of the Superior Court of New Jersey  Appellate Division  Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex  Trenton, New Jersey 08625  RE: STATE OF NEW JERSEY (Plaintiff-Movant) v. [...] (Defendant-Respondent)  Docket No. [...]  Criminal Action: On Appeal  From an Interlocutory Order of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County.  Sat Below: Hon. [...], J.S.C.  Honorable Judges:  Pursuant to Rule 2:6-2(b), this letter brief is submitted in lieu of a formal brief on behalf of the State of New Jersey.  TABLE OF CONTENTS
[brief] The mortgage assignments of 2/27/2009 (065a) and 2/28/2014 (097a) in my case were not authenticated by affidavits or certifications of personal knowledge but on 1/6/17 [...] blamed it on the County Clerk and on 9/23/19 the county clerk said she did not examine the recorded documents (125a) and the other judges upheld Judge Cleary’s orders who was the initial trial judge.  None of the documents submitted by [...] were authenticated by a Certificate of Acknowledgement in violation of N.J.S.A. 2A-82-17.  In the Affidavit of Lost Note of 2/12/14 (088a) [...] did not explain the environment in which it obtained the Note (091a).  If [...] claimed that it received the Note (091a) from [...], [...] never had the legal standing to be the custodian of a Residential Mortgage Note.  Another important point about using that Affidavit of Lost Note of 2012 (088a) is that [...] allegedly lost the Note (091a), not [...] and [...] filed for foreclosure.  According to UCC 3-309 and NJSA 12A:3-309 [...] did not have legal standing to file for foreclosure because it was not in possession of the Note when it was lost.
[brief] He also argues that the court erred by failing to charge theft as a lesser included offense of robbery.  In his challenge to the court's accomplice charge, [...] does not assert that the charge given by the court was error; rather, he suggests that “the absence of any factual context to the legal issues in the trial court's jury instructions” constitutes plain error.  [...] did not object to the court's charge on accomplice liability.  When neither the State nor the defendant objects to the trial court's instruction to the jury, we *must determine whether the trial court's charge as a whole “misinformed [the jury] as to the controlling law,”*
[directive] Currency enforcement agerkies administer proper internal controls over United States mseq,, N. of J.S.A. 2C:64-1 they receive as a result of seizures brought under the authority N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1 (civil forfeiture), seq., (racketeering), or from actions brought under et N.3.S-A. or 2C:Zl-25 et seq. (financial facilitation of crime), under any other statute as directed by the Attorney General.  These are the minimum procedures that should be in instituted by a law enforcement agency.  However, nothing this standard operating If such procedure prohibits an agency from adopting more comprehensive procedures.  the in of is a procedure adopted, it shall be written form and distributed to every member law enforcement agency.  The [...] shall account for seized currency under specific divisional operating procedure.
[brief] The Karan Court quoted from the Attorney General who, on behalf of the State as amicus, had argued "that a condemnation award should not be decoupled from the ascertainable change to fair market value resulting from a public project".  [214 N.J. at 400]  In Karan, the Court later stated:  In weighing the impact of a public project on the remainder property in a partial-takings case, a willing --- \(^3\)  In Karan, the Appellate Division, as had the trial court, concluded that the dunes project was a general benefit ("those produced by the improvement which a property owner may enjoy in the future in common with all other property owners in the area"), [425 N.J. Super. 155,165 (App. Div. 2012), reversed, 214 N.J. 419 (2013)] and not a special benefit (those that "differ in kind, rather than in degree from the benefits which are shared by the public at large").
[brief] First, the judge’s initial ruling that the photos were not properly authenticated, or not “relevant,” because no one could testify that the Ellsworth surveillance cameras (photos D-111 and 112 at Da 20) were present in 2019 distorted the standards for “authentication” and “relevance” by raising those standards too high.  (14T 111-20 to 115-17; 14T 141-14 to 142-6)  Second, the same can be said of the judge’s secondary ruling regarding relevance of those photos of the surveillance cameras on Ellsworth -- that even if the defense could call a resident of Ellsworth Avenue named [...] to testify that the cameras were present in 2019, no one could say that the cameras were operational at that time.  (15T 11-4 to 9; 15T 51-7 to 53-19)  That latter ruling similarly misstated the standard for determining the “relevance” of evidence, making it a far greater barrier to the admission of evidence than the evidence rules intend.  Finally, the rulings on the photos of the walkways onto Edgemere Avenue (photos D-115 and 116 at Da 20) -- and the related ruling regarding the intended argument of defense counsel -- similarly required too much to meet the standard of “relevance” to the case.
[brief] A29.  The court also entered an Order (that same day) against Defendant, [...], striking its Answer with prejudice for failure to provide discovery.  A29.  Defendants continued to affirm to the trial court that they had responded to plaintiff’s discovery requests by supplying all information and documents responsive to plaintiffs’ discovery requests that were in defendants’ possession, custody, or control.  On December 21, 2023, defendants filed a motion to restore their Answer and Defenses on this ground, detailing for the court in Certifications and attached discovery responses defendants’ full compliance with discovery.
[brief] Dear [...]:  Please accept this letter brief on behalf of the Respondent, the [...], on the merits of the appeal.  TABLE OF CONTENTS  PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS ......  2 ARGUMENT POINT I THE BOARD’S DENIAL OF [...]’S UNTIMELY ELIGIBILITY REGISTRATION FORM FILED OVER ONE YEAR AND ONE MONTH PAST THE STATUTORY DEADLINE IS REASONABLE AND SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.........................................................  7 POINT II  CONSIDERATIONS OF ADEQUATE OR ACTUAL NOTICE  DO NOT COMPEL A DIFFERENT RESULT..............................................................................12  CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................20 PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS¹
[brief] Cont'l Bank of Pennsylvania v. Barclay Riding Acad., Inc., 93 N.J. 153, 170 (1983)  EnviroFinance Grp., LLC v. Env't Barrier Co., LLC, 440 N.J. Super. 325, 350 (App. Div. 2015)  Fox v. Millman, 210 N.J. 401, 417 (2012)  Friedman v. Tappan Dev. Corp., 22 N.J. 523, 531 (1956)  Goldfarb v. Solimine, 245 N.J. 326, 338 (2021)  Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 284 (2002)  Jalowiecki v. Leuc, 182 N.J. Super. 22, 32 (App. Div. 1981)
[brief] January 2017  Bank Statements a. [...] x0561 “Wire” Account, [...] January 31, 2017 .Pa078 b. [...] x1401 “Operating” Account, [...] January 31, 2017……………………………………………………………..Pa081 c. [...] x2521 Account, [...] January 31, 2017……………………………………………………………………..Pa085 P-28.  February 2017  Bank Statements a. [...] x0561 “Wire” Account, [...] February 28, 2017Pa087 b. [...] x1401 “Operating” Account, [...] February 28, 2017  …………………………………………………………………………..Pa089 c. [...] x0569 “Payroll” Account, [...] February 28, 2017…………………………………………………………………………………Pa093 d.  [...] x2521 Account, [...] February 28, 2017…………………………………………………………………………………..Pa095 P-29.
[brief] (Da207-08).  [...] noted that plaintiffs were not entitled to any relaxation of the two-year statute of limitations, as he was clearly identified as the radiologist in the medical chart, which was available to plaintiffs well before the expiration of the limitations period.  (Da213, ¶¶ 11-13).  Again, the plaintiffs opposed this motion, arguing that they did not have reason to suspect [...] may be liable until [...]’s deposition.  (1T8-1T9).  Plaintiffs took the position that there was no good faith basis for plaintiffs to have included [...] as a defendant in the initial pleading.  (1T8).  At this hearing, [...]’s counsel specifically asserted that the principles in Burt, supra, apply to this statute of limitations dismissal.
[brief] Ha38.  The case was put on "inactive status" while [...] explored an alternative site.  [...] thereafter only pursued this petition except as a formality and the [...] order appealed from did not decide anything about it.  We will not address it further.  Thereafter, on January 2, 2018, [...] filed an application at the [...] to install the regulator station at [...], Ha38, which after extensive hearings the [...] denied by Resolution dated December 12, 2018.
[brief] [...] [...] [...]  Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant, [...].  Of Counsel and on the Brief  [...] (033952005)  [...] (008011993)  [...] (010141994)  #  TABLE OF CONTENTS | SECTION | PAGE | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | PRELIMINARY STATEMENT | 1 | | STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY | 4 | | STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED | 6 | | STATEMENT OF FACTS | 7 | | A. The Parties | 7 | | B. The Property | 8 | | C.  The Timeline of the Breach | 9 | | D. Partition of the Property | 10 | | E. [...]’s Damages | 11 | | LEGAL ARGUMENT | 12 | | STANDARD OF REVIEW | 12 | | POINT I | 12 | | THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DETERMINED THAT [...] SUFFERED NO D[...]GES RESULTING FROM [...]’ BREACH OF THEIR FIDUCIARY DUTY (RAISED BELOW 5T9:21-25 OR 5T9:21 TO 5T10:6).