ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] Appellant [...] (“Appellant”) respectfully submits this Reply Brief in connection with his appeal of the Commissioner of Education’s (“the Commissioner”) decision upholding the School Ethics Commission’s (“SEC”) decision that Appellant violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), 18A:12-24.1(e), and 18A:12-24.1(f) of the School Ethics Act (“SEA”).  The Commissioner’s and the SEC’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable on the following grounds.  First, Appellant’s request to the Board Attorney was an official act within his authority under Board Policy 0174.  See Sg048-Sg050.  Second, the agency decision lacked requisite factual evidence and misinterpreted N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24(b), 18A:12-24.1(e), and 18A:12-24.1(f).  Accordingly, this appellate tribunal must reverse the agency’s decision and remand it to the SEC.
[brief] ”  (Da115.)  Third, by citing the Borough ordinance which provides guidelines for “private interior roadways,” the Borough actually proves the opposite of its point.  (Db34.)  If “interior roadway” on its own means a private road, then there would be no need to preface it with the word “private. ”  (Db34.)  Moreover, the fact that Plaintiffs did not build the Roads with a width of 24-feet (i.e., the standard for private roads), but rather provided 50-foot rights of way (the standard for minor public roads) also shows that there absolutely was the intention for the Roads to be public.  (Da77 at § I.)  V.  THE BOROUGH HAS FORMALLY RECOGNIZED THE ROADS AS PUBLIC AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING OTHERWISE (not directly addressed by trial court)
[brief] Accordingly, the matter should be remanded for imposition of a reduced sentence.  --- \(^5\)  See *State v. Rivera*, 249 N.J. 285, 301-02 (2021) (detailing legislative history of mitigating factor fourteen, including Recommendation #5 from New Jersey Criminal Sentencing & Disposition Commission’s 2019 report that cites to *Miller* as part of its recommendation to enact a mitigating factor considering youth).  CONCLUSION  [...]’s convictions must be reversed because the State’s case principally relied upon inadmissible video narration testimony that identified the shooter on video; described them exiting the vehicle of interest; outlined the suspect’s path of travel; and identified [...] on screen.  The erroneous admission of this prejudicial testimony was then compounded by the court’s failure to instruct the jury on third-party guilt, despite undisputed evidence that the suspect was described by multiple eyewitnesses as being a tall, Black man, and that a man fitting that description was one of two known drivers of the vehicle of interest.  Alternatively, [...]’s sentence must be vacated and remanded for resentencing because the court improperly considered his decision to maintain his innocence in its sentencing determination, and did not accord sufficient weight to his youth, resulting in an excessive sentence.
[brief] (PA1; PA12; PA14)** | 32 | | **POINT II: THE DISMISSAL OF [...] MUST BE REVERSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF PRODUCED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR A REASONABLE JURY TO FIND AN INTENTIONAL WRONG.  (PA1; PA3; 1T16:4)** | 33 | | **POINT III: THE ORDERS DISMISSING [...] AND [...] ARE CONTRARY TO THE HOLDING OF HAVILAND V. LOURDES MED. CTR. OF BURLINGTON CTY., INC., 250 N.J. 368 (2022), AND MUST BE VACATED AND REMANDED.  (PA12; PA14; PA16; 2T40:19)** | 42 | | CONCLUSION | 45
[brief] Granting  Defendant [...]’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dated January 19, 2024 .................................................................Pa1  Order and Statement of Reasons of the Honorable [...]  Denying  Plaintiff’s Motion seeking to Reopen Discovery, dated February 21, 2024, with Statement of Reasons ........................................Pa8  Order and Statement of Reasons of the Honorable [...]  Denying Motion for Reconsideration, dated March 1, 2024.........................Pa13
[brief] To evaluate “the constitutionality of police conduct in executing a warrant, the basic test under both the Fourth Amendment . . . and Article I, Paragraph 7, of the New Jersey Constitution is the same: was the conduct objectively reasonable in light of the facts known to law enforcement at the time of the search. ”  State v. Rockford, 213 N.J. 424, 441 (2013); see also Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 85 (1987) (holding courts must judge “constitutionality of [police] conduct in light of the information available to [the police] at the time they acted”).
[brief] ”  (1T 62-17 to 20)  He agreed with the court that it was after seeing the Ram’s driver “bending over and what you believe was snorting drugs” that “solidified” his belief that there had been a drug transaction.  (1T 69-2 to 11)  [...] followed the Ram onto the Parkway, passing the vehicle when it pulled over at a toll plaza but maintaining surveillance in his rearview mirror.  (1T 21-25 to 22-8)  Another Toms River patrolman in a marked police car responded and stopped the Ram.  (1T 22-8 to 13)  [...] circled around, arriving back at the stopped Ram where he learned from the patrolman that the driver “had admitted to purchasing five wax folds of heroin from the defendant in the Shop Rite parking lot.
[brief] Defendant’s contention Question1(a) did not incorporate all three elements of official misconduct is **not** based on any language, or absence of language, in the question itself, but instead depends on defendant’s misreading of it.  His misreading is confirmed by Question 1(b), which, by its own terms, required that the jury have already concluded defendant was guilty of official misconduct before facing it.  (Da14) (“If guilty, answer the following question”) (emphasis added).  Defendant’s argument thus also misreads Question 1(b) by omitting this prefatory clause.  Confirming that the absence of an answer to Question 1(b) was not plain error are the facts that (1) the judge “clarified that the verdict sheet was separate from the charge,” and was “not to be evaluated as evidence,” (20T204-7 to 11), and that (2) the judge “encouraged the jury to present any questions of law arising during deliberation to the court for clarification” (20T208-3 to 10).  *Ghandi*, 201 N.J. at 197-98.  “[A]ny doubt” the verdict sheet error does not require reversal “is resolved by the fact that the judge’s oral instructions as to the elements of the crimes were submitted to the jury in writing and available in the jury room during the deliberations. ”  *State v. Reese*, 267 N.J. Super. 278, 289 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 134 N.J. 563 (1993), cited with approval in *Gandhi*, 201 N.J. at 196-97; see *State v. Cuff*, 239 N.J. 321, 342 (2019).  Since defendant’s conviction of official misconduct is valid and did not --- 19  The jury got the written instructions in the jury room.  (21T19-4 to 8).  amount to plain error, the same result should obtain for his conviction of pattern of official misconduct.  Thus, defendant’s convictions on Counts Two and Three should stand.
[brief] In the case of BMP 201, a small infiltration basin, three test pits and three infiltration tests are located at the BMP.  The highest seasonal high water table elevation of all three test pits, elevation 84.0, was observed at TP-184.  This elevation was used to confirm that the bottom of the basin has sufficient separation from the seasonal high water table.  Individual groundwater mounding calculations were performed based on the hydraulic conductivity results at each test pit, and the relative mound was added to the seasonal high water table observed at each test pit to determine the elevation of the groundwater mound.  The highest elevation of the groundwater mound was then compared to the bottom of the basin.  At BMP 201, the highest elevation of the groundwater mound is 87.49, which is nearly 8 inches below the bottom of the BMP, elevation 88.15.
[directive] The maintenance of proper training records is an important responsibility of both the training school or agency and the trainee's employing agency.  Individual officers may also maintain copies of their training records.  Complete records should reflect all K-9 training, qualification and re-evaluation activities, as well as the performance and proficiency of the police officer handler-police K-9 patrol team or K-9 specialty team during such activities.  Copies of all training course schedules, curricula and lesson plans must be maintained along with the records of individual trainees.  Training records must be maintained as a permanent employee record consistent with policy regarding personnel files.  Training records should be reviewed periodically by the K-9 team supervising officer, agency training supervisor, or agency executive.  An individual written record, as prescribed herein, must be maintained on each police officer handler-police dog patrol team or specialty team participating in K-9 training, qualification and re-evaluation activities.  In addition to this written record of training, when possible, qualification and re-evaluation sessions should be videotaped and maintained as a complete record of K-9 team performance.  Basic Training and Qualification Records
[brief] Even assuming arguendo that Plaintiff has valid claims against the Township for damage to her property caused by this water intrusion, those claims are barred by the statute of limitations.  New Jersey has a six-year statute of limitations for tort actions, stating that “[e]very action at law for . . . any tortious injury to real or personal property . . . shall be commenced within 6 years next after the cause of any such action shall have accrued. ”  \textit{N.J.S.A.}  2A:14-1.  Plaintiff is barred by the relevant statute of limitations because “the traditional rule is that a cause of action accrues on the date when ‘the right to institute and maintain a suit’ first arises.
[brief] The fact that the OAE Judge did not discipline [...] on ethics charges brought against defendants is holey irrelevant to the current appeal and the hearing report submitted in defendants’ reply appendix has no bearing in this litigation.  The OAE proceedings were based on a referral of defendants to the OAE from the Appellate Division in 2016.  [...] was not the grievant.  [...]’s only involvement in the proceedings was, at the OAE’s request, to serve as a witness.  She was not represented by counsel during the proceedings.  In reaching its decision, the OAE considered different standards and claims than what were involved in a civil jury trial.  That decision cannot invalidate a verdict this Court already upheld on appeal.  Da25.  The judgment entered in plaintiff’s favor, and reviewed and upheld through numerous rounds of appellate practice by defendants should not be subject to disturbance years later due to an ethics opinion on claims that were not even brought by plaintiff.  Accordingly, and as it was never part of the record of this case, this Court should not consider the OAE hearing report submitted in defendants’ reply appendix.  As addressed in plaintiff’s opposition, this action represents defendants’ sixth or seventh attempt to disturb the jury verdict entered against them.
[directive] (Penalty is $30 if offense occurred between January 9, 1986 and December 22, 1991 inclusive.  $25 if offense occurred before January 1, 1986.)  d.  Se o crime ocorreu no dia 1º de fevereiro de 1993 ou após esta data, mas antes de 13 de [Sim/Yes] [Não/No] março de 1995 e a sentença imposta é a suspensão condicional da pena ou reclusão em penitenciária estadual, você deverá pagar uma taxa administrativa de até $1.00 na efetuação do pagamento do total ou ao pagar cada prestação?  Se o crime ocorreu no dia 13 de março de 1995 ou após esta data e a sentença é a suspensão condicional da pena ou a sentença requer outros pagamentos monetários à divisão de suspensão condicional da pena, você deverá pagar uma taxa administrativa de até $2.00 na efetuação do pagamento do total ou a cada prestação?  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?
[brief] Id. at 96-97 (citations omitted).  The facts of this case are precisely what distinguish it from Martindale.  Here, nobody explained to Appellant that the Arbitration Agreement was buried within other policies related to Appellant’s onboarding.  (Pa000213).  In fact, Respondents attributed virtually no significance to the policies that Appellant needed to click through because they simply instructed Appellant to hurriedly click through the employee portal as soon as possible so she could begin working.
[brief] (5T231-19 to 232-1).  After collecting several pieces of video surveillance, the police could trace a route the vehicle had traveled.  The fifty clips, State exhibits S-1 to S-50, illustrated the route formed by the police using timestamps and locations.  (4T152-15 to 22).  The prosecutor went through all fifty clips with [...].  The first clip, sourced from the New Jersey Turnpike, depicted the car passing through the toll at Exit 13, with the driver paying the toll.  This clip was presented without narration.  (4T156-7 to 11; Da11:S-1).  [...] explained that the police expanded the surveillance while pursuing the "vehicle of interest," trying to trace the route taken by the car leading up to the homicide.
[brief] The statutory exemption at issue here has threshold limitations which, if strictly and narrowly construed, would have legally constrained the [...] to deny the requested exemption.  For the [...] to consider any proposed project as exempt, the project must be part of a “routine” as that is the first and most important word employed by the legislature in the statutory provision at issue.  N.J.S.A. 13:20-28(a)(11).
[directive] WKDW WKH GHIHQGDQW ZRXOG QRW EH FRQGXFLYH WR FKDQJH WKURXJK KLV SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ VXSHUYLVRU\ WUHDWPHQW FULWHULRQ WKDW WKH GHIHQGDQW·V FULPH FRQVWLWXWHV SDUW RI D FRQWLQXLQJ SDWWHUQ RI DQWLVRFLDO EHKDYLRU FULWHULRQ DQG WKDW WKH GHIHQGDQW·V UHFRUG RI FULPLQDO YLRODWLRQV FULWHULRQ PLOLWDWHV DJDLQVW RYHUFRPLQJ WKH SUHVXPSWLRQ WKDW KLV 37, DSSOLFDWLRQ VKRXOG EH UHMHFWHG 3DJH $33/,&$7,21 127( 'HVLJQDWLRQ RI 4XDOLW\ RI /LIH 6SHFLDO (QIRUFHPHQW =RQHV >6HH *XLGHOLQHV 3DUW ,,  $ S @ $JJUDYDWLQJ )DFWRU F DSSOLHV ZKHUH WKH GUXJ GLVWULEXWLRQ W\SH RIIHQVH RFFXUUHG LQ D ´4XDOLW\ RI /LIHµ 6SHFLDO (QIRUFHPHQW =RQH SURYLGHG WKDW WKH FRXQW\ SURVHFXWRU KDV ´GHVLJQDWHG WKH VSHFLILF DUHD FRQVWLWXWLQJ WKH 6SHFLDO (QIRUFHPHQW =RQH EDVHG XSRQ WKH FULWHULD HVWDEOLVKHG LQ WKH $WWRUQH\ *HQHUDO·V 0RGHO 4XDOLW\ RI /LIH 3URJUDP $WWRUQH\ *HQHUDO 'LUHFWLYH ZKLFK ZDV LVVXHG RQ 2FWREHU UHTXLUHG SURVHFXWRUV LQ FRQVXOWDWLRQ ZLWK ORFDO ODZ HQIRUFHPHQW RIILFLDOV WR LGHQWLI\ DQ\ DQG DOO ORFDWLRQV ZLWKLQ WKH FRXQW\ MXULVGLFWLRQ ZKHUH FRQWUROOHG GDQJHURXV VXEVWDQFHV DUH URXWLQHO\ VROG RXW LQ WKH RSHQ 7R DFFRPSOLVK WKH GHVLJQDWLRQ SURFHVV IRU SXUSRVHV RI WKH ´%ULPDJHµ *XLGHOLQHV SURVHFXWRUV PXVW SURYLGH WKH 'LUHFWRU RI WKH 'LYLVLRQ RI &ULPLQDO -XVWLFH ZLWK D OHWWHU WKDW VSHFLILFDOO\ GHVFULEHV WKH ERXQGDULHV DQG ORFDWLRQV RI DOO VSHFLDO HQIRUFHPHQW ]RQHV $ PDS GHSLFWLQJ WKHVH ]RQHV VKRXOG EH DSSHQGHG 7KH SURVHFXWRU·V OHWWHU VKRXOG GHVFULEH WKH QDWXUH RI WKH GUXJ GLVWULEXWLRQ SUREOHP ZLWKLQ HDFK ]RQH DQG VKRXOG GRFXPHQW WKDW WKH GHVLJQDWLRQ E\ WKH FRXQW\ SURVHFXWRU ZDV PDGH LQ FRQVXOWDWLRQ ZLWK WKH ORFDO SROLFH GHSDUWPHQW 7KH OHWWHU
[directive] II.  Other Provisions  Non-enforceability by third parties.  A.  This amended Directive is issued pursuant to the Attorney General’s authority to supervise operations of the Department.  This amended Directive imposes limitations that may be more restrictive than the limitations imposed under the United States and New Jersey Constitutions, and federal and state statutes and regulations.  Nothing in this amended Directive shall be construed in any way to create any substantive right that may be enforced by any third party.  Severability.  B.  The provisions of this amended Directive shall be severable.  If any phrase, clause, sentence, or provision of this amended Directive is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the validity of the remainder of the document shall not be affected.  Questions.  C.  Any questions concerning the interpretation or implementation of this amended Directive shall be addressed to the Director of the Division of Criminal Justice, or their designee.  Effective date.  D.  This amended Directive shall take effect immediately and remain in force and effect unless and until it is repealed, amended, or superseded by Order of the Attorney General.
[brief] ”  Smith v. Dep’t of Treasury, 390 N.J. Super. 209, 213 (App. Div. 2007).  “Instead, in determining a person’s eligibility to a pension, the applicable guidelines must be carefully interpreted so as not to obscure or override considerations of . . . a potential adverse impact on the financial integrity of the [f]und. ”  Ibid. (quoting Chaleff v. Tchrs. Pen. & Annuity Fund Trs., 188 N.J. Super. 194, 197 (App. Div. 1983) (alterations in original)).  Further, the Board has both the authority and the obligation to correct errors in PERS benefits, regardless of when they arise.
[brief] Alternatively, an employee, “although otherwise competent, may be incompetent because of his reckless or vicious disposition[.]”  *Di Cosala*, 91 N.J. at 171 (quoting *Restatement (Second) of Agency*, § 213, cmt. d) (quoted in *Model Civil Jury Charge* § 5.76 at fn. 4).  Thus, an employer may be liable for harm caused by an employee’s propensity for violence or crime.
[brief] ”  The statute, N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, does not state that the co-employee immunity is eliminated for any employee who arrives fourteen minutes late for work.  N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 provides that, “[i]f an injury or death is compensable under this article, a person shall not be liable to anyone at common law or otherwise on account of such injury or death for any act or omission occurring while such person was in the same employ as the person injured or killed, except for intentional wrong. ”  The Legislature could not have meant to give [...] co-employee immunity.
[directive] Immediate Suspension Pending Investigation and Disposition  5.2.1  In certain serious cases of officer misconduct, the agency may need to suspend the subject officer pending the outcome of the investigation and subsequent administrative or criminal charges.  To effect an immediate suspension pending the investigation, at least one of the following conditions must be met: (a) The employee is unfit for duty; (b) The employee is a hazard to any person if permitted to remain on the job; (c)  An immediate suspension is necessary to maintain safety, health, order, or effective direction of public services; (d) The employee has been formally charged with a first, second or third degree crime; or (e)  The employee has been formally charged with a first, second, third or fourth degree crime or a disorderly persons offense committed while on duty, or the act touches upon their employment.  5.2.2
[brief] Furthermore, the seizure of the evidence was justified by the plain view doctrine.  [Da 106 to 107.]  *  In this case, the officers were lawfully at the scene investigating the car crash and injuries they came upon behind the motel.  The car doors to the Impala had been left open by its occupants, and from outside the car the officers could see the tire iron.  Finally, the officers had probable cause to associate the tire iron with the assault perpetrated on [...].  They had been told that [...] was struck with the tire iron and they could see injuries to his head.  Based upon the record, the seizure of the tire iron was equally justified by the plain view doctrine.  The conclusion, then, is that any motion to suppress the tire iron would have been unsuccessful and the failure to file a meritless motion is not ineffective assistance of counsel.
[brief] On August 21, 2018, the court conducted a hearing on the matter and issued an oral opinion.  Following oral argument, the court first rejected defendant's racial profiling argument, finding that it was not relevant to defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.  Then, the court found that defendant's second PCR was not procedurally time-barred under Rule 3:22-12(a), reasoning that the untimeliness was not egregious and that the thrust of defendant's second PCR was his claim that original PCR counsel was ineffective.  However, the court did find that defendant's request to withdraw his guilty plea was procedurally barred under Rule 3:22-5. because that argument had already been raised and rejected by both the trial court and this court.  On January 10, 2023, defendant [...] filed a Notice of Motion with the Superior Court, Law Division seeking a motion to correct an illegal sentence, pursuant to Rule 3:21-10(b)(7).
[directive] Attachments (Form - CN 12527 (English and Spanish versions))  cc: Chief Justice [...]  Criminal Presiding Judges  Drug Court Judges  [...], Chief of Staff  AOC Directors and Assistant Directors  Special Assistants to the Administrative Director  [...], Statewide Drug Court Manager  Criminal Division Managers and Assistants  Probation Division Managers and Assistants  [...], Assistant Drug Court Manager  ADA ENSURING AN OPEN DOOR TO JUSTICE
[brief] .........................................................  18  Borough of Seaside Park v. Comm'r of the N.J. Dep't of Educ., 432 N.J. Super. 167, 210-11 (App. Div.) ............................................. 16 Crescent Pk. Tenants Ass'n v. Realty Equities Corp., 58 N.J. 98, 107 (1971) ..............................................................................
[brief] The Court finds that [...]'s motion for summary judgement must be granted as a matter of law.  New Jersey law requires that a public utility furnish safe, adequate and proper service.  N.J.S.A. 48:2-23.  Here, [...] seeks to install high capacity 69kV power lines to upgrade electric transmission and distribution lines throughout New Jersey to meet increasing electric demand and ensure a reliable energy infrastructure.  Further, the need for taller poles for the power lines is mandated pursuant to the National Safety Code which was adopted by the [...] through N.J.A.C. 14:5-2.1.  Therefore, the Project is crucial for [...] to fulfill their statutory obligation to furnish safe and adequate utility services ---
[brief] (Pa1841).  Defendant [...] filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on January 7, 2022.  (Pa1881).  Defendant [...] filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on January 21, 2022.  (Pa1887).  On February 8, 2022 Defendant [...] filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.  (Pa1934).  On February 8, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to [...]’s Summary Judgment motion.  (Pa1948).  On February 8, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to [...]’ Summary Judgment motion.  (Pa1960).  On February 8, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to [...]’s Summary Judgment motion.  (Pa1968).  On February 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to [...]’s Summary Judgment motion.  (Pa1978).  On February 28, 2022, Defendant [...] filed their Reply Brief.  (Pa2000).  On February 28, 2022, Defendant [...] filed their Reply Brief.  (Pa2003).  On February 28, 2022, Defendant [...] filed their Reply Brief.  (Pa2009).  On March 1, 2022, Defendant [...] filed their Reply Brief.  (Pa2015).  Defendants [...] and the [...] were dismissed without prejudice via Stipulation of Dismissal by all parties filed with the Court on March 21, 2022.