ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[directive] More than 145,000 remote events involving more than 1,800,000 participants have been conducted in the state courts.  More than 1,200,000 additional cases have been scheduled for virtual hearings in the Municipal Courts.  At the same time, in-person court operations have waxed and waned based on COVID-19 trends and resource availability.  Notwithstanding earlier brief interruptions, all state courts at present are supporting some degree of on-site presence and in-person operations, including for those matters that cannot be conducted remotely without consent.  Additionally, Municipal Courts are regularly holding virtual hearings, with most municipal courts also able to schedule limited in-person hearings.  Those limited in-person events are being conducted in compliance with Court’s June 9, 2020 critical public health precautions.  Consistent with the Order, all people who enter or occupy court facilities must wear masks or other face coverings, subject to narrow exceptions.  Those requirements extend to individuals in courtrooms, subject to the discretion afforded judges to permit an individual to lower or remove their mask when other safeguards are in place, as described in the Judiciary’s September 22, 2020 notice.  In addition to the requirements to wear masks and maintain social distancing, state courthouses and all courtrooms are subject to reduced occupancy limits, rearrangement and removal of furniture, installation of sanitizing stations, and integration of plexiglass barriers, which steps are designed to minimize risks of disease transmission.  Through these interlocking steps, the Judiciary is continuing to provide a safe forum for the adjudication of disputes, including those conducted in person in state court facilities.
[brief] B.  Local Boards of Health and Nuisance Ordinances  By N.J.S.A. 26:3-1, with certain limited exceptions, the Legislature mandated that municipalities must have local Boards of Health.  Ibid.  ("There shall be a Board of Health in every municipality in this state...")\(^4\) N.J.S.A. 26:3-1 to 26:3-94 (The "Health Act") are the statutes dealing with local Boards of Health.  They are contained in Title 26 "Health and Vital Statistics".  Chapter 3 of Title 26 declares, among other things, the powers and duties of local Boards of Health.  Those powers and duties include the ability to "adopt rules, regulations or ordinances for its government and that of its officers and employees not inconsistent with law or the State Sanitary Code".  N.J.S.A. 26:3-2.  A local Board also has the power to "pass, alter or amend ordinances and make rules and regulations to declare and define what shall constitute a nuisance in lots, streets, docks, wards, vessels and piers, and all public or private places within its jurisdiction."  N.J.S.A. 26:3-45.  There are also powers of the local Board to "pass, alter or amend ordinances and make rules and regulations in regard to the public health within its jurisdiction" for certain specific defined purposes, which are spelled out at N.J.S.A. 26:3-31.  A more generalized ordinance and rule making ability is given in N.J.S.A. 26:3-64, which permits a local Board of Health to enact and amend --- \(^4\)  The exception to the municipal Board of Health requirement appears to be limited to those municipalities operating under the Faulkner Act, N.J.S.A. 40:69A-1, et seq.  See Myers v. Cedar Grove, 36 N.J. 51, 59 (1961).  This is not applicable here.
[brief] I.  INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1  II.  ARGUMENT ..........................................................................................................................1  A.  Plaintiff’s Notice Of Appeal Was Timely .................................................................1  B.  New Jersey Law Applies And Respondents Waived Any Arguments As To The Applicability Of RULLCA And New Jersey Law When They Did Not Object To The Trial Court Applying The Same .................................................................4  C.  [...] And [...] Owed A Fiduciary Duty To Plaintiff And Continued To Breach Their Fiduciary Duty By Excluding Plaintiff From The Dissolution Of [...]  ........................................................................................................................................6  D.  Respondents’ Emphasis On Plaintiff’s Earnings Ignores That Plaintiff Received No Membership Distributions, [...] Failed To Report Plaintiffs’ Income On [...]’s Taxes And [...] And [...] Excluded Plaintiff From [...]’s Million Dollar Settlement  ........................................................................................................11  E. Torres and Balsamides Apply And The Trial Court Improperly Valued Plaintiff’s Interest In [...] By Failing To Appoint An Expert ......................................................12  F. The Trial Court’s Ex Parte Communications Alone  Warrant  A New Trial ....13  III.  CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................15  TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
[brief] (7T 198-9 to 19, 199-12 to 14)  [...] obtained surveillance footage from the neighborhood of [...], including a low-quality video from the church across the street and a video from a RT-TOIC camera on Third and Sycamore Street.  (7T 147-12 to 14, 157-10 to 18, 159-23; Da 12-13)  Both videos were played for the jury.  (7T 150-24 to 25, 163-8 to 9)  The church video appears to show two individuals enter and then exit [...] Street.  (Da 12)  The RT-TOIC video simply shows two individuals walking along Sycamore Street.  (Da 13)  No witness testified that the two individuals in the RT-TOIC video were the same two individuals depicted in the church video.  From the RT-TOIC video, [...] obtained still photos of the two individuals who he believed entered and exited the building at [...].  (7T 166-4 to 21)  [...] learned from his investigation that one of those two individuals was [...], also known as [...].  (8T 209-11 to 21)  [...] filed charges against [...] on September 7, and [...] arrested him on September 8.
[brief] Plaintiff-Appellant, v. [...], (AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO [...]); [...]; [...] (AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO [...]); [...], [...]; [...]; [...]; [...] (AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO [...]); [...]; [...] (AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO [...] AND [...]); [...]; [...]  SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE  DIVISION DOCKET NO.: [...] TEAM 2  Civil Action ON APPEAL FROM: SUPERIOR COURT, LAW DIVISION, MIDDLESEX COUNTY  DOCKET NO.: [...]  SAT BELOW: HON.  [...], J.S.C. OF AMERICA (AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO [...] AND [...]); [...] (AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO [...]); [...]; [...]; AND JOHN DOES  1-2  Defendants and, as to United States Fire Insurance Company, Respondent and Cross-Appellant.
[brief] (Pa496-509, Pa358-362)  Plaintiff opposed the motion, citing the same circumstances as he had in his motion for leave to file his second amended complaint, specifically the difficulties counsel had had in obtaining the tenant defendants’ leases.  (Pa511-518, Pa228-232, Pa178-  He did not disclose to the court that he had sent [...] to the property in April 2017.  (Pa511-518)  The motion, as well as similar motions filed by other tenant defendants, was argued on January 24, 2020 before Hon. [...], J.S.C., Passaic County.  (1T5-1 to 47-14)
[directive] This program shall be made available to all officers authorized to carry CEDs and incorporated into the training course and qualification procedure established pursuant to Section VII.  Officers are not authorized to discharge the CED pursuant to new paragraphs (ii) or (iv) of Section V of this document until they have completed this supplemental training.  However, officers are still authorized to discharge the CED under paragraphs (i) and (iii) of Section V of this document prior to completing the supplemental training.
[brief] As noted in the report of defendants’ expert, [...], [...] failed to address the legal merits of the claim filed by [...] that was being decided by [...].  (Da156).  As properly noted by [...], [...] simply stated that “The Court would have set aside the 2014 Will and plaintiffs would have each received one-third of their father’s Estate. ” (Da156).  Of course, that is nothing more than a conclusion, and was not based on any facts or legal analysis.  Accordingly, this Court must reject those conclusions, as well as [...]’ opinion that because [...] benefited from the Will, there are “suspicious circumstances” to meet the second prong of the test.
[brief] NEW JERSEY COURT RULE 4:58-2(c) MANDATES THAT THE ADDITIONAL AWARD OF PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST, ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS BE VACATED.  Plaintiff/Respondent argues that the Defendant/Appellant is barred from raising the issue of the verdict against the weight of the evidence, as well as the argument that the award of enhanced prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees and cost be vacated under New Jersey Court Rule 4:58-2(c).  The Court’s decision and order on enhanced interest, costs and fees had not been entered by the time the Defendant/Appellant filed the within Notice of Appeal and the same was not included in the Notice of Appeal.  New Jersey Court Rule 2:10-2 provides that where an issue is not raised below it must be included in the Table of Contents of the Appellate Brief.  This was noted in Defendant/Appellant’s initial brief.  Where there was no objection below, the plain error rule applies.  The plain error standard requires a determination of:  1.  Whether there was an error; and 2.  Whether that error was ‘clearly capable of producing an unjust result. ’  R.2:10-2.  See also, State v. Donbrack, 245 N.J. 531, 544 (2021); State v. Funderburg, 225 N.J. 66, 79 (2016).
[directive] Combining 8.7 initial seeking also from State the preclude to construed be shall 8 Section in Nothing Directive. this of 7 Section to pursuant authorized as charges new on detention pretrial Denied.  Is Release of Revocation for Analication  When Notification 8.8 and Section this to pursuant release of revocation for application an files prosecutor a  If Criminal of Division the of Director the notify shall prosecutor the motion, the denies court the Section 15 also See Director.  the by prescribed shall be manner as in a and form a on Justice impact).  and effectiveness  Law's Reform Bail of evaluation and study (ongoing on while crime new another yet with charged is thereafter defendant the that event the In initial or Section 8, to pursuant release of revocation seeks again prosecutor the and release of copy a provide shall prosecutor the Section 7, to pursuant charge new the on detention pretrial court that if even motion release of revocation the denied had that court the to papers motions the pretrial initial new or a motion release of revocation new the decide will that court the not is motion.
[brief] (Pa47-180), (the “Original Motion”).  On November 29, 2023, a Consent Order signed by Appellant, [...], and Respondent (the “Consent Order”) was entered by the Trial Court which, among other things, substituted Respondent in the place of [...], permitted Respondent to file supplemental pleadings refashioning the Original Motion as one for summary judgment and established a new return date and briefing schedule for the parties.
[brief] This Court reviews a trial court's order granting or denying a motion to compel arbitration de novo because the validity of an arbitration agreement presents a question of law.  See, Santana v. Smile Direct Club LLC, 475 N.J. Super. 279, 285 (App. Div. 2023) [additional citations omitted].  Accordingly, the reviewing court need not give deference to the analysis by the trial court.  See, Goffe v. Foulke Management Corp., 238 N.J. 191, 207 (2019).  The arbitration provision is reviewed with fresh eyes.  Morgan v. Sanford Brown Inst., 225 N.J. 289, 303 (2016).  For the reasons set forth above, it is submitted the arbitration (or mediation) clause referenced in Defendant's motion to dismiss was inapplicable to the facts of the case.
[brief] (4T 29-4 to 6)  [...] additionally ordered [...] to have no contact with the dog in question, prohibited him from “owning, possessing, exercising control over or caring for any animals . . . includ[ing] a goldfish,” and ordered anger management.  (4T 29-6 to 14)  The judge ordered that these conditions be added to the terms of [...]’s existing parole supervision for life, which he was serving in connection with unrelated previous charges.  (4T 29-10 to 14)  LEGAL ARGUMENT POINT I DEFENDANT’S ANIMAL CRUELTY CONVICTION MUST BE REVERSED BECAUSE THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS FAILED TO DEFINE THE CENTRAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE.
[brief] Pa155  PRELIMINARY STATEMENT  There is only one case in New Jersey criminal law history where an Executive Order released to the public the entirety of a criminal case for copying, inspection and examination.  This case was the Lindbergh Kidnapping case.  Applying the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) to the Executive Order 110 signed by [...], the Lindbergh case is open to the public for copying, inspection and examination of all documents.  Government transparency, the legislative intent behind OPRA, and the intent behind Governor’s Byrne’s Executive Order 110, make it very clear that the Lindbergh Kidnapping documents are open to the public for examination and inspection.  Today, Courts recognize that the terms examination and inspection of documents would insinuate the collection of DNA from said documents.  In short, as the only case in New Jersey’s criminal law history that is open to the public for examination and inspection, both the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch of New Jersey have provided a foundation for the Lindbergh Kidnapping case to be open to the public for a modern-day forensic analysis.  Since the State Police and Attorney General’s Office are unwilling to cooperate, the Judicial Branch can interpret [...]’s Executive Order 110 with the Legislative intent behind OPRA and reach the conclusion that examination and inspection would apply to DNA testing in this case.
[directive] Questions may be directed to .A~ Criminal the Practice Division (W [...], J.A.D., From: at 609-815-2900, ext. 55300.  DiJ;f.t~ Administrative Acting  Criminal Procedures for Certificates  Suspend Certain to - Subj: Employment or Occupational Disabilities Related to Criminal Convictions  March 4, 2024  Date:  As approved by the Judicial Council, this Directive promulgates procedures of and forms that address applications by individuals convicted criminal offenses or who petition the court to issue a Certificate to Suspend Certain Employment Occupational Disabilities (hereinafter "Certificates") in accordance with N.J.S.A. 2A:168A-7 through -12.
[brief] (4T 100-2 to 101-6).  [...] testified that at that point, he jumped out of [...]’s car.  (2T 90-24 to 92-23).  [...] testified that [...] and a man whom she did not know handcuffed [...], “put” him in a car, and drove away.  (2T 95-7 to 101-21).  [...] saw [...] strike the car in front of him with his car, and drive away.
[brief] See also Dittimus-Bey v. Taylor, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161404, at *8 n.3 (D.N.J. Nov. 12, 2013) (finding in the event a personal conflict may at some time require [the attorney]’s withdrawal as counsel for Plaintiffs, the conflict would not necessarily disqualify the other attorneys at her firm under RPC 1.10).
[brief] 46.  Sometime after Defendant purchased the Subject Property in 2010, Defendant began interfering with the parking easement enjoyed by Plaintiff over the Fifth Street and Sixth Street Lots by drilling holes in the Sixth Street Lot and installing bollards across the lot and utilizing the Sixth Street Lot for student drop off and pick up when the Fifth Street Lot had historically been utilized for such activity.  (Da123-139; Da 177 48:18-49:12; 6T and 8T)  47.  In 2012 Defendant also padlocked the access to Plaintiff’s HVAC system located on the Subject Property, cut the heating pipes to the Congregation and denied the Congregation access to its system in direct contravention of the 1963 Agreement and Plaintiff’s historic easement rights.  (Da123-139)  48.  Following the 2017 Judgment enjoining Defendant from permitting its students from walking through the Sixth Street Lot during the Congregation’s services or otherwise interfering with Plaintiff’s easement rights, the Trial Court determined Defendant repeatedly interfered with Plaintiff’s right to park on the Sixth Street Lot.  (Da210-217; Da 285; Da 290-292; Da300-672; Da 842; Da965-9692T; 3T 101:23-113:1)  STANDARD OF REVIEW
[directive] This memorandum is to assist members of the Bar in complying with the requirements of the Judiciary's pro bono program in completing the annual Pro Bono Counsel Assignment Questionnaire, the bottom portion of the annual attorney registration billing card.  On February 16, 1993, the Chief Justice issued a memorandum to the Bar that implemented the holding in Madden c. Delran, 126 N.J. 591 (1992) and listed exemptions from pro bono counsel assignments.
[brief] These actions are nothing like the allegations Plaintiff made here.  In the matter of Clarke v. Atlantic City Bd. of Educ., 2010 WL 4107750, defendants “engaged in particularly egregious retaliation, by relocating the plaintiff, who has difficulty ambulating and uses a power scooter and cane for mobility, from a location which accommodated the plaintiff’s disability by being in close proximity to the bathroom and which had no doors or other obstructions, to an office on the sixth floor of the building, which is no longer in close proximity to the bathroom and does not have the same reasonable accommodations as the plaintiff’s prior office.
[brief] ”).  Moreover, as detailed in Landlord’s Initial Brief, the Underlying Action is not a standard summary disposition proceeding involving the removal of a non-paying tenant.  Rather, it is complex commercial proceeding that has been ongoing for more than four (4) years and concerns an eighty-three (83) page commercial Lease requiring mutual payment obligations and a detailed calculation of the nearly $200,000 in arrears.  (Da5-87).  Furthermore, all of this occurred against the backdrop of a global pandemic where Tenant’s business was temporarily closed leading to Tenant asserting defenses sounding in equity, including unclean hands, unjust enrichment, frustration of purpose and impossibility of performance.  (Pa116).  Such factors make the lower court’s arbitrary reduction of the hourly rate contained in Landlord’s Fee Application all the more egregious.  As such, Landlord’s Fee Applications satisfied the standard set by the New Jersey Supreme Court and should have been granted in its entirety.
[brief] DATED: JANUARY 29, 1980  The purpose of this bill is to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the procedures for acquiring fiscal notes on pending legislation.  Under this bill, the Legislative Budget Officer would review every bill at the time of its introduction.  As originally drafted, the bill required the Legislative Budget Officer, if he determined that any introduced bill "may increase or decrease expenditures or increase or decrease revenues of the State or any political subdivision thereof," to request immediately a fiscal note through the Director of the Division of Budget and Accounting.  Since this procedure would mean that a fiscal note would be required for every bill with fiscal impact, whether or not the bill had any likelihood of committee consideration or floor action, the committee, with the sponsor's approval, amended the bill to provide that after reviewing each introduced bill, the Legislative Budget Officer would notify the sponsor and the chairman of the committee to which the bill is referred, or the presiding officer of the house of origin in the case of "no reference" bill, that a fiscal note is required.  It then becomes the responsibility of these legislators to request a fiscal note through the Legislative Budget Officer prior to further legislative action.  A provision of the bill authorizes the sponsor, the committee chairman, or the presiding officer of either House to direct the Legislative Budget Officer to request a fiscal note even if the budget officer does not believe that one is necessary.  The bill creates a system for acquiring fiscal information on an emergency basis for fast moving bills.  The bill, as amended, establishes a schedule for the processing of fiscal notes which would make it possible for a committee to have a fiscal note on a newly-introduced bill in its possession in 60 business days.  For emergency bills, the schedule is 10 business days.  Since Senate Bill No. 287 mandates that the Legislative Budget Officer review every bill at the time of introduction, it is possible that some increase in the staff of the Division of Budget and Program Review may be required.  **Committee Amendments**
[brief] ’”  Tully v. Wu, 457 N.J. Super. 114, 128 (App. Div. 2018) (quoting Lombardi v. Massa, 207 N.J. 517, 548 (2011))  The doctrine is discretionary in nature but intends to prevent re-litigation of a previously resolved issue.  Id.  The doctrine is triggered when a court is faced with a ruling on the merits by a different and co-equal court on the identical issue.  Id.  The inclusion of the fraudulent concealment counts in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, constituted an attempt to re-litigate the 2015 action.
[brief] b.  The required cost and size of a house on the [...]  In addition to proximity, one of the trial court’s specific reasons for its decision was its belief that the requirement that a house built on a lot that bordered the [...] must cost more and be larger than houses built on other lots somehow meant that [...] intended there to be an unwritten easement that the owners of the bordering lots could cross the [...] to the beach.  (T68:19—T69:18)  There is simply no logical reason why having a bigger house would have any impact on beach access.  Not only was there no affirmative, non-speculative evidence in the record to establish this conclusion, the trial court disregarded other more plausible rationales for these housing requirements.  For example, it is reasonable to believe that [...] intended that houses built on such properties should be bigger and look grander because they would be visible from the planned boardwalk and/or the beach itself and would therefore serve as a positive advertisement for the community.  Further, the inclusion of such requirements in the [...] shows that [...] was sophisticated enough to spell out any easement rights it intended to convey; the fact that [...] did not include any such express easement is thus itself evidence that [...] did not intend to create or convey such an easement, which the trial court failed to properly acknowledge.
[brief] ”  Id.  According to the Complaint, “[t]he photo has been used in flyers passed out in my parents’ neighborhood” and “has been used in posters for a protest against me in front of my parents’ house making placards and banners with the picture. ”  Id.  The flyer in question describes how Plaintiff “has been refusing to give [his ex-wife] a get, a Jewish bill of divorce,” which leaves her “unable to remarry and is left an agunah, chained to a dead marriage.
[brief] Da274.  [...] and [...] dismissed it at the time in a verified pleading as “bogus,” “unscrupulous,” and an attempt to “avoid obtaining a proper appraisal and selling the property to [...]. ”  Da629; Da637.  Once [...] had submitted what he concedes was his losing bid of $501,000 (Db17) (which resulted in the trial court naming [...] the successful bidder and [...]’s purchase and resale of the Boonton Property to [...]), [...] constructed what can only be described as an alternate reality, stating in a February 16, 2023 certification that he had been “excited” about [...]’ November 2021 offer (Da211, at ¶18).