ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] A Spoliation Inference Was Warranted Due to The Loss of Decedent’s Client File By [...] When He Knew of The Likelihood of Litigation (P29a to 30a).  The Court abused its discretion and overlooked other material facts that confirm the presence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the 2014 Will.  The loss by [...] of the Decedent’s client file is suspicious given that [...] knew that 2014 Will would likely be the subject of future litigation.  A spoliation inference permits the fact finder to infer that the evidence destroyed or concealed would not have been favorable to the spoliator.  Jerista v. Murray, 185 N.J. 175, 185 (2005).
[brief] The aforementioned altercation between plaintiff and [...] took place on May 13, 2017 at the [...] store on Route 9 in Morganville, New Jersey after words were exchanged between plaintiff and [...] over the use of grout.  It was undisputed that at the starting point of the encounter, [...] was on duty and was attempting to serve his employer when he approached the plaintiff to ask if he could be of assistance.  (4T191:21-193:17; 8T201:9-204:6).  According to the trial testimony of the plaintiff, after words were exchanged, [...] used a profanity, announced that he had a PhD in history and didn’t need to know about grout, and then walked away.  (7T58:23-62:20).  The plaintiff followed, asking [...] for his name.  (7T63:3-65:17).  Suddenly, according to plaintiff, [...] turned, got in the plaintiff’s face and struck him in the left temple with his right fist while holding a broomstick.  (7T67:15-70:6).  This was confirmed in the testimony of an eyewitness, [...] (“[...]”).  (4T191:21-200:16).  The plaintiff was removed from [...] on a stretcher (7T25:15-22), and had emergency spinal fusion surgery days later, followed by a second surgery in 2018.  (Pa361).  Transcripts are designated as follows:  1T... Jan. 9, 2023 2T... Jan. 10, 2023 3T... Jan. 11, 2023 4T... Jan. 12, 2023 5T... Jan. 13, 2023 6T... Jan. 17, 2023 7T... Jan. 18, 2023 8T...  Jan. 19, 2023 9T...  Jan. 23, 2023 10T...  Jan. 24, 2023 11T...  Jan. 25, 2023  Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against [...] and [...] on November 3, 2017 alleging negligence as against [...] for improper training and supervision of Mr. [...], as well as vicarious liability based upon the doctrine of respondeat superior (Pa70) for the acts of its employee, [...].
[brief] As set forth above, [...]’s signature block alone – in an email to [...], who did not object to such a signature block – is conclusive evidence that [...] held itself out to the public as an authorized arm of the [...] team and brand.  Similarly, [...]’s catalogues titled “[...] . . . by [...] Furnishings”, as well as Sumerset’s multiple websites touting [...] as a distributor, Director of Sales and/or east coast sales office for the [...] brand, also confirm the existence of a “license” pursuant to the NJFPA.  Second, regarding the “community of interest” element of the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act, a “community of interest” exists “when the terms of the agreement between the parties or the nature of the franchise business requires the licensee, in the interest of the licensed business’s success, to make a substantial investment in goods or skills that will be of minimal utility outside the franchise.
[brief] (Aa440).  Plaintiff demanded judgment in the form of equitable relief, including a judgment or order (1) removing or expelling or disassociating [...] as a member of [...]; (2) requiring all [...] assets and future income and revenue be deposited into the Superior Court Trust Fund pending final disposition of Plaintiff’s Complaint; (3) directing an accounting of all [...] operations for the last five years; (4) dissolving [...] pursuant to law and/or equity; and (5) appointing a receiver or special fiscal agent for [...] to effectuate the requested relief.  Plaintiff also demanded judgment for compensatory damages, incidental damages, punitive and/or treble damages, costs, attorney’s fees, and interest.
[directive] C.  If a law enforcement agency has conducted two random drug tests during calendar year 2020, and then conducts a test during the period, January 1, 2021 to March 31, 2021, that third test may count toward the 2021 requirement of two tests.  To summarize, law enforcement agencies must conduct a total of at least four random drug tests between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021.  D.  The requirement in Section II.F of AG Directive 2018-2 that every law enforcement agency report by December 31 to their County Prosecutor the dates of testing, total number of sworn officers employed, total number of sworn officers tested, and total number of sworn officers who test positive, shall be extended from December 31, 2020 to March 31, 2021 for calendar year 2020 only.  The reporting requirement for December 31, 2021 shall remain in place for calendar year 2021 reporting.
[brief] In the Complaint, Plaintiff fails to allege any bad motive or intention.  [...]’s alleged refusal to keep Plaintiff apprised of the Mack-Cali Transaction after Plaintiff abandoned its deal with [...] cannot rise ⁵  A copy of this unpublished opinion is included in Cross-Appellant [...]’s appendix at Oda122. to the level of bad motive required by *Wilson*.  Absent any allegations of bad motive, Plaintiff cannot sustain a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  **IV.  THE MOTION COURT CORRECTLY DISMISSED PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE**
[brief] Order with Rider | 16a -34a | | February 17, 2023  Hearing Rulings | 3T, p. 4-15 | | March 7, 2023  Order | 36a – 37a | | August 4, 2023  Hearing Rulings | 4T, p. 42-52| | September 6, 2023  Order | 41a – 42a | ### COURT HEARING TRANSCRIPTS - 1T – September 22, 2022
[brief] Affidavit of [...].......................................................Pa76 Affidavit of [...]........................................................................Pa78 Affidavit of [...].....................................................................Pa80 Affidavit of [...]....................................................................Pa82 Affidavit of [...]..........................................................................Pa84 Affidavit of [...].......................................................................Pa86 New Jersey State Police Incident Exposure Report.................................Pa88 Affidavit of [...]..................................................................Pa92 Affidavit of [...]..................................................................Pa94 Affidavit of [...]..................................................................Pa97 Affidavit of [...].......................................................................Pa99 Affidavit of [...]..................................................................Pa101 Affidavit of [...]....................................................................Pa103 Affidavit of [...].......................................................................Pa105 Affidavit of [...]....................................................................Pa107 Affidavit of [...].........................................................................Pa109 Affidavit of [...].................................................................Pa150 Affidavit of [...]........................................................................Pa152 Affidavit of [...].......................................................................Pa154 Affidavit of [...]....................................................................Pa156 Affidavit of [...].......................................................................Pa158 Affidavit of [...]....................................................................Pa160 Affidavit of [...].......................................................................Pa162
[brief] However, in pointing to this flaw in the Drosos agreement, [...] ignores that its own contains none of the prophylactic language that court pointed to in order to justify its enforcement.  Specifically, the Court found solace in the explicit contrast between direct reference to the Rules of the American Arbitration Association on the one hand, and “litigation in the Judicial Court System” on the other.  Id. (slip op., at *4).  As will be expounded upon more below, this distinction between arbitration and litigation is one of the essential factors considered by our courts.
[brief] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WHEN IT DETERMINED THAT THERE IS NOT A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER [...] HAD NOTICE OF OR CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION(Pa13-20)  Plaintiff submits that the trial Court’s rulings were erroneous in that defendant City of Passaic did not have notice of or created the dangerous condition of the shaved tree roots and were not negligent in their maintenance of subject tree.  The Court in its Order granting defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment determined that “Therefore, Defendants would not have been on constructive notice because the tree appeared to be healthy before it fell.  Additionally, Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants needed to inspect the tree after the sidewalk was repaired is unconvincing.  Any inspection that occurred would have been related to the sidewalk, not the tree, because the sidewalk is what prompted inspector [...] to issue Defendant [...] a violation notice” (Pa1-7).
[brief] A photograph is a “writing” under N.J.R.E. 801(e) and it must therefore be properly authenticated in order to be admissible as evidence.  See *State v. Hockett*, 443 N.J.Super. 605, 613 (App. Div. 2016).  A proponent of such evidence is required to make a “prima facie showing of authenticity. ”  *State v. Joseph*, 426 N.J.Super. 204, 220 (App. Div. 2012).  It is enough that the record contains “evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter is what its proponent claims. ”  N.J.R.E. 901.  To authenticate a photograph, testimony must establish that: (1) the photograph is an accurate reproduction of what it purports to represent; and (2) the reproduction is of the scene at the time of the incident in question, or, in the alternative, the scene has not changed between the time of the incident in question and the time of the taking of the photograph.
[brief] In his experience, “relatively consistently, [the post occupancy traffic count] numbers come back lower than the ITE projections.  ITE is generally considered to be conservative. ” (3T 33:25 through 36:1-3).  This trend was supported by the nearby [...] property,\(^8\) which produced lower post-development traffic counts than projected by the ITE standards.  (2T 7:2-9; 3T 35:6-22; 6T 8:10-13; 9:2-11).  The Board’s Resolution criticizes the ITE, and uses the lack of height as a data point as a means to reject [...]’s unrebutted testimony, yet no evidence supports same.
[brief] See Kolitch v. Lindedahl, 100 N.J. 485, 497 (1985).  As opposed to a discretionary act, "[a] ministerial act is one which public officials are required to perform upon a given state of facts in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal authority and without regard to their own judgment or opinion concerning the propriety or impropriety of the act to be performed."  Ritter v. Castellini, 173 N.J. Super. 509, 514-15 (Law Div. 1980).  A County has a mandatory duty "to provide medical care for those whom it is punishing by incarceration."  Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976).  The county's responsibility for the medical treatment of its inmates ends with the inmates' sentence.
[brief] An application for sanctions under this rule shall be by motion made separately from other applications and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to have violated this rule.  No such motion shall be filed unless it includes a certification that the applicant served written notice and demand pursuant to R. 1:5-2\(^3\) to the attorney or pro se party who signed or filed the paper objected to.  The certification shall have annexed a copy of that notice and demand, which shall (i) state that the paper is believed to violate the provisions of this rule, (ii) set forth the basis for that belief with specificity, (iii) include a demand that the paper be withdrawn, and (iv) give notice, except as --- \(^3\) Pursuant to R. 1:5-2, “[s]ervice upon an attorney . . . shall be made by mailing a copy to the attorney at his or her office by ordinary mail . . . .” otherwise provided herein, that an application for sanctions will be made within a reasonable time thereafter if the offending paper is not withdrawn within 28 days of service of the written demand.  If, however, the subject of the application for sanctions is a motion whose return date precedes the expiration of the 28-day period, the demand shall give the movant the option of either consenting to an adjournment of the return date or waiving the balance of the 28-day period then remaining.  A movant who does not request an adjournment of the return date as provided herein shall be deemed to have elected the waiver.  The certification shall also certify that the paper objected to has not been withdrawn or corrected within the appropriate time period provided herein following service of the written notice and demand.  Counsel for [...] satisfied each of the foregoing procedural requirements.
[brief] **CONCLUSION**  [...] has presented sufficient evidence demonstrating the existence of genuine issues of material fact precluding the Trial Court from deciding this matter summarily as there were Certifications and various documents submitted to the Court that demonstrated that the co-owners did not unanimously consent to the sale of the Subject Property to [...] for $500,000, there were issues of fact relating to whether [...] and/or [...] denied access to the Subject Property to certain prospective buyers and/or realtors.  There were also sufficient facts presented relating to the enforceability of the April 13, 2022 Consent Judgment and whether the sale to [...] for $500,000 violated the terms of that Consent Judgment.  These facts support [...]’s claims that the sale of the Subject Property was not valid and/or was not conducted in good faith.  Thus, the Trial Court erred in deciding this matter summarily and denying [...]’s motion for leave to file counterclaims.  [...], therefore, respectfully requests that the Trial Court’s decision be reversed and that this matter be remanded for further proceedings on the merits.  Dated: July 15, 2024  [...]  Attorneys for Defendant-appellant, [...] Clark
[brief] Discovery was not complete, petitioner had not provided the names of all lay witnesses, medical documentation, and other requested documentation.  (2T209-13).  Petitioner also did not produce an affidavit or testimony from anyone from the Department of Education, the Department of Health, the Teachers Union, or anyone at all in any official capacity to state that teachers are considered essential workers.  (2T62-19-24, 2T66-14-20, 2T68-15 to 2T69-8).  Petitioner also failed to produce any evidence of the dates and hours that she was actually working on school grounds for respondent when she contracted COVID-19.
[brief] a.  At paragraph 5:  I have no recollection of discussing settlement or ultimate resolution of the matter as this was a preliminary consultation and I was seeking to get general information about the matter.  It appears we exchanged emails through August 2, 2023.  The Firm was not retained.  b.  At paragraph 6:  I do not believe I discussed substantive strategies for litigation of the matter with Petitioners.  I do not believe I received any confidential information from Petitioners. \(^9\)  LEGAL ARGUMENT POINT I THE TRIAL COURT WAS CORRECT IN DISQUALIFYING MR. MUELLER AND THE LAW OFFICES OF GEOFFREY D. MUELLER, LLC
[brief] Because the proposed West Milford compressor station is located within the Highlands Preservation Area, the nearly 398,000-acre tract of the Highlands Region "subjected to stringent water and natural resource protection --- 6  In addition to the compressor building, [...] plans to construct a new 3,500-square-foot office building with potable water and a septic system, including a 1,000-gallon holding tank for waste, as well as a new 925-square-foot electrical building to house the variable frequency drive and motor control center for its compressor unit.  [...] also plans to install the following auxiliary equipment: (1) an electric motor ventilation system; (2) vent silencers; (3) gas coolers; (4) a lube oil cooler and piping; (5) filter separators; (6) an auxiliary building fitted with automation control panels; (7) an air compressor; (8) a 375-kilowatt emergency generator; (9) domestic fuel gas skid; (10) pipeline liquids storage tank; (11) building heaters; (12) mainline valve piping; and (13) suction, discharge, and vent piping.  [...] will also be building its own 69-kilovolt electrical substation on the site and constructing an electrical conduit from that electric substation to connect to an electric transmission line to be constructed by [...] along Burnt Meadow Road, which borders the site.  [...] estimates the cost of its East 300 Upgrade Project will be $246 million.  The West Milford compressor station is estimated to make up nearly $108 million of those costs.
[brief] [...]: Exactly.  Doesn’t that make a lot of sense?  [...]:  It would make sense if the applicant was asking for relief and needed to – [...]:  Well, hold on.  Hold on.  [The applicant] is asking for relief.  [The applicant is] asking for a design waiver.  You don’t have to put the stormwater management in front of the project and eliminate the street trees there.  We recommend, we understand why you’re doing that and we made a recommendation for to put some shade trees behind it, but this is a good compromise that the Board is asking you to do and justification for your design waiver request.  BOARD MEMBER:  I can’t understand why you wouldn’t do that.  [...]: Exactly.  [...]: Because it’s admitting to something that’s not required by the ordinance . . .  2T42-1 to 2T43-4.  At the end of the first public hearing, the Board engineer reminded the applicant that it should consult with the Department of Public Works as to the drainage and clarify whether the development would need a homeowner’s association regarding same, as drainage owned by individual property owners is not allowed under the new stormwater regulations.
[brief] Da219.  On October 19, 2023 Appellants’ filed their Verified Answer with Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims.  Da220-48.  On November 15, 2023, [...] submitted a new proposed Order Granting Certain Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Da252-56) and a Consent Order Appointing Mediator (Da257-58), which were both entered by Court the same day.
[brief] For the [amendment] to work, we need [Mt. Laurel Court Master] [...] and [...] to weigh-in.  We spoke to [...] about it; she’s on board, and in fact she agrees (strongly) that all of the building should have elevators, that the +10 makes sense and the 1 unit setaside also makes sense, even though it amount to a 10% set aside.  So, she endorses it.  Since she is on board, we thought it wise to ask Christine to speak to [...].  She spoke to [[...]’s] [...], he is ok with it, although initially wanted a 15% setaside, rounding up, that would mean 2 of the 10 would be AH units.  (Pa172)
[brief] (4T155-3 to 17).  [...] specified that for each video collected by the police, they "gathered an average of two hours" and would scrutinize the footage to identify any evidence related to the homicide.  (4T155-19 to 23).  She reviewed each video five "or more" times.  (5T218-17 to 25).  Irrelevant portions of the videos were kept out of the clips.  (4T156-2 to 6).  Then, she put the videos into chronological order.
[brief] The trial court also erred by relying on the holding in Morales v. Sun Constructors, Inc., 541 F.3d 218, 222 (3d Cir. 2008) (holding that a Spanish speaking employee was bound to an employment arbitration agreement in English).  Pa19.  First, the Morales decision is not binding on the state trial court.  See Mid-State Securities Corp. v. Edwards, 309 N.J. Super. 73, 77 (App. Div. 1998) (citing Dewey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 121 N.J. 69, 79-80 (1990)).  The Morales decision should not take precedent over binding authority from our Appellate Division which held that literacy and sophistication are features which ought to be considered when determining unconscionability when there is a contract of adhesion.  See Moore, 416 N.J. Super. at 39 (citing Sitogum Holdings, Inc., 352 N.J. Super. at 564).
[brief] It is merely a series of short, conclusory statements and, as such, cannot suffice.  See S.N. Golden Estates, Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 317 N.J. Super. 82, 91 (App. Div. 1998) (holding that trial court “failed to make specific findings as to the reasonableness of the legal services provided and the fees charged” and noting that the trial courts “oral opinion … simply makes broad conclusionary statements regarding the legal services performed” which “does not provide an adequate foundation for appellate review. ”  Similarly, in Walker, this Court rejected a trial court’s opinion that, regarding the appropriate rate, merely stated, “I have handled a significant number of class actions and ruled on a number of fee requests.  The fees requested in this case are generally consistent with what I have seen and awarded in the past.  In my opinion, they are reasonable. ”  Walker v. Giuffre, 415 N.J. Super.
[directive] Residence Parameters: ☐ ☐  1.  Does the defendant have a stable residence/address where he/she will Yes No remain for the duration of the case?  Address: Phone: ☐ ☐  2.  Does the defendant reside in a shelter, temporary, or transitional Yes No housing?  3.  In what type of dwelling does the defendant reside?  (i.e., apartment complex, single family home, etc.)  ☐ ☐  4.  Is the defendant a homeowner, renter, or lessee of the listed residence?  Yes No  If No, provide the name and phone number of the owner/renter/lessee.  ☐ ☐  5.  If the defendant is not the homeowner, renter, or lessee of the listed Yes No residence, did the homeowner, renter, or lessee give the defendant permission to live at the residence?  ☐ ☐  Yes No  6.  Will the defendant have access to an electrical outlet to charge the unit?  ☐ ☐  7.  Does the defendant understand that home detention is defined as staying Yes No in the home at all times, with limited exceptions detailed in the Release Order, and that requests for any temporary adjustment must be made by formal application to the Court?
[brief] The purpose of both witnesses’ testimonies to this end was to express the uncontroversial—and, in fact, unchallenged—point that the same person entered the restaurant through the same entrance and went to the same area of the restaurant to steal money on both nights.  As in Singh, the lay-opinion testimonies of [...] and [...] were rationally based on their perceptions and helped the jury by tying together a simple fact—unquestioned by defendant—that the intruder on September 28 returned two days later.  [...]’s testimony also satisfies Watson.  Our Supreme Court in Watson explicitly explained that “an investigator who carefully reviewed a video in advance could draw attention to a distinctive shirt . . . which a jury might otherwise overlook,” particularly in a case where the fact is not in dispute.  254 N.J. at 604.  That defendant here wore similar clothing—a two-toned, black-and-white sweatshirt—as well as a black cellphone or cellphone case on his hip was precisely to what [...] testified.  As noted, he did not identify defendant from the surveillance videos.  [...] testified to an undisputed fact, thus satisfying Watson’s threshold requirement to offer lay-opinion testimony about what he saw in the surveillance videos.  There was no error, let alone plain error, in admitting these statements, and defendant’s convictions should be affirmed on this basis as well.