ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] While the Defendant asserts that Probation violated the Order dated January 11, 2022, by failing to produce the full accounting by Feb. 11, 2022, the Court, through its discretion, does not find Probation violated the Order dated Jan. 11, 2022.  Rather, the Court finds that, on Feb. 11, 2022, Probation submitted all available accounting of the Defendant’s probation account and indicated to the Court that Probation had to confer with Defendant regarding payments before October 1, 2000. ”  There are a number of issues which invalidate the Court’s findings.  -  First, the microfiche records contained no records for the period 10/1/1998 to 2/1999 because payments were required to be made through Probation by the Order of 2/5/1999 (DA30), and that is why Probation has no records for that period.  However, payments were made as evidenced by [...]’s letter to the Court of 10/8/1999 (DA414) and the FJOD, item 19 (DA38) and the Order of 3/25/2002 providing a credit of $4,753 ($4,800 – tax liability of $47 = $4,753, see DA45) be provided to Defendant.
[brief] Finally, [...] argues that as a lay person, she did not understand the distinction between service time and service credit.  (Pb18).  It is unclear to what distinction [...] is referring, but a member does not earn service credit when the member is not working or making pension contributions.  (Pa94).  See also N.J.A.C. 17:2-4.12(b) (“No deductions shall be taken, nor service credit given, in any pay period . . . in which the employee’s salary is not sufficient to cover the required deductions for the PERS. ”).  Regardless, “ignorance of the law . . . is not a sufficient basis to excuse compliance with the requirements of an established rule of law. ”  Kalogeras v. 239 Broad Ave., L.L.C., 202 N.J. 349, 367 (2010) (quoting Circle Chevrolet Co. v. Giordano, Hallernan & Ciesla, 142 N.J. 280, 302-03 (1995)).  Here, [...] needed ten or more years of service credit to be eligible for group life insurance in retirement.  Any inference or contention that she was unaware that she would not earn service credit while not working and not contributing to her pension does not excuse compliance with the ten year requirement.  On the record presented, it is submitted that the Board carefully evaluated the circumstances surrounding [...]’s request for purchase of service credit following the recalculation of her retirement benefit and reasonably denied such request.  The Board’s determination should be affirmed.
[directive] If the complaint is sustained and it is determined that formal charges should be as defined in the footnote to Section 1.09, made, the law enforcement executive, will direct either internal affairs or the appropriate commanding officer to prepare, sign and serve charges upon the subject officer or employee.  The individual assigned shall prepare the formal notice of charges and hearing on the charging form.  This form will also be served upon the officer charged in accordance with N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147.  An example of a charging form is in Appendix F (Note: Civil Service jurisdictions must use forms authorized by the Civil Service Commission).  D. agency.
[brief] While Tenant did resume making its regular Monthly Payments starting in September 2020, it failed, at that time, to pay any of the back rent, late fees, interest, or other sums due under the Lease for the months of April 2020 through August 2020.  (Pa107).  Indeed, as detailed above, these arrears were not paid until November 29, 2021 when, under Court Order, Tenant finally --- 8  It is also undisputed that Tenant’s failure to timely pay rent during this period was not excused by the COVID-19 pandemic.  (1T13-7 to 1T14-6) see also Washington-Hudson Associates II, LLC v. Town Sports Int’l Holdings, Inc., A-1357-21, 2023 WL 2801523, at *4 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Apr. 6, 2023) (unpublished) (Da61, Lease at § 22.05 (force majeur clause, expressly providing that Tenant’s inability to operate its business due to acts beyond its control does not excuse its obligation to timely pay all Rent and Additional Rent when due under the Lease).  remitted the Rent Arrears to the Clerk of Court (not Landlord)\(^9\).  (Da1-2, 179-181; Db11).  Therefore, it is undeniable that Tenant was in monetary default under the Lease from April 1, 2020 until November 29, 2021 (i.e. more than twenty (20) months).  \textit{Id}.
[brief] Q: …  And there were some questions on cross about you speaking to – whether or not you ever spoke to [...].  Do you recall those?  A: Yes, I do.  Q: All right.  Now, my question for you is did you ever suspect [...] in any of these three charges?  A: No, I didn’t.  Q: And why not?  A:  [...]’s name never came up in this investigation.  He was never reported to be involved in the investigation.  And all of the information and evidence that we received indicated that he was not involved, and that his brother, [...] was.  (17T:224-3 to 224-16).  Re-cross of [...] focused solely on the investigation, or lack of investigation into [...]topher, with defense counsel asking the sergeant, “So you have two people that had motives here, but you chose to ignore [...] for whatever reason.  You didn’t interview him, you didn’t check on what car he had, you didn’t see where he was, and you just concentrated on this one person here, correct?”  (17T:225-25 to 226-4).  This question elicited the following response from the sergeant, “Yes.  There was no information received indicating that [...] was involved. ” (17T:226-4 to 226-5).  [...]’s re-cross ended with him identifying the “information received” that directed the investigation’s attention to the defendant and not his brother – the text messages sent to defendant’s mother, about which she testified and which were moved into evidence.  (17T:226-17 to 227-15).  Despite having not objected these four redirect questions at the time they were asked, defendant argues before this Court that these questions were objectionable as they “directly violated the rules set forth in Bankston and its progeny.
[brief] 6T 81:9-82:11, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2.  He also questioned the negative impact on municipal services and asked about the impact of police, ambulance and first responders versus a single-family home development.  6T 86:20-87:2.  [...] questioned the land use impacts in the following testimony:  I think this is one of the most important points probably that we need to reiterate is that, again, the almost an identical project was proposed for a rezoning at the governing body level which was ultimately, uh, not passed along to the Planning Board for further consideration.
[brief] “An essential ingredient of a fair trial is that a jury receive adequate and understandable instructions. ”  *State v. Afanador*, 151 N.J. 41, 54 (1997).  “The [trial] judge ‘should explain to the jury in an understandable fashion its function in relation to the legal issues involved. ’”  *State v. McKinney*, 223 N.J. 475, 495 (2015) (quotation omitted).  Without guidance on how to evaluate the evidence, “a jury can take a wrong turn in its deliberations. ”  *State v. Martin*, 119 N.J. 2, 15 (1990).  Where, as here, no request for the appropriate charge is in the record, the omission of that charge is reviewed for plain error.  Meeting this standard requires that that the error be clearly capable of producing an unjust result and be “sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached. ”  *R.* 2:10-2; *State v. Jordan*, 147 N.J. 409, 422 (1997) (quoting *State v. Macon*, 57 N.J. 325, 336 (1971)).  Trial courts have an independent responsibility to provide complete jury instructions, even when specific charges are not requested.  *State v. Reddish*, 181 N.J. 553, 613 (2004) (“It is the independent duty of the court to ensure that the jurors receive accurate instructions...irrespective of the particular language suggested by either party. ”).  Defendants may “justifiably assume that fundamental matters will be covered in the charge. ”  *State v. Green*, 86 N.J. 281, 288 (1981).  Therefore, inaccurate or incomplete charges on a material issue “are presumed to be reversible error. ”  *State v. Collier*, 90 N.J. 117, 122-23 (1982).  The model jury charge on third-party guilt instructs the jury that:  The defendant contends that there is evidence before you indicating that someone other than he or she may have committed the crime or crimes, and that evidence raises a reasonable doubt with respect to the defendant’s guilt…..[T]here is no requirement that this evidence proves or even raises a strong probability that someone other than the defendant committed the crime.  You must decide whether the State has proven the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not whether the other person or persons may have committed the crime(s).  [Model Jury Charge (Criminal), “Third Party Guilt Jury Charge” (approved Mar. 9, 2015).
[brief] (Db45).  The comments he cites, however, are merely a tangent in which the judge is explaining how his previous comments on defendant’s behavior in the context of the Yarbough analysis also impacted the determination of aggravating and mitigating factors.  (18T92-4 to 6).  Nowhere in either the Yarbough analysis or the Torres analysis did the judge indicate that deterrence was a reason for imposing consecutive sentences.
[directive] The following questions need to be answered only if you are pleading guilty to one of the following first or second degree crimes, on or after June 29, 2001: or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such crime, that occurred murder, aggravated manslaughter or manslaughter, vehicular homicide, aggravated assault, disarming a law enforcement officer, kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, robbery, carjacking, aggravated arson by placing another person in danger of death or serious bodily injury, burglary, theft by extortion by obtaining property of another by threatening to inflict bodily injury on, or physically confine or booby traps in manufacturing or distributing of CDS facilities or strict liability for drug restrain anyone or commit another offense, occurred on or after June 18, 2002: induced deaths; or that terrorism, or producing or possessing chemical weapons, biological occurred on or after January 13, 2008: agents or nuclear or radiological devices; or that first degree racketeering; or that occurred on or after August 14, 2013: occurred on or after November 1, 2013: child pornography; or that firearms trafficking.  1.  ¿Entiende que por su admitir su culpabilidad al delito de [Sí/Yes] [No/No]  Do you understand that because of your plea of guilty to (Relacione los delitos violentos de primer o segundo grado que están incluidos en NERA) (List First or Second Degree Violent Crime(s) to Which Applies)
[brief] H685a Attachment A: Copy of *In re [...]*, Appellate Division decided February 10, 2011, 2011WL 446046 ...  H687a Holm-151: [...] response to discovery request HOLM-[...]-NCF-164, objects to and states she has not testified previously in support of zoning application for natural gas facility (SOICR p. 12) ...  H693a Holm-152: [...] response to discovery request  HOLM-[...]-NCF-166: [...] would submit a report to a zoning matter if required by municipality and Holmdel did not require such (SOICR p. 12)  .....  H694a Holm-153: [...] response to discovery request HOLM-[...]-POT-168, stating [...] is an expert and his cv is attached to his rebuttal testimony (SOICR p. 12)  .....................................  H695a Holm-154: [...] response to discovery request HOLM-[...]-POT-169, listed his cv education and background (SOICR p. 12)  .............  H696a Holm-155: [...] response to discovery request HOLM-[...]-POT-170, listed the materials supplied to and reviewed for his testimony (SOICR p. 12)  ..................................................................  H697a Holm-156: [...] response to discovery request HOLM-[...]-POT-171, that [...] reviewed no BPU reports or orders (SOICR p. 12) ..............................................................................  H698a Holm-157: [...] response to discovery request HOLM-[...]-POT-172, referred to the response to Holm-155 about materials reviewed before his testimony to the Zoning Board (SOICR p. 12) .... H699a Holm-158: [...] response to discovery request HOLM-[...]-POT-173, that no person assisted his preparation of his testimony (SOICR p. 12) ......................................................................
[brief] In April 2021, the Board approved a facilities referendum to finance new construction, building improvements, and a school building closure, at an estimated $33 million price tag.  That same month, the Board conducted a community survey that showed that 63.3% of respondents were unsure or against the Referendum.  (Pa21)  The Board received hundreds of comments as to why voters did not support the proposal (Pa21).  Thereafter, Respondents embarked on a multimedia crusade to sway the public to approve the Referendum at the November 2, 2021 election.  For eight months, from April 2021 to November 2, 2021, they urged voters not just to vote, but to vote “yes. ”  Early on, they created a “Key Communicator” group (Pa21).  By June 2021, they had provided the Key Communicator Group with the results of the April 2021 community survey that showed strong opposition to the Referendum (Pa22).  They created three videos, scheduled community meetings, created slide presentations and mailings, posted messages on social media, and made appearances at city council meetings, not just to provide information, but to get out a pro-Referendum message (Pa22-Pa27).  Their August 2021 “Referendum Community Presentation” (Pa22) included statements such as “Planning for THEIR Future”; “How School Districts Impact a Home’s Value”; “We can’t wait any longer to address these issues [[...] repairs and [...] structural and site issues]” and “Our students and staff deserve 21st century learning spaces!”  They published a “Referendum FAQ” that included “answers” such as that “high performing schools with 21st century facilities raise property values” and “The only way that [...] can effectively pay for [addressing substandard buildings and lack of ADA-compliant accessibility] is by referendum. ”  (Pa24)  These statements were repeated in an October 9, 2021 school district newsletter.  (Pa26).  In addition, the Board produced and uploaded videos to You Tube in August, September and October 2021 that unabashedly highlighted the advantages of approving the Referendum.  (Complaint Counts 5, 6, 7, Pa24-26).  They allowed lawn signs to be used in the community that proclaimed “Vote Yes” and that displayed the school district’s Referendum url as well as two school district crests.  (Complaint, Figure 4, Pa34).  The crests and school district website strongly conveyed the impression that the board of education authorized the signs, particularly since no source is identified on the signs.  The Superintendent scheduled 24 “community information sessions” in a one-month period in September and October 2021, averaging six per week in that period.  (Complaint, Count 12, Pa31).  In addition to the Board acting in a coordinated fashion to manufacture a “yes” vote on the Referendum, individual Board members took a number of actions regarding the Referendum.
[brief] [...] AND BOROUGH COUNCIL OF THE [...]  [...], Esq. (021041988)  [...] [...] [...] (Phone) [...] (Facsimile)  [...] (Email)  Counsel for Respondents  Borough of Keansburg and Borough Council of the Borough of Keansburg Of Counsel & On the Brief: [...], Esq.  Date Submitted to Court: December 8, 2023
[brief] When confronted with this inconsistency, [...] simply stated:  Well again, all I was able to provide was a window.  Now, if my window is off by three months, four months, you know, that’s due to, you know I couldn’t recall the date at the time.  But at the time of the questioning when it was posed to me, I felt that three to four years was accurate.  (Pa887).  [...] added: “Year three, year four – six of one, half a dozen of the other here.  I mean, aren’t we mincing words? Aren’t we splitting hairs here.  I mean three and a half, three years, three and a half, four years” (Pa887-88).
[brief] DeAngelis v. Rose, 320 N.J. Super. 263, 274 (App. Div. 1999).  There needs to be considerations of fairness and public policy.  Estate of Albanese v. Lolio, 393 N.J. Super. 355, 372 (App. Div. 2007)(quoting Fitzgerald v. Linnus, 336 N.J. Super.  458, 468 (App. Div. 2001)).  [...] made that analysis in his decision.  There was no “express” attorney-client relationship between [...] and [...] since [...] never signed a fee agreement with [...].  There was no inferred relationship since [...] never testified that he thought that [...] was representing him.  [...] testified to the opposite.  In [...]’s view, [...] testified that he would never have retained [...].
[brief] 8  TABLE OF AUTHORITIES  Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 1983 (1963) ....................... passim Gov't of Virgin Islands v. Fahie, 419 F.3d 249 (3d Cir. 2005) ............  5 Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) ..................................  6 State v. Carter, 69 N.J. 420 (1976) ......................................  4 State v. D.A.B., App. Div. A-1848-22, September 19, 2023 .............  5 State v. Lozado, 257 N.J. Super. 260 (App. Div. 1992) ................... 4 State v. Nunez, 333 N.J. Super. 42 (App. Div. 2000) .................... 6 State v. Peterkin, 226 N.J. Super 25 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 114 N.J. 295 (1988) .................................................................  5 United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) ............................  6 United States v. Chapman, 524 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2008)  .............  5 United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967 (3d Cir. 1991) ...............  4 United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973) ............................  3 United States v. Thornton, 1 F.3d 149 (3d Cir. 1993) ...................  4  PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
[brief] At the time of the motion hearing, the only discovery left to be completed was expert depositions.  As noted previously, the process of scheduling all experts had been difficult for all parties.  Plaintiffs had already served the expert report of [...], he had already been deposed and the time to serve expert reports had passed.  If plaintiffs were permitted to substitute [...], this would have caused unnecessary delays, as well as expense, as previously described.  Factor eight requires an examination of the prejudice to the non-moving parties if the extension was granted to permit plaintiff to substitute [...].
[directive] Director ` M E M O R A N D U M TO: [...], Superintendent, Division of State Police  All Law Enforcement Chief Executives FROM: [...], Director  DATE: July 2, 2004  SUBJECT: New OVWI 0.08%  Per Se Offense & Revised Standard OVWI Refusal Statement  Effective Friday, July 2, 2004, Governor [...] signed Senate Bill No. 1511, Second Reprint, into law.  This bill lowered the per se blood alcohol limit for the offense of operating a vessel while intoxicated (OVWI), N.J.S.A. 12:7-46, from 0.10% to 0.08%.  It also amended the OVWI penalties for refusing to submit to chemical breath testing, N.J.S.A. 12:7-57.  This bill became effective immediately upon its adoption (S1511 [2R], §5).
[directive] Sample  Immediate Suspension Notice To: _______________________________ ___________  Date & Time: TAKE NOTICE that you are suspended from duty effective immediately for the following reason: ______  You are unfit for duty ______  You are a hazard to other persons if permitted to remain on the job ______  An immediate suspension is necessary to maintain safety, health, order or effective direction of public services; or ______  You have been formally charged with a first, second or third degree crime.  ______  You have been formally charged with a first, second, third or fourth degree crime or a disorderly persons offense while on-duty, or the act is directly related to your employment.  The facts in support of the above reason are:  ________________________________________________________________________________  __________________________________  Supervisor making suspension  I hereby acknowledge receipt of this notice.  Signature: ______________________________  Date: _____________________  Print Name: ______________________________  Appendix E
[directive] The subsection also See to records Scan Live confirmed transmits interface  The eCDR. system and fingerprint Scan Live automatically data Scan record Live complaint, a generate police when that so system eCDR the time the reduces way in interface this eCDR.  The the on fields required of the many populate will identification defendants.  of positive ensures and quality, data enhances data, enter to needed an obtaining in initial step the fingerprinting as Scan of Live importance the  Given upon agencies enforcement that law confirm to necessary is it assessment, risk pretrial objective process.
[brief] (Aa0471-Aa0475).  On April 23, 2019, Appellant filed a Third-Party Adjudicatory Hearing Request for the 2019 Permit Modification and also sought to include the 2017 WFD Permit despite the fact that the thirty (30) day time period to request an adjudicatory hearing for the 2017 WFD Permit had expired on June 18, 2017.  (Aa0349-Aa0382; Aa0456-Aa0461).  [...] opposed that request and copied Appellant’s counsel on its opposition papers.  (Aa0389-Aa0415; Aa0383a-Aa0384; JRa004-JRa011).  [...] also submitted videos to [...] showing that [...]’s dock does not hinder access or navigation.  (JRa004-JRa011 and the thumb drive submitted to the Appellate Division herewith containing the videos served on the [...] with that document).  During the course of the [...]’s review of Appellant’s April 23, 2019 hearing request, another matter related to the 2019 Permit Modification was also pending before [...] and the [...].
[brief] It is inconceivable that the [...] would cut off the [...]’s subscription to the Times because the Post competes for subscribers, stories, and reporters.  Beyond not acting like the news media, [...] is not even treated like the news media.  [...] has been subjected to enforcement action by the SEC because it violated the securities laws for failure to make disclosures about one of its valuation products, indeed, the very same one with which it contended [...]’s business competed.  Ja2163-64 (¶ 147), 2206-12.  The [...] could not be subject to an SEC enforcement action -- and forced to pay a $5 million fine -- because the SEC disapproved of the manner in which it described certain methodologies for evaluating factual material.  Such activity would be plainly antithetical to the First Amendment.  But that is precisely what happened to the very component of Bloomberg that Defendants contend is the “news media.
[brief] No Findings of Fact by the Planning Board  In connection with the issuance of its report, the planning board, like any other governmental body, must set forth basic findings of fact, supported by the evidence and supporting its determination.  See Powerhouse Arts Dist. Neighborhood Ass'n v. City Council of City of Jersey City, 413 N.J. Super. 322, 332-333 (App. Div. 2010).  See also Urban v. Manasquan Planning Bd., 124 N.J. 651, 662 (1991); In re Issuance of a Permit by Dep't of Envtl. Prot. to Ciba-Geigy Corp., 120 N.J. 164, 172, (1990) (the requirement for stating the basis for its decision is for the “salutary purpose of informing the interested parties and any reviewing tribunal of the basis on which the final decision was reached so that it may be readily determined whether the result is sufficiently and soundly grounded or derives from arbitrary, capricious or extra-legal considerations.").  A determination not predicated on findings is the essence of arbitrary and capricious action.  *In re Boardwalk Regency Casino Licensing Application*, supra, 180 N.J. Super. at 334.  Despite the recitals in the Second Planning Board Resolution, the transcript of the meeting at which the Second Planning Board Resolution was adopted, is devoid of any discussion by the Planning Board of the testimony presented, nor any findings of fact or conclusions made by the Planning Board.