ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] The February 14, 2020 Order denying [...]’s motion to dismiss in lieu of answer, did not state that the denial was with prejudice.  In the absence of a denial with prejudice, [...] was/is within its rights to file the motion again at the close of discovery.  *Lombardi v. Masso*, 207 N.J. 517 (2011).  Nor was the denial of the motion to dismiss in lieu of answer subject to the time limits and/or the standard for filing a motion for reconsideration.  At bar, plaintiffs knew the factual basis for their claims immediately upon the day of the alleged slip and fall accident.  The “discovery rule” analysis plaintiffs seek to apply to support their commencement of an action against [...] after the expiration of the statute of limitations does not apply.  *Burd v. N.J. Telephone Company*, 76 N.J. 284 (1978); *Lopez v. Swyer*, 62 N.J. 267 (1973); *Fernandi v. Strully*, 35 N.J. 434 (1961).  Plaintiffs’ failure to disclose to the Court [...]’s investigative activities and issuance of investigative reports, all before the expiration of the statute of limitations to file a timely complaint as against [...], serves to completely undermine plaintiffs’ contention that they were not obligated to file a complaint until receipt of tenants’ leases.  Ultimately, plaintiffs must answer the question, why, if they argued so vociferously that they engaged in due diligence to identify the tenants in the shopping mall in issue and it was the lack of tenants’ leases which hampered their efforts, did they not tell [...] or [...] that they even retained a private investigator to undertake the investigative activities [...] performed and about which he issued reports.
[directive] Page 6 fingerprinting database), including information about the arrestee’s place of birth and country of citizenship.  7.  Inquiring about a person’s place of birth on a correctional facility intake form and making risk-based classification assignments in such facilities.  8.  Providing federal immigration authorities with information that is publicly available or readily available to the public in the method the public can obtain it.  9.  When required by exigent circumstances, providing federal immigration authorities with aid or assistance, including access to non-public information, equipment, or resources.  10.  Sending to, maintaining, or receiving from federal immigration authorities information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.
[brief] It is also interesting that Respondent finds it so improbable for a typographical error to occur.  Indeed, Respondent’s own brief makes several typographical errors.  Respondent wrote “20004” instead of “2004” on two occasions.  (Respondent’s Brief at 20, 39).  It wrote “20000” instead of “2000” on one occasion.  (Respondent’s Brief at 39).  It also wrote “2002” instead of “2000” on one occasion.  (Respondent’s Brief at 41).  Moreover, [...] stated in a report that [...]’s bike accident occurred in 2002, when in reality, it occurred in 2000.  (Pa119).  The record is filled with such errors.  What the record does not contain, however, is reference to a 2009 injury.  That is because such an injury did not occur.
[brief] *Ibid.*  The Appellate Division noted that defendant could not be retried for purposeful or knowing murder, however, *Grunow* permitted submission of passion/provocation manslaughter in the context of a retrial if the evidence supported the charge, and the State proved the elements of it beyond a reasonable doubt.  *Id.* at 251.  Here, at defendant’s retrial, the State presented much of the same evidence admitted at the first trial, but it did not present in its case-in-chief defendant’s statement to police from March 9, 2013.
[directive] Penalties 39:4-50.4a(2)(a)  39:4-50.4a(2)(a)  39:4-50.4a(2)(b)  39:4-50.4a(2)(b)  Refusal, School DWI $ $ - IDRC  Other Other Fine Fine  DWI DL DL Offense subsequent IDRC or 3rd to referral Offense  2nd IDRC to referral Offense  1st IDRC to referral  Zone  School 39:4-50.4a.b.  a in Refusal  DWI  IDRC 9 is 39 there until can Court Title Comm. Offense then Court privilege unless of of suspension, end discretion days subsequent days, years, attendance at driving 90 begins IDRC 180 to 2 days, up 39 PLUS than suspension.
[brief] ...........................................................................................................31  #  TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | Cases | Page(s) | |----------------------------------------------------------------------|---------| | **Allstate Insurance Co. v. Mun,** | | | 751 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2014) | 31 | | **Allstate N.J. Ins. Co. v. Lajara,** | | | 222 N.J. 129 (2015) | 30, 31 | | **Aponte-Correa v. Allstate Ins. Co.,** | | | 162 N.J. 318 (2000) | 22 | | **Arafa v. Health Express Corp.,** | | | 233 N.J. 147 (2020) (WHL) | 20 | | **Atalese v. U.S. Legal Servs. Grp., L.P.,** | | | 219 N.J. 430 (2014) | 19, 20 | | **Barcon Assocs v. Tri-County Asphalt Corp.,** | | | 86 N.J. 179 (N.J. 1981) | 27 | | **Castano v. Augustine,** | | | 475 N.J. Super. 71 (App. Div. 2023) | 11, 12 | | **Churm v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.,** | | | 276 N.J. Super. 631 (App. Div. 1994) | 3, 25 | | **Coal. For Quality Health Care v. New Jersey Dep’t of Banking & Ins.**| | | 348 N.J. Super. 272 (App. Div.) | 4, 5, 6 | | **Curtis v. Cellco P’ship,** | | | 413 N.J. Super. 26 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 203 N.J. 94 (2010) | 19 | | **Delvalle v. Trino,** | | | 474 N.J. Super. 124 (App. Div. 2022) | 3 | | **Flanzman v. Jenny Craig, Inc.,** | | | 244 N.J. 119 (2020) | 10 | | **Gambino v. Royal Globe Ins. Companies,** | | | 86 N.J. 100 (1981) | 12, 20, 23 | Garfinkel v. Morristown Obstetrics & Gynecology Assocs., P.A., 168 N.J. 124 (2001)
[brief] (1T).  [...] testified that while he was overseeing the investigation, his role in the case was mostly administrative and he did not assign any interviewing task to himself.  (1T:6-22 to 8-3).  He explained that defendant was initially placed in Room 5, located in the basement of the Prosecutor’s Office, to secure him until other officers returned from processing the crime scene.  (1T:10-12 to 11-7; 13-8 to 13-18).  The video and audio recording from Room 5 was played during [...]’s testimony.  (1T:13-24 to 14-9).  From the recording, defendant could be heard speaking out loud to himself about the incident and he continued to do so for over 30 minutes until [...] reentered the room.  (1T:24-14 to 32-15).  When [...] returned to the room, he informed defendant that he would be taken to Room 1, located on the first floor of the Prosecutor’s Office to be interviewed by [...].  (1T:33-5 to 33-16).  [...] testified that he did not have any conversation with defendant and nothing of significance was said as they went from Room 5 to Room 1.  (1T:33-20 to 34-10).  After the interview in Room 1, [...] escorted defendant to the booking room located right outside Room 5 to be processed, fingerprinted, and photographed.  (1T:35-5 to 35-24).  [...] did not ask defendant any questions related to the investigation of the case.  Ibid.  When defendant was advised that he was going to be taken to the hospital to be cleared for incarceration, he stated that his mother needed to know about what is going on with him.  (1T:68-8 to 69-2).  He informed that his mother lives in Maine and he knew her number by heart.  Ibid.  [...] advised that he would let defendant speak with his mother.  Ibid.  Defendant also stated that he wanted to talk to his woman to let her know that he is incarcerated.  Ibid.  After defendant returned from the hospital, [...] placed him in Room 1 pending the completion of the necessary paperwork before he was picked up by sheriff’s officers to be transported to the [...].
[brief] Plaintiffs' praise of the Board's professionals (Pb16 to Pb18) is unavailing.  Neither the letters nor the testimony address the issue of peculiar-conditions/hardship necessary for waiver relief.  At Pb18, plaintiffs cite [...]'s testimony: "If the Board doesn't feel inclined to grant that design waiver, approve the application without it and we'll adjust the plans to accommodate."  If his testimony is correct, then that proves that there is no peculiar-conditions/hardship.  It is in any event unknown whether his testimony is correct; the Applicant did not submit a subdivision plan without the waivers.  At Pb18 to Pb19 is plaintiffs' citation-free what they "clearly proved" vis-à-vis the waivers.  Plaintiffs must identify where in the record they established peculiar conditions/hardship.  They do not because they cannot.
[brief] SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY  APPELLATE DIVISION  Docket No. [...]  [...], on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. [...], and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Defendants-Respondents.  CIVIL ACTION ON APPEAL FROM THE FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW  DIVISION, PASSAIC COUNTY  Trial Court  Docket No. [...]  Sat Below: Hon. [...], J.S.C. (ret. t/a on recall)
[brief] [...] fails to articulate how the alleged facts in the indictment pertaining to real estate transactions in the City of Camden have any relation whatsoever to: (1) her former employment with Defendant [...], a State psychiatric hospital; (2) her allegations of retaliation in 2016 during her employment with [...]; and (3) her allegations of retaliation and breach of contract against [...], another State psychiatric hospital, and [...], for being denied social worker positions with them in 2020 and 2021.  (Da9-18; Da74-126).  There is no relation between the alleged real estate transactions in the City of Camden that are the subject of the indictment against [...] individually and [...]’s allegations against State psychiatric hospitals [...] and [...].  None of the Defendants, [...], [...], [...] or [...] (the departments overseeing [...] and [...]), nor any of the individually named defendants employed therein, are part of the Attorney General’s Office or factually connected to anything related to the indictment.  Neither [...] nor the attorneys handling the defense, [...] or [...], are adverse to their clients or the State as a whole.  Accordingly, as the trial court properly concluded, “there is no positional conflict” and the “outside counsel guidelines are not implicated and do not result in a disqualification because once again there is nothing in the indictment that will cause [...], [...], or [...] to advocate any positions that conflict with or are adverse to the interests of the defendants in this case.
[brief] PROCEDURAL HISTORY  Defendant [...] and codefendant [...] were charged under [...] with second-degree conspiracy to commit robbery, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1a and N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2a(1) and (2) (count one); first-degree purposeful or knowing murder, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a(1) or (2) (count two); first-degree felony murder, contrary to N.J.S.A.
[brief] Q.  Please provide an overall summary of the Facility.  A.  As explained more fully in the testimony of [...], [...]’s Director of Pressure Measure and Transmission, the Facility will support and enhance the reliability and  A.  Yes.  As noted above, the Facility will consist of a filter, heater, two regulator runs, associated piping, and a control box.  The Regulator Station’s filter, which acts as a scrubber cleaning the gas of impurities, will be approximately 7 feet long, 3 feet wide and 2 feet tall, and will be placed on a concrete pad.  The heating unit, which is manufactured by [...], is the largest piece of equipment.  It is 30 feet long and 7½ feet wide, and has three vent stacks, each of which is 10 inches in diameter and 15 feet tall.  The regulators will be connected to 6-inch and 8-inch piping primarily located 3 feet underground.  A small section of the piping will be above-ground, where the regulators are located.  The Facility will also have a control box housing communications and electrical equipment.  The Proposed Site will be covered with crushed stone and equipped with a fence with privacy slats for security purposes.  An earthen berm in front of the Facility will serve two purposes: (1) obscuring the Facility from view; and (2) protecting it from vehicular impact.  [...] will also install a New Jersey Department of Transportation ("[...]") compliant guardrail in front of the Facility (facing the roadway) and a retaining wall around three of its sides, as well as protection bollards to replace traditional fence posts.  The Facility’s perimeter will be extensively landscaped with a variety of trees and shrubs to create a buffer and obscure visibility of the Facility to the general public.  the most suitable location for the Facility that would have a minimal impact on [...] and its residents.
[brief] -  **Misappropriation #1:**  $500,000 transferred from [...]’s [...] account November 5, 2013 to the [...]’ [...]n account #0319.  (26T36:11-22).  - **Misappropriation #2:**  On various dates from 2013-2015, [...] paid himself $629,217.85 from [...] customer, [...], to [...]’s bank account.  (26T34:20 to 35:7).  --- 9  Although [...] identified about $10 million in diverted (or suspected diverted) funds, the trial court performed an exacting analysis of the evidence and determined that the proofs as to some of those diversions were insufficient to warrant relief.
[brief] If it were that simple, why would [...] even offer the Spanish version of its application?  [...] certainly would not want Spanish speaking users to jump back and forth between the [...] application and a web browser to figure out how to order a ride, as Respondents suggested [...] should have done.  Pa600; 1T18:21-25.  Having to do so would be frustrating for users and would probably deter Spanish speaking users from using the application.  That is why [...] has happily given Spanish speaking users the ability to set their application to Spanish to limit any barriers when ordering rides and generating more revenue for [...]’s pockets.  Pa431; Pa600.
[brief] (2T:51-18).  In her call to dispatch she reported that a man was “beating the hell out of that dog. ” (2T:52-11 to 12).  She further testified that the man was kicking and dragging the puppy all while the puppy was whimpering.  (2T:52-14 to 16).  [...] testified that when he arrived at the scene, he observed a male striking a dog with a closed fist twice in the head.  (2T:60-23 to 61-5).  The officer also observed the Defendant yanking on the puppy’s leash to raise its head in order to make striking the puppy easier.  (2T:61-22 to 24).  Officer ¹  The State adopts Defendant’s citation conventions.  (Db 1, n. 3).  Zangrillo further testified he observed the male begin to strike the puppy a third time but intervened before the male could do so.  (2T:62-2 to 7).  When [...] approached the male, later identified as [...] (“Defendant”), he observed that Defendant was intoxicated.  (2T:62-20 to 22).  The Officer testified that the puppy, whose name is [...], appeared to be frightened of the Defendant.  (2T:65-4).  [...] had her ears tucked back, was whimpering, shaking, and appeared to have blood on the top of her head.  (2T:65-4 to 6).  Based on the officer’s observations, the Defendant was taken into custody and [...] was taken to the police department.  (2T:65-18 to 66-1).  While [...] was at the station, officers reported she appeared shaken up, nervous, and scared.  (2T:68-19 to 20).  [...] was later turned over to a local animal shelter.  (2T: 66-1).  The Defendant was charged with animal cruelty. (2T:21-1).
[brief] No further analysis is advanced by [...] for the [...]’s consideration of why its then existing waterfront facilities were inadequate.  More importantly, there \(^6\) The same analysis applies to the Shellfish Habitat Rule at N.J.A.C. 7:7-9.2 is no analysis in the record concerning how the [...] concluded that the evidence in the record satisfied N.J.A.C. 7:7-12.5(b)1.  Moreover, pertaining specifically to the 2019 WFD permit modification, [...]’s general statement that the required need was demonstrated does not comment on, or otherwise reference, the location of the dock at issue in the modification application.  [Aa106; Aa101.]  While [...] will argue that the modification is only requesting an approved relocation of 1.7 feet to the east, [...] is still required to demonstrate need, particularly considering that it failed to do so in its 2017 permit application.  Finally, while insufficient to satisfy need, it should be noted that there is no statement within either of these applications that asserts need is satisfied by way of complying with the SAV Rule.  The [...]’s factual findings enjoy a presumption of correctness if they are “supported by substantial credible evidence” in the record as a whole.  In re Authorization for Freshwater Wetlands Gen. Permits, 372 N.J. Super. 578, 593 (App. Div. 2004).  However, in this instance, the record does not contain any support for the position that [...] had demonstrated a need for the 2017 WFD permit and 2019 WFD permit modification as required by N.J.A.C. 7:7-12.5(b)1.  As such, the [...]’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable, not based on substantial credible evidence, and should be reversed.
[brief] This Property has been contaminated for over thirty (30) years, and Plaintiff has failed to meet nearly every remediation deadline imposed upon it.  In overturning the redevelopment designation, the Trial Court erroneously found that “Plaintiff certifies it remains in compliance with the terms of the ACL (sic). ” (T3, 40:23-24).  No such certification was ever filed.  The only statement in the record regarding compliance with the Administrative Consent Order (“ACO”) is a statement in the verified Complaint that said, “Plaintiff has been compliant with the terms of the ACO from its execution through the date of this Complaint.
[brief] \(^4\)  The bottom line is that, for more than fifty --- 4.  The Department states that if “[...] (or any other reciprocal exchange)” has not made the filings required by the Holding Company Act, it merely shows it was “out of compliance with the statute. ”  See Department’s Opposition Brief, at p. 13.  This statement seems to imply that none of the reciprocal exchanges made these filings which, if true, indicates a remarkable lack of enforcement by the Department.  Conversely, if [...] was the only reciprocal exchange that failed to make these filings, presumably it would have stood out from the others and received attention from the Department.  In either years, the Department produced no guidance concerning the applicability of the Holding Company Act to reciprocal exchanges.  Then, without any notice or due process, abruptly changed the rules by issuing the Bulletin and used it as the basis for Order No. 22-13.
[brief] So, it's like you submit a paperwork, they take the paperwork, somebody responds to it, somebody -- you have to submit money to get a payout on an insurance claim.  THE COURT: Okay.  [...]:  You don't call on the phone and say somebody died.  [...]: You have it.  [...]:  Ever -- there's -- the normal things that would flow that should be like this -- (snaps fingers) -- [...] should have them like that.  He says he gave them to [...].  [...] said she gave it to them.  They didn't give it to us.  We actually got paperwork, Your Honor, telling us that it was attached.  And I wrote you a letter saying, Your Honor, what [...] [sic] said he attached it, it wasn't attached.  We have played this hide and seek game here-
[brief] 8  [...] REQUIRES WAIVERS TO BE BASED ON HARDSHIP, AND THE APPLICANT FAILED TO PROVIDE THE BOARD WITH EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY EITHER OF THE TWO WAIVERS REQUESTED; THE TRIAL COURT EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY IN ORDERING THE SUBDIVISION.  (Final Order at Ia269 to Ia270; opinion at 4T36-18 to 4T47-1)  POINT II .......................................................................................................  16  THE BOARD’S STATED REASONS FOR DENYING THE SUBDIVISION WERE ENTITLED TO DEFERENCE; IT WAS ERRONEOUS FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO REVERSE.
[brief] This conduct was in complete disregard of the [...]’s rules.  The seriousness of her demonstrated untruthfulness and her unsuitability for promotion to the high ranking position of Sheriff’s Officer Lieutenant has only been heightened since the incident occurred.  That is because in late 2019, the New Jersey Attorney General issued a directive to all law enforcement agencies addressing the significant issues surrounding law enforcement officers who have been found to be untruthful in the past.
[brief] State v. Chenique-Puey, 145 N.J. 334, 341 (1996).  Prejudice in the context of improper joinder may be assessed by determining “whether, assuming the charges were tried separately, evidence of the offenses sought to be severed would be admissible under N.J.R.E. 404(b) in the trial of the remaining charges. ”  *Sterling*, 215 N.J. at 73 (quotations omitted).  Admissibility of evidence of other crimes or prior bad acts under N.J.R.E. 404(b) requires a four-prong analysis, established in *State v. Cofield*, 127 N.J. 328, 338, 605 A.2d 230 (1992), and “the evidence of other crimes or bad acts must be relevant to prove a fact genuinely in dispute and the evidence is necessary as proof of the disputed issue.
[directive] The law enforcement agency executive is responsible for establishing standard operating procedures to incorporate the provisions of this policy as well as the unique requirements of the agency.  The existence of clearly written policy and procedures will provide standards for the appropriate use of K-9 teams and provide practical guidance for effective K-9 operations.  General areas to be covered by such policy and procedures include:  The circumstances or conditions under which K-9 teams may and may not be utilized.  The deployment and use of K-9 teams and services within and outside the local jurisdiction under various circumstances.  The role and responsibilities of the police officer handler, supervisory personnel and other officers in conjunction with K-9 teams and the use of K-9 teams.  Reporting requirements and record keeping.  The training, qualification and re-evaluation of K-9 teams, including trainee selection, instructor qualifications and training site selection.
[brief] THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY REJECTED JERSEY SHORE’S ARGUMENT THAT IT OWNED THE PROPERTY ...........................................45  A.  The Trial Court’s Determination that [...] Has No Ownership Rights in the Property was Supported by the Record and was Consistent with Law ..............................................................................46  B.  [...]’s Efforts to Identify Alleged Defects in Title and to Seek to Obtain Ownership Rights in the Property Based Upon These Defects were Against New Jersey Public Policy .............................................47  POINT III