ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] These remedies were not in any respect “repugnant” or “inconsistent,” so as to invoke the doctrine of \(^3\)  Here, as discussed supra, Plaintiff never expressly terminated the contract.  However, even if Plaintiff had terminated, this would not change the result, given the “in addition to its termination right” language in Section 13.1. election of remedies.  See Adams, 121 N.J.L. at 395.  Accordingly, the trial court erred in holding that Plaintiff waived its right to seek performance by demanding a return of the Earnest Money Deposit.  (Pa357; 2T, at 13-16; 3T, at 15-16).  POINT IV
[brief] ”  See Garmeaux v. DNV Concepts, Inc., 448 N.J. Super. 148, 155 (App. Div. 2016) (quoting Rendine, 141 N.J. at 317).  An award will be set aside “if the discretionary act was not premised upon consideration of all relevant factors, was based upon consideration of irrelevant or inappropriate factors, or amounts to a clear error in judgment. ”  Masone v. Levine, 382 N.J. Super. 181, 193 (App. Div. 2005)).  However, in order to perform its judicial function, this Court “must be provided with adequate reasons for the trial judge's determinations. ”  *Gormley v. Gormley*, 462 N.J. Super. 433, 449 (App. Div. 2019).  “Trial judges are under a duty to make findings of fact and to state reasons in support of their conclusions. ”  *Romero v. Gold Star Distrib., LLC*, 468 N.J. Super. 274, 304 (App. Div. 2021) (quoting *Giarusso v. Giarusso*, 455 N.J. Super. 42, 53 (App. Div. 2018)); see also R. 1:7-4(a) (requiring courts to “find the facts and state . . . conclusions of law thereon,” either orally or in writing, “on every motion decided by a written order that is appealable as of right”).
[directive] [...] will support the [...]’s efforts in reducing violence across the State.  It will strengthen trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve by incorporating a restorative and healing approach to public safety.  It will advance a unified strategy by bringing together victim-related and violence intervention and prevention services that are currently dispersed throughout the [...].  [...] will be the [...]’s lead entity in developing a community-based approach to public safety.  This centralized organizational home will cement a public health approach to public safety, and put this work on par with that of other divisions in [...], including the [...].
[brief] In the interim, on December 31, 2020, Mayor [...] in his end of the year message posted to YouTube announced that the Township would not be “surrendering to the tax ratable chase. ” (Pa24).  He explained that the Township’s elected leaders were careful “to balance what is good for the town and what can be an increase in revenue. ” (Pa24).  [...] then clarified, “for example, if we wanted to just completely sell out for tax ratables we’d be building warehouses all over the place like you see in Logan. ”  (Pa24)  [Emphasis supplied].  He continued and added “we have been resistant to that because we have a different sense of community here and what we want the makeup of our town to be. ” (Pa25).  Despite the numerous unambiguous statements in [...]’s planning guidance documents and from [...] concerning the preservation of [...]’s community character, the Township’s elected officials opted to legislate in a contrary direction.
[brief] In contrast, to succeed on *Brady* claim, a defendant need only prove that there was a “[s]ubstantial denial in the conviction proceedings of [his] rights under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution or laws of the state of New Jersey. ”  Here, [...]’s constitutional rights were violated when the State failed to produce [...]’ Sworn Statement despite its obligations to do so pursuant to *Brady*, Jencks (as memorialized in the New Jersey Rules of Court), and *Giglio*.  Accordingly, [...] is entitled to a new trial.
[brief] N.J.S.A. 17:28-2; Cruz-Mendez, 156 N.J. at 565; 313 Jefferson Tr., LLC v. Mercer Ins. Cos., 2018 WL 316972 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Jan. 8, 2018) (holding that a non-party to an insurance policy only had standing to bring a direct action against an insurer after a final judgment had been entered against the insured); Ferguson v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2014 WL 3798524, at *3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Aug. 4, 2014); Maertin v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 241 F. Supp. 2d 434 (D.N.J. 2002); Caldwell Trucking PRP Grp. v. Spaulding Composites, Co., 890 F. Supp. 1247, 1253 (D.N.J. 1995); Kabinski v. Employers’ Liab. Assur. Corp., 123 N.J.L. 377 (1939) (requiring an unsatisfied judgment against the insured); Univ. Indem. Ins. Co. v. Caltagirone, 119 N.J. Eq. 491 (1936) (stating that it is “quite apparent that the condition precedent to a legal action” against the insurer “is the return unsatisfied of an execution against the insured”).  In a recent decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court reaffirmed that a third-party claimant, such as [...], “has no claim under the statute absent proof ‘that the assured was insolvent or bankrupt, or that an execution was returned unsatisfied because of the insolvency or bankruptcy of the assured. ’”  Crystal Point, 251 N.J. at 451 (quoting Saxon v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 107 N.J.L. 266, 268 (E. & A. 1931)).  Thus, to maintain an action against an insurer under the Direct Action Statute, a claimant must present “prima facie evidence of the insolvency of the insured in the context of an unsatisfied judgment, such as by returning unsatisfied writs of execution.
[brief] (7T93-1 to 20, 99-9 to 11).  [...] observed what appeared to be blood throughout the foyer and a bat.  (7T100- 22 to 25, 107-8 to 9).  The bat was recovered and tested for fingerprints, but none were obtainable, which was common in his experience.  (7T108-7 to 22).  [...], at the time employed by the [...],\(^2\) oversaw the investigation.
[brief] If the owner is to be fully indemnified, actual rents must be considered.  The analogy to valuation for local property taxes is misplaced. ”  Id. at 487.  [...] have not articulated any reasonable basis why the factfinder, standing in the shoes of a potential buyer, would pay market rent for the [...] space when the known conditions as of January 27, 1994 lock the buyer into a 25-year lease.  Any reliance on “appraisal standards” from the treatise the Appraisal of Real Estate is also misplaced, as the 15th Edition of the treatise takes care to distinguish between an appraisal definition of fee simple and the legal definition of fee simple:
[brief] (Penalty is $30 if offense occurred between January 9, 1986 and December 22, 1991 inclusive.  $25 if offense occurred before January 1, 1986.)  [Yes]  [No]  d.  If the offense occurred on or after February 1, 1993 but was before March 13, 1995, and you are being sentenced to probation or a State correctional facility, you must pay a transaction fee of up to $1.00 for each occasion when a payment or installment payment is made?  If the offense occurred on or after March 13, 1995 and the sentence is to probation, or the sentence otherwise requires payments of financial obligations to the probation division, you must pay a transaction fee of up to $2.00 for each occasion when a payment or installment payment is made?  [Yes]  [No]  e.  If the offense occurred on or after August 2, 1993 you must pay a $75 Safe Neighborhood Services Fund assessment for each conviction?  [Yes]  [No]  f.  If the offense occurred on or after January 5, 1994 and you are being sentenced to probation, you must pay a fee of up to $25 per month for the term of probation?  [Yes]  [No] g.
[brief] The Supreme Court’s Recent Decision in *Boyle v. Huff* Establishes the Correctness of the Trial Court’s Decision Denying [...] Fees  Contrary to [...]’s arguments, the indemnification and hold harmless language in Section 17.1(b) simply has no application in present context, where the parties to the PSA have sued one another for an alleged breach of the contract and related common law duties.  In common parlance, the concept of “indemnification” generally refers to an undertaking by one party (the indemnifying party) to compensate the other party (the indemnified party) for certain costs and expenses, typically stemming from third-party claims.  More to the point, in keeping with the “American Rule” that applies to attorneys’ fees applications in New Jersey and many other states, indemnity provisions such as those involved here are generally held not to allow a party to a contract to recover its fees from another party to that same contract, in a first-party dispute between them; instead, these provisions are generally construed to apply only to indemnity against claims brought by third-parties, unless the language of the provision is unambiguous in expressly referencing first-party claims.
[brief] Legal decisions of family part judges are reviewed under the same de novo standard applicable to legal decisions in other cases.  *Rowe v. Bell & Gossett Co.*, 239 N.J. 531, 552 (2019); *Amzler v. Amzler*, 463 N.J. Super. 187, 197 (App. Div. 2020); *Reese v. Weis*, 430 N.J. Super. 552, 568 (App. Div. 2013).  Appellate courts defer to the trial court's findings of fact "when supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence."  *Cesare v. Cesare*, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998).  See *Gnall v. Gnall*, 222 N.J. 414, 428 (2015).  That review is altered slightly, however, in family part cases "[b]ecause of the family courts' special jurisdiction and expertise in family matters, appellate courts should accord deference to family court factfinding."  *Cesare v. Cesare*, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998).  Appellate courts "review the Family Part judge's findings in accordance with a deferential standard of review, recognizing the court's 'special jurisdiction and expertise in family matters.'"  *Thieme v. Aucoin-Thieme*, 227 N.J. 269, 282-83 (2016) (quoting *Cesare v. Cesare*, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998).  "Thus, 'findings by the trial court are binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence.'"  *Thieme v. Aucoin-Thieme*, 227 N.J. 269, 283 (2016) (quoting *Cesare v. Cesare*, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998).  "We invest the family court with broad discretion because of its specialized knowledge and experience in matters involving parental relationships and the best interests of children."  *N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. F.M.*, 211 *N.J.* 420, 427 (2012).  The appellate court accords "great deference to discretionary decisions of Family Part judges."  *Milne v. Goldenberg*, 428 *N.J. Super.* 184, 197 (App. Div. 2012).  Appellate courts will defer to the trial court's factual findings because the trial court has the “opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have the ‘feel’ of the case, which a reviewing court cannot enjoy. ”  Appellate courts owe deference to the trial court's credibility determinations as well because it has “a better perspective than a reviewing court in evaluating the veracity of a witness. ”  See *C.R. v. M.T.*, 248 *N.J.* 428, 440 (2021).  “Deference is especially appropriate ‘when the evidence is largely testimonial and involves questions of credibility.  *In re Return of Weapons to J.W.D.*, 149 N.J. 108, 117 (1997)).  A judge's fact-finding is “binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence. ”  *Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Invs. Ins. Co. of Am.*, 65 *N.J.* 474, 484 (1974).
[directive] The Division of Criminal Justice, as part of the Department of Law and Public Safety, under the authority of the Attorney General, has the broad responsibility of overseeing the criminal justice process and the law enforcement function.  This is accomplished through interaction with various levels of government in order to secure the benefits of a uniform and efficient enforcement of the criminal law and administration of criminal justice.  Page 11 of 16  Located within DCJ is the Prosecutors Supervision and Training Bureau, which assists in the coordination of anti-bias and bias incident training.  The Attorney General’s Continuing Law Enforcement Affirmative Relations (CLEAR) Institute is a part of the Prosecutors Supervision and Training Bureau.  Also within DCJ is the Bias Crimes Unit.  The Bias Crimes Unit receives and reviews all notifications of bias incidents from local law enforcement agencies, county prosecutors’ offices, and the NJSP.  In certain cases, the Bias Crimes Unit may participate in the investigation or prosecution of a bias incident.  Tips from the public to the Attorney General’s Bias Crimes Hotline or Bias Crimes Website are also reviewed by the Bias Crimes Unit.  Those tips are retained for investigation by the Bias Crimes Unit or referred to a local law enforcement agency for investigation, as appropriate.  The
[brief] (T1:6-14 to 6-17).  The foregoing transcript reference raises several questions:  1.  How did Defendant’s alleged A.I.R. find its way into the Municipal Court’s file?  2.  Why were not the Calculation Worksheet(s) set forth during the Defendant’s plea proceeding?  3.  Since Defendant never requested and/or reviewed discovery, how would he ever know if the State’s Alcotest foundational documents, which are required in State v. Chun, 154 N.J. 54 (2008), were provided?  4.  Why was Defendant never asked to waive any defenses to his alleged .17 B.A.C.?  5.  How could uncounseled Defendant ever waive his defenses to his purported .17 B.A.C. without requesting and/or reviewing his discovery?  6.  Since this was a State Police case, did anyone ever request and/or view Defendant’s Mobile Video Recorder (MVR)?  In summary, no quasi-criminal defendant can make a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent of their Right to Counsel in a New Jersey alcohol theory DWI case without having first requested and/or reviewed discovery.
[brief] Respondent cites cases, such as IE’s LLC v. Simmons, 392 N.J.Super. 520 (L. Div. 2007) and BV001 REO Blocker v. 53 West Somerset Street, LLC, 467 N.J.Super. 117 (App.Div. 2021), neither of which have any relation to this case.  Each of those cases dealt with a complete lack of notice to owners, justifying vacating the foreclosure judgments on due process grounds.  But this is not a situation where [...] did not know of the foreclosure, proceeding or the final judgment; casting itself as an innocent waif is stunningly disingenuous.
[brief] Exhibit DB-8  Chain of title for East Amwell Block 27, Lot 45………..Da770  Certification of [...], filed 1/19/23………………………………Da789  Baxter response to [...]’s counterstatement of material facts, filed 1/19/23……………………………………………………………………Da792  Certification of [...], filed 2/10/23………………………………Da796  Exhibit A: Notice from [...]…………………………Da800
[brief] 3T60, 3-6.  [...], a 20-year volunteer and former officer with [...], testified that Koda was a “sweet dog” who behaved well with people and other animals.  4T10:7-11.  She noted that Koda “doesn't just respond to his owners with his training.  He listens to me very well.  So, his, you know, his commands aren't specific to a person, if you will. ”  4T10:7-11.  Koda walks at heel and understands many words including sit, down, stay, come, heel, fetch, back off; he knows directions such as left, right, straight, and back.  3T14:18-19.  To obtain his AKC Good Citizen Certificate, Koda passed an independent evaluation with 100% performance of ten skills.  3T69:13-23; D-11(Da56); D-12.  Da57.  Koda also has independent certification as a Therapy Dog, qualifying him to visit hospitals and nursing homes to comfort patients.  3T68:17 - 69:12.  Exhibit D-13 Da58.  When [...]’s elderly mother had hip surgery, Koda would stay by her side.  D-2, Da21.  He also guided her up and down the stairs.  3T9:16-25; 3T10:1-6.  The back yard of #17 is fully enclosed by a six-foot-high metal fence with gates at each side.  D-4 (Da28), D-7A (Da34), D-7B (Da36), D-8 (Da40), D-23 (Da80), and D-24, Da82.  After the September 12, 2023, incident, but before the trial began, [...] and [...] voluntarily reinforced the fencing and the gates to prevent unwanted intruders.  D-4 through D-8; 3T28-33.  They added a second line of fencing within their property on sections where the existing fence was owned by a neighbor.  3T31:24-3T32:6.  They also created a double-fail-safe system of two locked gates on each side of the property to enter the back yard.  Da8G, 3T32:11-19, 3T29:24-3T30:12.  D-6A  Da32.  They spent about $36,000.00 on these improvements.  3T34:23-25.  [...] described the yard as “a big fortress. ”  3T49:14.  [...] identified Exhibits D-8a through D-8h, Da34-55, photographs of the new double gates and perimeter fencing.  Da8a-8f, 3T30:13-15.  **Habit evidence and Impoundment**
[directive] This disclosure requirement does not apply when the agency responsible for sharing internal affairs files is unable to do so because the information is clearly subject to a non- disparagement or non-disclosure agreement.  Such agreements must be followed even though they inhibit the ability of law enforcement agencies to fully evaluate candidates applying for positions of public trust, and therefore have the potential to compromise public safety.  Given the public safety risks that such agreements pose, county and municipal governing entities and their counsel are strongly discouraged from entering into them.
[brief] At that hearing, the Board Planner inquired about the reasons why the building exceeded the 35-foot height limit imposed by the ordinance.  [2T 36-17 to 37-1].  [...] explained that [...] added design elements to its plan at the suggestion of [...].  [2T 37-2 to 37-9].  However, because the Board was concerned with the proposal to exceed the 35-foot height limit to allow for those ornamental features, [...] revised the plans to comply with the 35-foot limit in the R-20A Zone.
[brief] A party to an alternative dispute resolution procedure may seek review of any award in the Superior Court.  N.J.S.A.§2A:23A-13a.  The statute provides broader grounds for vacation or modification of the award than the traditional arbitration model.  Allstate Ins. Co. v. Sabato, 38 N.J. Super. 463, 470-71 (App. Div. 2005).  In a dispute submitted pursuant to APDRA, the party seeking review may seek vacation or modification of an award when the rights of that party were prejudiced by the umpire "erroneously applying law to the issues and facts presented for alternative resolution."  N.J.S.A.§2A:23A-13c(5),-13e(4).  Once an order is entered confirming, modifying, or correcting an award, there shall be no further appeal or review of the judgment.
[brief] Criminal Action: On appeal from a final order of conviction in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County Sat Below: Hon. [...], J.S.C.  Appellant is not confined.  Honorable Judges:  Pursuant to R. 2:6-2(b) and R. 2:6-4(a), this letter in lieu of a formal brief is submitted on behalf of the State of New Jersey.  [...], Esq.
[brief] It was plaintiffs that entered into the purchase agreement and paid $600,000 plus costs or almost $700,000.  It was plaintiffs who entered into an independent land/lease with [...].  Plaintiffs became the owners of the Wholesale Market Participation Agreement dated July 11, 2011, PJM Project Queue #W1-082 ("WMPA") between [...], [...] ([...]), and [...].  [...] had sold all of its right, title and interest in and to the WMPA and the lA, and any and all other assets related to construction and operation of a solar farm on Seller's real property; and those developmental rights were purchased in perpetuity without regard to the land/lease which was separately made by the parties.  Plaintiffs paid $600,000 plus reimbursement "all of the costs and expenses incurred by Seller in bringing the Project to date, . . . ." for the solar-energy developmental rights including the WMPA.  They also came to own the Solar Energy Renewable Credits or “S-RECs” issued by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities ("BPU") pursuant to the New Jersey Solar Act, N.J.S.A. 48:3-87 Subsection (t), which is specific to brownfields.  These solar-energy developmental rights including WMPA and S-Recs are commodities capable of being traded among industry participants and competitors and are valuable as commodities and assets.  FAC ¶ 27, Pa62.  Apart from those assets purchased outright, plaintiffs entered into a land/lease and paid $200,000 rent and $100,000 security deposit to [...] Estates.  On or about September 21, 2015, plaintiff [...] tendered a total of $1,006,000.00 for [...]’s purchase of the Solar Rights ($706,000.00) and [...]’s security deposit ($100,000.00) and the annual rent from September 1, 2015, to August 30, 2016 ($200,000.00).  In September 2016, plaintiff [...] paid $200,000.00 for the annual rent under the land lease, through August 31, 2017.  These dual transactions sale-and-lease were memorialized in a September 21, 2015, Closing Statement showing plaintiffs had paid [...] Estates, LLC, a total sum of $1,006,000.00.  As shown by the Bill of Sale, the consideration was paid, and the closing of title was concluded.  Exhibit 3.  Pa167-68.  The following facts are alleged in the second amended complaint in detail.
[brief] (Pa120 - Pa149).  As permitted by N.J.S.A. 40:55D-76.b., the application was bifurcated, with [...] requesting only use variance approval (with subsumed --- “2T” shall refer to the Transcript of Prerogative Writs Oral Argument held on May 23, 2023. bulk variances), with applications for all other approvals to be submitted after the approval of the use variance.  As part of that use variance application, [...] also identified certain variances that were known would exist at the time of the development of the Property, and those variances were deemed to be subsumed within the use variance approval granted by the [...], including a variance for a lot that would be proposed as part of the later subdivision application (proposed Lot 31.03) to front on [...], the existing private road, rather than a public street as required by [...].  That use variance application was approved and memorialized by the [...] by [...] dated April 27, 2021.
[brief] The BMP Manual was developed by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, in coordination with the New Jersey Department of Agriculture, the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, the New Jersey Department of Transportation, municipal engineers, county engineers, consulting firms, contractors, and environmental organizations.  The BMP manual has been drafted to assist review agencies and the regulated community.  The methods in the BMP manual can be utilized without need for additional documentation to address the performance standards in the rule.  The Department anticipates providing guidance on additional best management practices and new information on already included practices as research and development occurs in this field.  https://www.nj.gov/dep/stormwater/bmpmanual2.htm.  In particular, Plaintiffs allege that, the use of Filterra manufactured system devices approved by the DEP, creates a “system that is not permitted to freely drain via gravity, would quickly develop anaerobic conditions and function as a source of water quality impairment rather than as a treatment device. ” (Pb7) (Aa2524).  However, the May 5, 2023, report from [...] was submitted prior to [...]’s resubmissions to the NJDEP on July 12, 2023; July 18, 2023; July 21, 2023; and August 14, 2023, in response to additional comments and requests by the NJDEP review staff, and prior to the issuance of [...]’s FHA Permit.