ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] See subsection C, supra.  However, if the state intends to move for an extended term, resentencing on [...] would likely have to wait for the outcome of the charges contained in [...].  Unless and until the charges in [...] are resolved, resentencing on defendant’s jury conviction for armed robbery under [...] would either be for a regular term or, by necessity, resentencing would have to remain in limbo until [...] is resolved.  Furthermore, if and when defendant is subjected to an extended term as a persistent offender on [...], the court would be precluded from imposing the extended term on the kidnapping conviction as it previously rejected imposing the extended term on that conviction.\footnote{At the time of sentencing, the State had requested that an extended term of life be imposed on defendant’s kidnapping conviction pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7a(1) and 2C:44-1.
[brief] Table of Contents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv  Table of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Table of Orders, Judgments and Rulings Being Appealed From . . . . . . . . . xi Procedural History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1  Concise Statement of Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 A. Appellants Were Not Serial Non Payers Real Property Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 B. The Real Property Tax Delinquency and the December 2021 Tax Sale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 C. Appellants’ Contemporaneous Efforts to Obtain a Variance and Renovate the Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 D. [...]’s Foreclosure Action – The Decision to Not Wait Two years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 E. The Faulty [...] Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 F. Appellants Neglect of the Foreclosure Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 G. The Forfeiture of Equity in the Property is Severe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 H. Appellants’ Motion to Vacate the Final Judgment and the Disposition Thereof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 I. [...]’s Motion to Compel Discovery and the Sua Sponte Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 J. Addressing the Bona Fide Purchaser for Value Without Notice Argument in the Reconsideration Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 K. The Raising of Tyler in the Reconsideration Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Statement of Issues on Appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[brief] [4T 205:1-7].  Nor could he recall observing any grout on [...].  [4T 204:3-9; 5T 12:6-9].  D.  [...] admitted [...]’s conduct was not aggressive.  [...] admitted that during the initial verbal encounter between [...] and [...], [...] asked to be left alone and walked away.  [5T8:18-9:9].  [...] admitted that he did not perceive [...]’s conduct as being aggressive; instead he viewed the situation as funny.  [5T 9:7-23].  He then confirmed [...] left and walked away into the adjacent aisle, at which point [...] lost sight of both [...] and [...] momentarily.  [5T 9:24-10:14].  E.
[brief] The distinction between disputes about whether an insurer must pay a benefit claim and about whether a provider unlawfully obtained benefits is also consistent with the context of the scheme established in AICRA and its implementing regulations.  See In re H.D., 241 N.J. 412, 418-19 (2020) (“[W]e interpret statutes in context with related provisions, since the context is [often] determinative of the meaning. ” (second alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).  AICRA dispute resolution is the last step in a statutory and regulatory process to determine whether PIP benefits are payable for clinical services.
[brief] In addition to [...], Defendants also paid [...], who retired from the [...] on April 1, 2016, a retiree sick time payout of $76,095.13 on November 2, 2018.  (883a-884a, Rogs., #33, #34 & #35).  Further, [...], who retired from the [...] on April 1, 2016, received a retiree sick time payout of $98,451.86 on November 2, 2018.
[brief] TABLE OF CONTENTS .........................................................  i, ii.  TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................. iii, iv  PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..............................................  1  PROCEDURAL HISTORY ...................................................  2 FACTS .............................................................................  2 LEGAL ARGUMENT ..........................................................  2  POINT  A.  Defendants [...] and [...] Did Not Personally Guarantee the Obligations of [...]  Under the February 20, 2015 Lease ...........................................  2  1.  The Month to Month Lease Drafted by [...] is Ambiguous as to Whether It Created a Personal Guaranty by [...], [...] and [...] and, Therefore, the Strict Rules of Construction Against the Finding of A Guaranty Apply ...........................................  3  2.  [...] Has Misapplied the Language Included in Ctr. 48 Ltd. P’ship v. May Dept. Stores Co. which States that “the terms of a guarantee agreement must be read in light of commercial realty and in accordance with the reasonable expectations’ of the parties. ”  . . .6  3.  [...] And the Trial Court Have Ignored Important Principles Relied Upon in City of Millville v. Rock ...........................................  8  4.  Cases Cited By [...] and [...] Fully Support a Finding That There Has Been No Personal Guaranty ...........................................  9  5.  Cases Cited by [...] Fail to Support a Finding that There Has Been A Personal Guaranty ...........................................  13  POINT B.  Even if Zane [...] and Fred [...] Did Personally Guarantee the Obligations of [...] Under the February 20, 2015 Lease, And Even if Such Guaranty Was Not Terminated With the Termination of the Lease in 2016, Such Guaranty Was Revoked Before Plaintiff and [...] Entered into A Consent Judgment For Payment of Amounts Due.  ..................................  15  CONCLUSION
[brief] *Stelluti v. Casapenn Enters., LLC*, 203 N.J. 286, 303 (2010); see also *Schwartz v. Dall. Cowboys Football Club, Ltd.*, 157 F. Supp. 2d 561, 578 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (rejecting antitrust settlement on fairness grounds where the proposed release “was too broad because it bars later claims based on future conduct”) (internal citations omitted).  “The scope of a release is determined by the intention of the parties as expressed in the terms of the particular instrument, considered in the light of all the facts and circumstances. ”
[brief] ∞  [...], Esq. told the Court that [...] was given all four Chinese Agreements during his closing argument, knowing that this was not true.  (See Da130 and Da411–412.)  [...], Esq. intentionally and willfully committed the fraud upon the court by making this misstatement, even after he was told by his co-counsel, [...], Esq. in an email that only the third Chinese Agreement had been shown to [...].  (Da340 and Da128.)  [...], Esq. was also told by his client [...] and opposing party [...] that only the third Chinese Agreement had been shown to [...].
[brief] B.  The Tenant Protection Act of 1992  In 1992, the legislature passed the Tenant Protection Act, declaring that “it is in the public interest to establish a tenant protection program specifically designed to provide protection to residential tenants, particularly the aged and disabled and those of low and moderate income, from eviction resulting from condominium or cooperative conversion. ”  *N.J.S.A.* 2A:18-61.41.  To accomplish this goal, the TPA provides that pre-conversion low-income tenants, senior citizens, and disabled persons can apply for protected tenant status, which prevents them from being evicted without cause for 40 years, so long as they remain qualified under the statute.  The TPA also protects low-income tenants from displacement by forbidding owners who convert their apartment buildings into condominiums from using costs incurred as a result of the conversion in hardship applications before rent leveling boards.  *N.J.S.A.* 2A:18-61-52.
[brief] However, “[s]ome measure of reliance by the court is necessary for the invited-error doctrine to come into play,” State v. Jenkins, 178 N.J. 347, 359 (2004), and the court will “not automatically apply the doctrine if it were to ‘cause a fundamental miscarriage of justice. ’  ”M.C. III, supra, 201 N.J. at 342 (quoting Brett v. Great Am. Recreation, 144 N.J. 479, 508 (1996)).  Here, the failure to object to the admission of the AFIS materials into evidence constitutes invited error.
[brief] Db2  I.  DEFENDANT’S APPEAL FROM FINAL ORDER OF SUMMARY  JUDGMENT IS TIMELY (Not raised below)  Db2  II.  DEFENDANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS (Not raised below)  Db4  III.  GRANT OF SUMMARY  JUDGMENT DENIED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS  BECAUSE OF INSUFFICIENCY OF PROCESS AND INSUFFICIENCY OF SERVICE OF PROCESS
[brief] Id.  [...] defined “public injunctive relief” in its Membership Agreement as follows at paragraph 7.4 (Ja37) of the arbitration provision “…as injunctive relief that has the primary purpose and effect of prohibiting alleged unlawful acts that threaten future injury to the general public. ” (emphasis added).  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s damages in her Class Action Complaint against [...] seeking “injunctive relief” (Ja26) is the type of “public injunctive relief” excluded by [...] through its own Membership Agreement.  DiCarlo, 988 F.3d. at 1152; McGill, 2 Cal. 5th 945; Kilgore, 718 F. 3d. at 1060; Beture, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 121801, *28-29 (Ja59); Broughton, 988 P.2d at 76  This is because Plaintiff is seeking to enjoin [...] from using the same form New Jersey health club contract (which violates New Jersey’s CFA, HCSA, RISA and TCCWNA) to enroll future New Jersey customers that seek to join an [...] health club.  This fits squarely within the definition of “public injunctive relief” (Ja37) set forth in [...]’s Membership Agreement; and therefore, Plaintiff’s claims are specifically excluded from arbitration.
[directive] Automated designated  A person, any concerning query deconfliction a made has another agency when agency an interested previously has agency interested the which about or premises vehicle, entity, business group, automated this Notwithstanding interest.  investigative an suggesting information provided agency the of responsibility affirmative the shall be conflict it alert, of a event the in notification, the resolve to how determine best to agency interested other the to reach out to query the making query deconfliction a that event the In Directive.
[brief] Even if some nominal impacts are as to noise and aesthetics, [...] will mitigate those impacts, including the installation of a sound wall and the addition of a berm, guardrail, retaining wall to the already robust Landscape Plan, as well as lowering the facility behind those screened devices.  As [...] has demonstrated, over the course of the past 11 months, this station will be concealed from public view, the neighboring property owners will not be able to hear it.  There will be no odors, practically no traffic regard, there is no evidence, in the record, that demonstrates any substantial negative impact that would exceed the public benefits afforded to almost every single [...] resident on this application.  To put it more simply, the number of [...] residents estimated the benefit from the heat provided by this facility are more than 16,500, many of which are the elderly or small children, who are the most susceptible to serious injuries, in the event they are left without heat.  Even if we are only talking about one elderly person or one small child, can any of you say, there is any evidence of even one negative impact that would be with the risk of putting that one elderly person or that one small child in harm's way?  Now, multiply that risk by 16,500 people and ask yourself that same question.  Based upon all of the undisputed expert and professional testimony that you've heard, [...] submits that it has not just met, but has exceeded all of these legal requirements to earn approval of this application by the Board and we respectfully request your approval of this application this evening.
[brief] THIS COURT SHOULD AFFIRM THE TRIAL COURT’S ORDERS DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S CONSUMER FRAUD ACT CLAIMS AGAINST INSURANCE PRODUCERS.  Appellate review of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e) is de novo.  See Mac Prop. Grp. LLC & The Cake Boutique LLC v. Selective Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 473 N.J. Super. 1, 16 (App. Div. 2022), cert. denied sub nom.
[brief] The defense never requested additional discovery in the period allotted by the Trial Court which Plaintiffs did not provide.  As per this issue, the Trial Court’s September 8, 2023 Order provided only for thirty (30) days of “limited discovery” as to the arbitration agreement only (Da027-028).  Moreover, the defense cannot argue that any information was withheld from them, as the information about [...]’s literacy issues is public knowledge and available on the Internet at the [...] website.\textsuperscript{3}  [...] experienced significant difficulties with literacy.  This fact is highly relevant as to whether [...] would have been able to understand the arbitration agreement in the context of a physician who was unable to explain its contents.  \textbf{CONCLUSION}
[brief] (10T26-8 to 27-24, 33-12 to 16, However, in [...]’s statement the day of the shooting, she said was in the kitchen and did not look out the kitchen window until hearing the shot.  She never mentioned seeing the suspect walk across the highway before the shooting.  [...] also told police that the others in the apartment were ducking while she looked out of the window.  After being confronted by her statement, [...] admitted she did not remember which room she had been in and did not see the shooter until after the gunshot.
[brief] In ruling on the motion, the trial court was abundantly clear that the conclusions of the [...] (“[...]”) allegedly contained in those documents could not be used unless “a proper foundation for admission” was provided.  12T55:14-18.  “So that will be in so long as a proper foundation is laid * * *.  The proper foundation actually has to be laid. ”  12T56:3-6.  There was no finding that defendant could use the hearsay, standing alone, for rebuttal purposes.  That defendant was required to bring in a [...] witness to lay the proper foundation cannot seriously be disputed.  The trial court expressly excluded defendant’s experts from testifying to the conclusions reached by the [...] and [...].
[brief] ” (Aa130).  [...]’s narrow focus on the phrase “consistent with the public trust doctrine” (Ab14; Ab16), effectively ignores portions of the very sentences it purports to quote as well as provisions of the Law.  [...] references the “change in footprint” and public trust doctrine references in the Law numerous times.  (Ab8; Ab14; Ab16; Ab26-27; Ab33).  But the Law is clear that the [...] “shall require as a condition of the permit or other approval that additional public access to the tidal waters and adjacent shorelines be provided consistent with the public trust doctrine .  . . .”  N.J.S.A. 13:1D-153(a).  That language forms the heart of this dispute and is necessary to understand the legislative intent as to [...]’s permitting requirements.  Further, since the public trust doctrine pre-existed the Law, the Legislature necessarily included the doctrine as a starting point within the broader command that [...] ensure that any permit it issues is “consistent with the public trust doctrine” and then require “additional public access to the tidal waters and adjacent shorelines consistent with the public trust doctrine” when a structure’s footprint expands.
[brief] Exhibit B, [...] Cardholder Agreement  Da43  Exhibit C, CARD ACT REPORT  Da48  Exhibit D, Account Statement, 12/27/16 to 1/26/17  Da55  Exhibit E, Account Statement, 3/27/17 to 4/26/17  Da57  Exhibit F, Account Statement, 6/27/17 to 7/26/17  Da59  Exhibit G, Account Statement, 1/27/18 to 2/26/18  Da61  Exhibit H, Account Statement, 3/27/18 to 4/26/18  Da63  Exhibit I, Account Statement, 6/27/18 to 7/26/18  Da65  Exhibit J, Account Statement, 9/27/18 to 10/26/18  Da67  Exhibit K, Account Statement, 4/27/17 to 5/11/17  Da69  Exhibit L, Account Statement, 8/27/17 to 9/26/17  Da71  Exhibit M, Account Statement, 4/27/18 to 5/26/18  Da73  Exhibit N, Account Statement, 5/27/18 to 6/26/18  Da75  Exhibit O, Account Statement, 7/27/18 to 8/26/18  Da77  Exhibit P, Account Statement, 8/27/18 to 9/26/18  Da79  Exhibit Q, Account Statement, 1/27/17 to 2/26/17  Da81  Exhibit R, Account Statement, 2/27/17 to 3/26/17  Da83  Exhibit S, Account Statement, 5/27/17 to 6/26/17  Da85 Exhibit T, Account Statement, 7/27/17 to 8/26/17  Da87  Exhibit U, Account Statement, 9/27/17 to 10/26/17  Da89  Exhibit V, Account Statement, 10/27/17 to 11/26/17  Da91  Exhibit W, Account Statement, 11/27/17 to 12/26/17  Da93  Exhibit X, Account Statement, 12/27/17 to 1/26/18  Da95  Exhibit Y, Account Statement, 2/27/18 to 3/26/18  Da97  Exhibit Z, Account Statement, 10/27/16 to 11/26/16  Da99  Exhibit AA, Account Statement, 11/27/16 to 12/26/16  Da101  Exhibit BB, Account Statement, 4/27/17 to 3/11/17
[brief] In addition, the Court significantly downplayed the fact that [...] asked his mother for help.  The Court stated:  [Y]es, the defendant’s mother tried to protect her son.  What’s wrong with that?  That she tried to protect him from himself.  She wanted to try to help him and not lose him.  What mother is wrong for wanting to do that?  But this defendant decided the way he’s going to handle that is going to put a few bullets into her face and chest.  [17T:179-13 to 20].  First, this analysis implies that it would be completely reasonable for a mother whose son is telling her that he has homicidal thoughts and wanted help, to do nothing.  Second, it completely ignores the testimony of [...].  [...] testified that [...] told his mother that he was having bad thoughts and wanted to see a shrink.  (7T:241-8 to 14).  Furthermore, [...] testified that [...] wanted to be on medication which his mother also forbade.  (7T:242-3 to 15).  Likewise, [...] indicated that [...] told his mother that he didn’t want to hurt anyone and wanted the bad thoughts to stop.  (7T:248-24 to 249-2).  However, the Court ignored these facts and put all of the blame on the mentally ill sixteen-year-old boy.  (17T:179-13 to 20).
[brief] Certainly, it was not part of the “record” for which [...] agreed to conditionally plea to.  This assertion, if accepted by this Court, would mean that the factual findings made by a municipal court are not necessary for a superior court to engage in a de novo review.  There is no other logical conclusion that can be made from the State’s assertion.  But that assertion has no legs to stand on either in the case law or relevant court rules.  If the [...] did not believe that the conditional guilty plea was in the interest of justice because there was an inaccurate or incomplete factual basis, (there was not) it had the legal discretion to withdraw that plea itself.  But it did not.  [...] in no way forced the Superior Court not to withdraw his plea.  He only exercised his legal right to appeal based on that plea.  The State also wrongly claims that [...]’s reference to the back of the ticket in his municipal appeal to the Superior Court somehow waives his right to stand by the factual basis for his conditional guilty plea.  While the back of the ticket did mention the alternative marker for measuring the distance between [...] and the residence, that was not the reason why he referred to the back of the ticket.  His reason why he referred to the back of the ticket matters.
[directive] defendant indicating the probability of a guilty verdict weight of the evidence at trial would relevant to example, the be incentive to flee to avoid an expected guilty verdict.  The strength of defendant's the State's case establish the if relevant at all, to whether defendant danger relevant, poses a to the community, especially generally would be less detain defendant preventively needed to a is probable cause to or she considering that all that is believe that he 2A:162-19(e)(2).
[brief] **The Collection Action**  Prior to Appellant’s participation in the class settlement, on or about January 3, 2017, [...] filed a Complaint (“Collection Complaint”) in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division, Special Civil Part, Bergen County (“Collection Court”), styled as *[...] v. [...]*, Case No. [...], to collect on Appellant’s debt in connection with the Account (“Collection Action”).  (Pa20-Pa24, ¶ 6; Pa34-Pa37; Pa59-Pa60; Pa1-Pa18, ¶ 37).  Appellant failed to appear in the Collection Action, and [...] filed a request for a judgment on April 19, 2020.  (Pa20-Pa24, ¶ 7; Pa38-Pa56).  In response, on April 20, 2017, the Collection Court entered a final judgment in favor of [...] for $703.29, effective April 19, 2017 (“Judgment”).  (Pa20-Pa24, ¶8; Pa57-58).
[brief] Often, they treat two sides of the same coin.  If the municipal council decides it can afford only three road workers, the department head may have to decide whether to have them fix potholes or repaint faded lines on the roads, because there is not time for both.  These two provisions recognizing and protecting government’s dilemma are intended to operate in its favor, and not to enhance an injured person’s case that arises from imperfect governmental choice.  [Id. at 164 (citations omitted) (emphasis supplied). ]  In *Lopez*, the Appellate Division held that where a plaintiff contends a public entity’s property amounts to a dangerous condition under the Act and where the public entity defends on the basis of discretionary immunity as to the allocation of limited resources, the “plaintiff retains the burden of proving that defendant’s conduct was palpably unreasonable, not only on the general issue of its conduct in protecting against the dangerous condition, but also on the perhaps narrower issue of the reasonableness of the resource allocation determination.
[brief] In addition to bald eagles, savanna sparrows, a state threatened species, were also observed on site in late May 2022 as well as the adjacent lands, in post-breeding season in August 2022.  (Aa2604).  Great Blue Herons, a New Jersey species of special concern, are also nesting in the immediately adjacent property and have been observed foraging in the pond and utilizing the site.  (Aa2610).  As further explained by [...], the site contains landscape-scale matrix of farmland that can support nesting grassland birds, especially savanna sparrows.
[directive] The case criminal electronically-stored certain and violence) whether involves it (e.g., offense present in adult if the any, involvement, previous defendant's the documents that data history and court (PSA)  Safety Assessment Public a produces process automated  This system.  justice criminal six- a scale, "failure-to-appear" (FTA) six-point a indicators: risk pretrial three that provides (NVCA) criminal activity" violent "new a and scale, (NCA) activity" criminal "new point the address to defendants monitor released will program services pretrial