ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] On March 3, 2023, Plaintiff-Respondent [...], Esq. filed a Verified Complaint and an application for an Order to Show Cause with Temporary and Preliminary Restraints against Defendants in the [...] (Docket No. [...]), alleging Defendants took improper actions to prevent clients from transferring their cases from the [...] to Plaintiff and his new firm.  On March 8, 2023, the Trial Court held oral argument on Plaintiff’s application for temporary and preliminary restraints. \(^1\)  On March 9, 2023, the Hon. [...], J.S.C. entered an Order to Show Cause without prejudice to the rights and positions of the parties.  [Da5-7]. \(^2\)  On March 17, 2023, the [...] filed a Verified Complaint in a separate matter seeking temporary and preliminary injunctive relief against the law firm of [...] (“[...]”) and Michael Gallardo (the Plaintiff in the current matter) in the [...] (Docket No. [...]), alleging that the [...] --- \(^1\) “IT” refers to the Transcript of Oral Argument on the Order to Show Cause, March 8, 2023.
[directive] encouraged —and may be required by a County deconfliction query when Prosecutor's directive — to conduct a practicable before issuing acomplaint-summons.  Central Violence Registry is a computerized inquiry system that 6  The Domestic allows law enforcement to information about pending domestic violence cases without having access to request this information from the that operate only during the court's regular Family Court DV units business hours.  The Central Registry permits time, and displays information about in which direct at any cases a restraining access order previously was in which violation of a restraining requested/ and cases a previous order has been issued alleged.  The of utility this inquiry system depends on the extent to which the database is complete.  electronic
[brief] ...............................................................  11, 14, 15  Ferreira v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, et al., 2:17-cv-6278- JLL-JAD (D.N.J.)  ..............................................................4  Francavilla v. Absolute Resols. VI LLC, No.: A-2951-21, 2024 N.J. Super. LEXIS 26 (Mar. 14, 2024)  ...........  41, 42, 44, 45
[brief] The Sentencing Court Sentenced [...] Under an Incorrect Application of the Yarbough Factors**  The sentencing court incorrectly sentenced [...] under the impression that it was constrained to apply consecutive sentences when there are multiple victims without regard or consideration of the overall fairness of the sentence.  This was an illegal application of the sentencing law which denied [...] his constitutional rights to due process.  Courts have wrestled with the decision to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences when a defendant has been convicted of multiple crimes.  While state statutes vested trial judges with the power to impose either type of sentence, the statutes did not provide any guidance as to when a concurrent or consecutive sentence is appropriate.  The New Jersey Supreme Court addressed the issue in State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (1985).
[brief] Accordingly, the fact that the Plaintiff chose to file suit in the Superior Court instead of the local ethics board is neither here nor there.  The Law Division was not deprived of subject matter jurisdiction on the mere basis that the Plaintiff cited that statute in its Verified Complaint.  The Defendants’ reliance upon Matter of Local Ethics Bd. Decisions, A-1019-18T4, 2020 WL 4150716 (App. Div. July 21, 2020) for the proposition of “exclusive” jurisdiction thus falls flat, as that venue is unable to provide the relief sought by the Plaintiffs.  Noteworthy is the fact that in that unpublished case, the complaining parties sought no injunctive or other relief routinely entertained by the New Jersey courts.  As noted by the Appellate Division:  “The gist of the complaints --- 4  The Defendants fail to cite or even mention the existence of the oral arguments occurring before the Law Division (1T, 2T). was that as a member of the township's governing body, [...] voted to approve salary increases for [...] and [...], and, several months later, both listed their homes for sale with [...] as the listing real estate agent. ”  Id. at *1.  As a result, the Defendants’ contention of exclusive jurisdiction exercised by a local ethics board is untenable and without support.  POINT II
[brief] Since the date of his arrest, [...] has done – and said – whatever necessary to salvage his freedom.  Initially, [...] gave a post arrest statement attempting to deflect blame in lieu of being charged.  Eventually, however, he was charged, prosecuted and later tried before the Honorable [...], J.S.C., and a jury, from November 2, 1998, through November 16, 1998.  A jury returned a verdict of guilty on all charges.  Judge Conte sentenced [...] on December 18, 1998, to an aggregate term of life plus sixty-nine (69) years in prison with a fifty-eight (58) year parole disqualifier.  He appealed his conviction, and his conviction was then affirmed in 2001.  *State v. [...]*, No. A-5292-97T4 (App. Div. December 10, 2001).  The Supreme Court denied [...]’s petition for certification in an order filed February 14, 2002.  *State v. [...]*, 171 N.J. 338 (2002).  On April 25, 2002, [...] filed a verified petition for post-conviction relief.  Hearings were conducted on November 15, 2004, and March 23, 2005.  On April 5, 2005, Judge Conte issued a written opinion, denying [...] post-conviction relief.  [...] appealed the denial of his PCR petition to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.  The Appellate Division affirmed Judge Conte's denial of post-conviction relief in a *per curiam* opinion decided on July 25, 2007.
[brief] (Da 1-5)  A fifth count, possession with intent to distribute drug paraphernalia, was dismissed by the prosecutor.  (2T 8-1 to 11)  On October 7, 2022, the Honorable [...], J.S.C., heard testimony on the motion to suppress evidence found during a warrantless search of [...]’s truck.  (1T)  In a written opinion issued on October 27, 2022, [...] denied the motion to suppress drugs and other items found inside a backpack within the vehicle.  (Da 6-15)  _____________________  1  Da – defendant’s appendix  1T – October 7, 2022 – motion to suppress 2T – May 30, 2023 – pretrial conference  3T – June 7, 2023 – pretrial conference  4T – June 8, 2023 – trial  5T – June 9, 2023 – trial 6T – July 28, 2023 – sentence  [...] was found guilty of all charges by a jury after a two-day trial before the Honorable [...], J.S.C., on June 8 and 9, 2023.
[brief] A New 30-Day ROFR Period Was Triggered by the May 2, 2024 Addendum I to the PSA (raised below, Da381).  [...] argues that the Trial Court erred in not finding that [...] waived its ROFR after the unsigned PSA was provided to [...] on or around January 17, 2023.  This position is fundamentally flawed, as it ignores the plain meaning of the contract which grants [...] a new 30-day period with each and every modification to the offer.
[brief] September 28, 2015 (the “NDA”).  This NDA was between [...] and [...], which along with [...], owned [...].  [FEDa114; Pa1095].  As acknowledged by Appellants, after the NDA was executed, between September 2015 and late 2017, Appellants themselves “disclosed all aspects of its proprietary and confidential information pertaining to [Appellants’] ongoing establishment of a solar farm under the auspices of [...] Solar.  [Appellants’] confidential disclosures included plans, applications, contracts, negotiation histories, contact lists, and other proprietary records pertaining to the acquisition of the [...] SREC rights and the separate 20-year lease for the land, municipal and state filings and permit applications, and other proprietary materials. ”  [FEDa55].  C.  **[...]’s Default Under The Lease**
[brief] [T].  Before trial began, defendant argued that she had not received all of the discovery she requested from the State.  [T7-9 to -20].  The State argued that all discovery had been provided.  The State contended that the only outstanding material was material about the victim which required the victim to answer defendant directly.  [T9-1 to -13].  Defendant argued that she filed motions to dismiss the matter, but the Court pointed out that the motions were denied.  [T10-1 to -10].  The court denied the motions that were associated with defendant’s motion to dismiss, too.  [T10-5 to -10; T11-23 to -12-1].  She did not refile her motion to obtain discovery.  [T10-11 to -14].  Defendant stated she wanted emails surrounding her case, but did not specify who the emails were between or the subject of the emails.  [T10- --- 1 T represents the trial transcript dated November 29, 2022.  2T represents the transcript of the trial de novo dated April 24, 2023.  15 to -21; T12-15 to 13-8].  The judge held that defendant’s motions were fishing expeditions and she was not entitled to additional discovery.
[brief] --- 23  Holmdel’s witness, [...], testified that many “residents, business[es] and public facilities” in Holmdel rely and will continue to rely on “natural gas for all or a portion of their energy needs . . . for some time. ” (Aa407).  24  In incorporating the EMP goals and strategies, NJDEP’s 80x50 Report calls for, among other objectives, “substantial reductions” in greenhouse gas emissions and describes policy-based strategies to achieve the EMP goals, such as by transitioning residential and commercial buildings to electric heat.  (Aa47; Aa115).  As [...] correctly stated in OAL’s June 11, 2020 Order and affirmed in OAL’s October 7, 2020 Order denying Holmdel’s motion to reconsider, the EMP did not impose a moratorium on new or ongoing utility projects.  (Aa164-65; Aa251).  Additionally, no administrative regulations or standards relating to the EMP’s goals and strategies are in effect that would impact the N.J.S.A. 40:55D-19 proceeding or bar the implementation of [...]’s Project.  (Aa81); see Metromedia v. Div. of Tax’n, 97 N.J. 313, 330 (1984) (holding that rulemaking should be exercised where “agency action is concerned with ‘broad policy issues’ that affect a large segment of the regulated or general public”).  Furthermore, as previously noted, while the EMP aims for a gradual reduction of natural gas consumption and air pollutant emissions, any emissions originating from the Project would be negligible based on [...]’s environmental impact analysis.  (Aa54; Aa475; Aa951-53).  Therefore, the BPU reasonably held that the Project is consistent with the EMP’s goals to maintain a reliable and safe natural gas system.  (Aa56).  POINT III
[brief] [Section 1983 damages may be available]  [i]f, for example, petitioner were to seek damages "for using the wrong procedures, not for reaching the wrong result," see Heck, 512 U. S., at 482-483, and if that procedural defect did not "necessarily imply the invalidity of" the revocation, see id., at 487, then Heck would have no application all.  See also Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U. S. 641, 645-649 (1997); id., at 649-650 (Ginsburg, J., concurring).  Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998), (all opinions question the applicability of Heck to an individual who has no recourse under the habeas statute.
[brief] ”  Pa123 (emphasis added).  Still, the Stealth Resolution recognized that, while [...] “[a]greed to amend the Application so as to include such elevators in building ‘C’ and ‘D[,]’ [[...]] declined to include such elevator in building ‘E. ’”  Pa124 (emphasis added).  In a complete reversal of the Original Resolution, which did not condition approval on an elevator in Building “E”, the Stealth Resolution now required that, “[a]s a condition of approval, and for the reasons set forth herein . . .
[brief] ” (4T:16-3 to 16-9).  In so finding, the court noted defendant did “not point to any source of outside influence,” but instead “simply relie[d] on the alleged change in [...]’s description of the Defendant and conclude[d] summarily without any evidentiary basis that i[t] must have been because of outside influence. ” (4T:17-2 to 17-6).  In the absence of a factual basis for such a conclusion, the court was compelled to deny defendant’s motion to preclude Mr.  Dunn’s in-court identification.  (4T:17-7 to 17-15).  Defendant’s trial took place before the Honorable [...], J.S.C., and a jury from September 14, 2021 to September 21, 2021.
[brief] The New Jersey Administrative Code regulations related to the No-Fault Law do not prohibit arbitration.  [...] is responsible for designating an organization to administer the arbitration process required by the No-Fault Law.  N.J.S.A. 39:6A-5.1(b).  [...] also is responsible for promulgating “rules and regulations with respect to the conduct of the dispute resolution proceedings.  Ibid.  The regulations implemented by [...] with respect to the arbitration process are codified at N.J.A.C. 11:5-1 to -5.12.  The organization designated by [...] to administer the arbitration proceedings must, in turn, establish a dispute resolution plan ("Arbitration Plan") that is consistent with the rules and regulations adopted by [...].  Ibid.  A.
[brief] “[T]estimony must establish that the videotape is an accurate reproduction of that which it purports to represent and the reproduction is of the scene at the time the incident took place. ”  Brown, 463 N.J. Super. at 52 (quoting State v. Loftin, 287 N.J. Super. 76, 98 (App. Div. 1996)).  The trial court cited State v. Bunting, which states, “film evidence which is introduced as independent evidence of the crime, should be admitted without corroborative testimony by an eyewitness if the film is otherwise authenticated.
[brief] On January 25, 2020, there was a disagreement involving [...], a fellow inmate, and Plaintiff.  [...] asked Plaintiff to complete a witness statement as to exactly what happened.  Plaintiff was asking him a question about what he wanted her to fill out.  [...]’s response was, “[i]f you don’t lose your attitude, I swear, I’m going . . .” and he stopped himself.  Plaintiff felt threatened with bodily harm.  Plaintiff said and did nothing to cause [...] to threaten Plaintiff.
[brief] THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY RECONSIDERED ITS ORIGINAL ATTORNEYS’ FEE AWARD.  (Da1381; Da1411).  In opposing plaintiffs’ fee application below, [...] conceded that a contingency fee enhancement was warranted in this case and argued “defendant submits that a 25% fee enhancement is more than reasonable. ” (Pa91-94, especially 94).  [...] should be estopped or precluded from arguing now on appeal that a 25% contingency fee enhancement – the very number it endorsed – was somehow an abuse of discretion.  Both the CFA and the RETA provide that the consumer is entitled to reasonable counsel fees, both so as not to decrease the award to the prevailing party and so the consumer can attract competent counsel.  See N.J.S.A. 56:8-19 (CFA: “the court shall also award reasonable attorneys’ fees, filing fees and reasonable costs of suit”); N.J.S.A. 45:15-16.80(a) (RETA: “the court shall, in addition to any other appropriate legal or equitable remedy, award…court costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fee. ”).  Trial courts have considerable latitude in resolving fee applications, and a reviewing court will not set aside an award of attorneys’ fees except “on the rarest of occasions, and then only because of a clear abuse of discretion.
[brief] See FTC Opinion, [...] to [...] (Sept. 21, 1992). said so in its more than 650-page rulemaking notice.  Instead, the [...] expressly permitted debt collectors to use letter vendors’ return mail addresses on collection notices, which obviously presumes the permissible use of letter vendors for these purposes.  Crucially, the proposition that transmitting data to a letter vendor falls outside the scope of § 1692c(b) or other FDCPA provisions does not thwart Congress’ goal of protecting consumer privacy.
[brief] Further, under the only statute upon which Plaintiff could recover fees, the MMWA (15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.), an award of attorney’s fees was likewise limited to only those that which was “reasonably incurred. ”  See 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(2).  As set forth in the Statement of Reasons, the trial court understood the appropriate process it was to follow on the motion and correctly followed the process to reach its decision.
[brief] [(2T5-4 to 14)]  The Judgment of Conviction gave additional reasons:  Pursuant to State v. Yarbough, “there can be no free crimes in a system for which the punishment shall fit the crime. ”  Running the sentence concurrently would render meaningless the certain person offense.  Furthermore, the Legislature has a clear intent to specifically deter those who have a criminal history from possessing guns.  [(Da19)]  \(^3\) State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (1985).  On appeal on the Sentencing Oral Argument calendar, this Court again reversed and remanded because “the court did not provide adequate findings to support imposition of consecutive terms.
[brief] 8.  Given Probation failure to produce a court-ordered “full accounting” and Probation’s improper garnishment of SSA benefits, Appellant filed a Motion for Enforcement of the Order of 1/11/2022.  9.  Probation finally submitted its “accounting” on 3/17/2022 (DA162) wherein it withdrew its 23-year old fabricated and false claim of $16,000 in support arrearage as of 2/1999 (see Audits DA286, DA290, DA294, DA299 and DA304 for improperly charged $16,000 support arrearage as of 2/1999) and finally acknowledged an 18 year-old court-ordered credit of $10,354.73 (see Order of 3/25/2004, DA41), but failed to account for $54,500 in payments (see DA456 and [...]’s letter to Court of 10/8/1999, DA414) made by Appellant commencing Oct. 1, 1998, failed to acknowledge Appellant’s actual overpayment and the resulting ordered credit of $4,753 (see FJOD, item no. 19, DA38, and the Order of 3/25/04, DA45), and the ordered elimination of $16,519.20 in arrearages (DA41), in addition to other errors in the “accounting.
[brief] But that equitable gloss on “excessiveness” is absent from the statutory language surrounding “excessive,” the dictionary, and the ASOP discussion of the concept.  And, finally, as shown supra § I.A.2, the Department grasped at one more definition.  It contended that what the denial letter stated—namely that [...] had an “an aggressive loss ratio target” and had “lifetime loss ratio[s] [without] enough deterioration”—were what it means to have an “excessive rate. ”
[brief] ***  This Assumption of Risk, Waiver of Liability, Arbitration and Indemnification Agreement ("Agreement") is dated as of the Effective Date which is the date appearing on the signature page, between [...] b/b/a [...] ("[...]") and the undersigned in his/her own capacity ("Adult Participant") and if any minor(s) is/are named in the signature block below (collectively "Child Participant", whether one or more) on behalf of, and as the parent or legal guardian for such Child Participant(s) (all parties collectively, "Participant)…
[brief] There is an “implicit standard of good behavior which devolves upon one who stands in the public eye as the upholder of that which is morally and legally correct. ”  See Asbury Park v. Department of Civil Serv., 17 N.J. 419, 429 (1955); In re Tuch, 159 N.J. Super. 219, 224 (App. Div. 1978).  The obligation to act ethically is especially compelling in a case involving a law enforcement official:
[brief] He asked Plaintiff if she was refusing to go into her cell.  Plaintiff picked up her things off the table and went into her cell and sat on her bunk.  [...] told Plaintiff, “[y]our door did not close, which constitutes refusal to go to your cell and you’re being charged. ”  At which time, he called in an extraction team that came up to Plaintiff’s cell, removed Plaintiff from Plaintiff’s cell for not going into her cell and charged Plaintiff and sent Plaintiff to disciplinary detention (all without due process).  While Plaintiff was downstairs in disciplinary detention, the Officer informed Plaintiff he charged Plaintiff for insubordination and not following an order causing unsafe conditions on her cellblock.  Plaintiff received information that [...] handed out witness statements and when he collected the witness statements from all the inmates, he separated them into piles and while he walked out of the room, he threw a pile into the garbage and kept one pile Plaintiff was in intake being charged with insubordination and not obeying a direct order and she was taken into pre-disciplinary detention.
[directive] c.  The best practices standards shall be designed to accomplish the following objectives: (1) establish and maintain the effectiveness, efficiency, reliability and accuracy of forensic laboratories in the State; (2) ensure that forensic analyses are performed in accordance with the highest scientific standards practicable; (3) promote increased cooperation and coordination among forensic laboratories and other agencies in the criminal justice system by avoiding duplication of efforts, resources and activities and streamlining procedures; (4) establish efficient case processing which is clear, concise, direct and uniform in order to achieve the lowest turn-around times to deliver the forensic analysis results for effective prosecution of criminal cases; (5) ensure that all information relevant to solve crimes is extracted from evidence collected and analyzed; (6) establish minimum requirements for the quality and maintenance of equipment; and (7) ensure compatibility with other state and federal forensic laboratories to the extent necessary to share and exchange information, data and results of forensic tests and analyses.
[brief] N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-51; (Aa5).  Specifically, the adequacy budget is an estimate of what it costs each district to provide the core curriculum content standards (CCCS) to each student according to the district’s enrollment and student characteristics — --- 2  “Aa” refers to appellants’ appendix; “Ab” refers to appellants’ brief; “Ra” refers to respondents’ appendix.  3  The SFRA provides for several categories of State aid.  See, e.g., N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-52, -54 to -58 (equalization, preschool, special education, security, transportation, and adjustment aid, respectively).  *Abbott XX*, 199 N.J. at 155-57; (Aa5).  “State aid” is therefore a term that encompasses multiple categories of aid.  4  The CCCS, which the Supreme Court found as a reasonable expression of constitutionally sufficient T&E in *Abbott v. Burke* (*Abbott IV*), 149 N.J. 145, 161-62 (1997), and *Abbott XIX*, are now known as the New Jersey Student Learning Standards (NJLSLS).
[brief] ADDITIONAL FACTS  SPECIFIC TO RESPONDENT HOLTZMAN  Respondent [...], on November 9, 2023, responded to a zoning complaint submitted by Appellant pertaining to the height of the [...] development, informing him that an investigation at that time would only show the building in question remained in compliance with the approved plans.  (2T4:16-5:11).  On November 30, 2023, Respondent [...] further explained to Appellant that the [...] development was in compliance with the issued Zoning Permit as approved by the [...].  (110a).  On the basis of the site plans as approved by the Zoning Board, Respondent [...] concluded the investigation.  (111a).  III.
[brief] NJSA 52:13B-1 to 52:13B-5 LAWS 1980  CHAPTER 67  Bill No. S287  Sponsor(s)  [...] Date Introduced  Pre-filed Committee: Assembly Senate State Govt., Federal & Interstate Relations & Veterans Affairs  Amended during passage Yes No  Amendments during passage denoted by asterisks  Date of Passage: Assembly May 1, 1980  Senate Feb. 25, 1980  Date of approval July 14, 1980  Following statements are attached if available:  Sponsor statement Yes No  Senate amendments adopted 2-21-80 (with statement)--attached Committee Statement: Assembly Yes No Senate Yes No Fiscal Note Yes No  Veto Message Yes No  Message on signing Yes No  Following were printed:  Reports Yes No Hearings Yes No  974.90  N.J. Legislature.  Office of Legislative Services.  F491  Division of Budget and Program Review.  1980d  A report on the New Jersey fiscal note process.  August, 1980.  6/2/81  AN ACT requiring the preparation and furnishing of fiscal notes to legislative bills, supplementing Title 52 of the Revised Statutes and repealing P. L. 1962, c. 27.