ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] Plaintiff respectfully requests, however, that the factual statements included within this brief be deemed incorporated within this Statement of Facts.  [...] was a resident monitoring the pregnancy of [...], who had experienced a significant maternal hemorrhage that day previously.  [Pa622-623; Pa231, 56:1 to 57:8].  While engaged in this task, [...] observed an alarming deceleration on a fetal monitoring strip at 9:48 p.m., which among other things indicated that the baby [...], within the womb, was being deprived of access to oxygen.  [Pa622-623; Pa231, 56:1 to 57:8].  [...] contacted [...], Michelle’s doctor, to advise her of the emergency.  [...] was at home at the time but told [...] that she was on her way to the hospital.  [Pa622-623; Pa231, 56:1 to 57:8].  Neither [...] nor [...] called for an emergency C-section at that time.  Neither even advised the attending physician of the emergency.  In fact, neither ever called for an emergency C-section.
[brief] Defendant’s argument in this point incorrectly conflates the law addressing the validity of consent under the Fourth Amendment with the issue of voluntariness required by due process.  To waive one’s Fourth Amendment rights, our courts demand that “the consent must be unequivocal and specific and freely and intelligently given. ”  *State v. King*, 44 N.J. 346, 352 (1965) (citation and internal quotation mark omitted).  “[T]he consenting individual must have been aware of her right to refuse, before giving consent. ”  *State v. Hagans*, 233 N.J. 30, 39 (2018).  An officer’s comment regarding the inevitability of obtaining a court-authorized search warrant may indicate coercion if is a “deceptive threat made to deprive [an individual] of the ability to make an informed consent. ”  *Id.* (quoting *State v. Cancel*, 256 N.J. Super. 430, 433-34 (App. Div. 1992)).  In contrast, the voluntariness of a defendant’s statement does not hinge on a person’s knowledge of their right to refuse to speak to police, equivocation, or the specificity of their statements.  Even significant lies about the evidence by the police do not vitiate a confession’s voluntariness in most cases.  The only requirement is that the suspect’s will is not overborne.  *L.H.*, 239 N.J. at 44; *Miller*, 76 N.J. at 403.  It is thus no surprise that our courts consult different factors for making these separate legal judgments.  Compare *Hagans*, 233 N.J. at 39-40 (listing guideposts for assessing the voluntariness of consent), with Galloway, 133 N.J. at 654 (listing factors for assessing voluntariness of speaking with the police); see also State v. Andrews, 243 N.J. 447, 479-80 (2020) (reasoning that “the Fourth Amendment’s privacy protections should not factor into analysis of the Fifth Amendment’s applicability”).
[brief] THE TRIAL COURT BELOW ERRED IN NOT ISSUING AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING AND ENJOINING THE FOOD USE AND GG CURRENT OPERATION (T4 at 19:10-21:2)  It has been proven that the current food use is not a preexisting non-conforming use.  It is also clear that even if a food use existed before the adoption of the first zoning ordinance, that use was abandoned in 1969.  Plaintiffs have also established that the 1984 Resolution is void for lack of notice, as the Board did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application.  As a result, the food use in that structure without the property owner having obtained a variance from the Board of Adjustment is a continuing violation of the zoning ordinance for which the Court below should have issued an injunction.  Garrou v. Teaneck Tryon Co., 11 N.J. 294 (1953); Morris v. Borough of Haledon, 24 N.J. Super. 171 (App. Div. 1952).  It is respectfully requested that the Court remand the case to the Trial Court for the issuance of an injunction, as this illegal use has been in operation since May 12, 2020, almost four years.  POINT VIII
[brief] (See 4T18:15–25, 20:9–25.)  Regardless of the trial court’s extraneous and tentative statements during the July 8 Oral Argument, “[i]t is well-settled that appeals are taken from orders and judgments and not from . . . oral decisions . . . or reasons given for the ultimate conclusion. ”  Do-Wop Corp. v. City of Rahway, 168 N.J. 191, 199 (2001).  It is the court’s final adjudication and not its tentative oral statements that it later disregarded that has the effect of a judgment.
[brief] II.  THE LOWER COURT CORRECTLY DENIED APPELLANT’S MOTION  BECAUSE THE JUDGMENT IS NOT VOID  PURSUANT TO RULE 4:50-1(d)  Rule 4:50-1(d) permits a party to vacate a default judgment if it is void. \(^6\)  But, the Judgment is not void pursuant to Rule 4:50-1 (d) because: (a) --- \(^6\) Appellant did not seek to move to vacate the Judgment pursuant to Rule 4:50-1(a) on the basis of excusable neglect.
[brief] Pa38 Petitioner’s Notice of Motion seeking to compel transcript and to compel Statement of Items Comprising the Record, filed March 8, 2023 .................................................................................................................. Pa40 Certification of [...], Esq., in support of motion, filed March 8, 2023 ........................................................................................................ Pa42 Exhibit A – Transcript Request ............................................................... Pa46 Exhibit B – Emails exchanged between [...], Esq. and legislative staff dated February 17, 2023 through February 21, 2023 ................................................................. Pa47 Exhibit C - Emails exchanged between [...], Esq. and Attorney General’s Office, dated February 17, 2023, February 21, 2023, February 28, 2023 and March 1, 2023 ........................................................................................................ Pa50 Exhibit D – Invoice for Transcript ............................................................ Pa53 Supplemental Certification of [...], Esq., in support of motion, filed March 15, 2023 ................................................................. Pa56 Order on Motion, dated April 4, 2023 ........................................................ Pa60 Petitioners’ Notice of Motion seeking to permit transcripts and compel hearing/depositions, filed May 10, 2023 ........................................ Pa62 Certification of [...] in support of motion, filed May 10, 2023 ................................................................. Pa64 Exhibit A – omitted as duplicate Exhibit B – Legislative Digest for January 6, 2022 .................. Pa69 Exhibit C – Legislative Digest for January 10, 2022 ............... Pa76 Certification of [...] in support of motion, filed May 10, 2023 ................................................................. Pa98 Exhibit A – Relevant Rules of Assembly for 2020-2021 legislative session ............................................................. Pa105 Exhibit B – Relevant Rules of Senate for 2020-2021 legislative session .............................................................. Pa108 Exhibit C – Legislative Calendar for January 6, 2022 posted on Legislature’s website .................................................. Pa111 Exhibit D – Screen shot from Legislature’s website showing inaccessibility of calendar for January 6, 2022 ..................
[brief] However, I think that it is very likely that I subconsciously did remember it, as my position was so closely similar to that asserted in the Haylett case, which 3 different judges held to be correct and viable.  And this Court should take judicial notice of the fact people often won’t remember how, when, or where they had come to form their beliefs or opinions.  So unless it is just purely coincidence, I think it is very likely that I was subconsciously guided by this unpublished opinion, which I did not find (again) until almost a year after I filed this case.  But as to the latter scenario, even supposing if I had formed my belief in my primary position without ever having laid eyes upon the unpublished opinion of Haylett v. Baladi, nonetheless it is still irrefutable proof that my position was neither “irrational” nor “completely untenable”, as at least three (3) different N.J. Superior Court judges/justices in the case of Haylett v. Baladi all had thought the same way as I did (i.e. the trial court judge, and the 2-justice Appellate panel).
[brief] There was no representation or approval for regular off-site parking use of the School property by other owners/properties, such as the Synagogue Lot 8.  On the Approved Plat, the Sixth Street courtyard is an open and bisected by a walkway from the Sixth Street sidewalk to the entry of the School.  The Site Plan contains no legend or designation of this courtyard as being intended, designated or authorized for vehicle parking; nor does the Resolution authorize such parking.  These facts clearly establish that the Sixth Street courtyard was not proffered by the School or approved by the Board as a vehicle parking area.  The courtyard is clearly for assemblage and access to the School for students and visitors.  Importantly, there was no approval on the Site Plan; nor was there in place until 2013 any curb cut on Sixth Street to allow vehicle access into this courtyard area.  There was simply no claim or approval that Lot 8 attendees/staff could legally park Lot 8 vehicles in the School entry courtyard.
[brief] And it is not just the process of nominating candidates that is unconstitutional, it is the delegation of regulatory power to an agency controlled by a private organization, the [...], that violates the separation of powers and the restriction on the delegation of legislative authority in Articles III and IV.  This constitutional infirmity is not overcome even if, as the State Defendants argue, the members of the Council are subject to the Conflicts of Interest Law and the State’s Ethics Code, or can be removed by the Governor for cause (Sb10), since only sportsmen selected by the [...] can make up a majority of the members of the Council.
[brief] .................................................................................. 14 - **Fallone Prop. v. Bethlehem Plan. Bd,** 369 N.J. Super. 552 (App. Div. 2004)  .........................................................  15 - **Kramer v. Sea Girt Bd. of Adj.,** 45 N.J. 268 (1965)  ....................................................................................  14 - **Printing Mart v. Sharp Electronics,** 116 N.J. 739 (1989) ...................................................................................  9-10 - **Wilson v. Brick Tp. Zoning Bd.,** 405 N.J. Super. 189 (App. Div. 2009) .........................................................  14 - **Yousefian v Wayne Twp.,** 152 N.J. Super. 111 (Law Div. 1977) .........................................................  14  #### Statutes & Other Authorities: - **N.J.S.A. 40:55D-62.a............................................................................. 16** - **N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1.............................................................................. 3, 10** - **N.J.S.A.  40A:12A-7.............................................................................. 4, 17** - **N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-7.d........................................................................... 16** - **N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-7.e........................................................................... 10, 11** - **N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-8.............................................................................. 7, 12** - **N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-14..........................................................................  4**  BRIEF ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT-DEFENDANT  [...]
[directive] Criminal History I 0No 0No Prior Record Pending Charges  OYes OYes 11  2.  Residence I I  Number of Years in How Long at Current Address  Residence Status I I OOther D oown Rent US: NJ: County: Address Zip Code I 1  I I Name of Cohabitant Relationship to Defendant  Residence Phone Emergency Phone Prior Address Zip Code 1 I I Name of Cohabitant Relationship to Defendant  How Long at This Address  Marital Status  Number of Dependents Pay Support D Single D D Separated D  Divorced 0Widowed Married 0Yes ONo D Civil Union D  Domestic Partnership  Does the Defendant have If Yes, has the Defendant  Has alternate care I I D N/A primary care of children or other information been obtained DYes 0No 0No made alternate care  OYes OYes ONo dependents? arrangements? or referral made?  I I  Defendant Supplemental Contact Relationship to Defendant Telephone Number Contact Person's Address Zip Code I Comments  UDIR- 1 Revised: 09/2017, CN: 10693
[brief] N.J.S.A. 26:3-84 provides the opportunity of 2 or more local (municipal) Boards of Health “to form an association to furnish such Boards with public health services”.  That section further provides that, “an association formed under the provisions of this act shall be known as a “regional health commission. ”  Ibid.  The powers, duties and jurisdiction of a regional health commission are stated in N.J.S.A. 26:3-92, which provides:
[brief] ’ ”  Id. at 596 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Winter, 96 N.J. 640, 647 (1984)).  “That the jury will follow the instructions given is presumed. ”  State v. Ross, 229 N.J. 389, 415 (2017) (quoting State v. Loftin, 146 N.J. 295, 390 (1996)).  III.
[brief] 2  Plaintiff’s brief uses the following citations:  Pa: Plaintiff-Respondent’s Appendix  Da: Defendant-Respondent’s Appendix (Although Defendant’s appendix is marked “Pa” and cited as “Pa”, Plaintiff refers to Defendant’s appendix as “Da”).  1T: October 19, 2023 motion hearing transcript  2T: November 28, 2023 motion hearing transcript  3T: November 30, 2023 motion hearing transcript  3  The Request to Enter Default was served upon [...] and [...] by regular mail at [...]  Plaintiff requested to enter Default Judgment against [...] and [...] (Da17).  On May 4, 2015, the trial court entered Default Judgment against [...] and [...] (Pa1-2).
[directive] The Violent Criminal Apprehension Program (VICAP), established by the [...] is a nationwide data information center designed to collect, collate and analyze a variety of violent crime information.  VICAP provides all law enforcement agencies reporting similar patterns of violent crimes with the information necessary to initiate coordinated multi-agency investigations.  In cases where investigation reveals that a missing person or unidentified person has been a victim of a violent act, use of the Violent Criminal Apprehension Program (VICAP) should be explored.  Information regarding the VICAP Program is available from any local [...] Office or by writing to [...].
[brief] In Bonaventure Int. v. [...], 350 N.J. Super. 420 (App. Div. 2000), the objecting neighbors to a restaurant/banquet facility in [...] filed an application under 40:55D-68 to the use/facility as not legal.  The Court affirmed the application was within the Board’s jurisdiction.  The [...] decided the current uses were not pre-existing or legal, but that enforcement was estopped due to the [...] not acting sooner and allowing certain permits.  The Law Court and Appellate Court modified the Board decision, finding the restaurant use valid as pre-existing, but the banquet/catering uses to be not valid pre-existing non-conforming uses.
[brief] Moreover, the surrounding parcels and those across from the property contain a mix of residential and commercial uses, as well as undeveloped land.  The parcel immediately to the south of the property contains an advertising billboard.  Taking these neighboring uses into consideration, the accessory structure does not present a “substantial detriment” to the neighboring properties; and 6.  The Zoning Board also found that the proposed use will not impair the intent and purpose of the zoning plan and the zoning ordinance.
[brief] E.  [...]’S SUBMISSION OF NUMEROUS/57  DOCUMENTS NOT IN THE BOARD RECORD --- AND THE TRIAL COURT’S ALLOWING SUCH SUBMISSION AND RELYING ON CLEARLY ERRONEOUS CLAIMS THEREIN --- WAS IMPROPER (IN SUPPORT OF Db Pt V and VII, RESPONDING TO Pb V AND VII)  Besides the substantive errors, the Trial Court erred procedurally as to the "record" to be considered.
[directive] Law enforcement officers frequently encounter persons with disabilities or individuals who are experiencing a mental health crisis.  This Directive is designed to establish a framework for County Prosecutors to convene, or in some cases continue, working groups to improve law enforcement interactions with special needs populations and those living with mental or behavioral health issues (County Working Groups).  The County Working Groups will review policies, programs and protocols to maximize the effectiveness of their county’s response to those with disabilities or those in mental health crisis.  In addition, in order to share best practices and provide support and resources to all counties, the Office of Attorney General will establish a Statewide Steering Committee to work collaboratively with the County Working Groups.  I.  County Working Groups  When it comes to individuals with mental health issues or special needs, the processes, programs and resources available vary by county across New Jersey.  Although all New Jersey communities have an interest in maintaining robust processes for helping residents experiencing acute mental health challenges, some may have more robust levels of organization and resources than others.  The same is true for processes for helping persons with disabilities.  Building professional relationships between law enforcement and providers, as well as local social service organizations, is an important step in ensuring the multi-dimensional response necessary to reduce tragic and unnecessary law enforcement encounters.  New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on Recycled Paper and is Recyclable Page 2 Group1
[brief] Thereafter Plaintiff relies upon the December 8, 2010 Planning Board Resolution which indicated as follows: “the access road to the premises must be constructed in accordance with Borough standards and if the existing access road is not up to borough standards, the existing access road must be upgraded to Borough standards prior to the same being dedicated to the [...] at the cost and expense of the applicant”.  (Pa206 par. ”E”)  This paragraph provides no definition of what portion of roadway “the access road” refers to or what the “existing access road” refers to.  Presumably it refers to the ingress and egress driveway for the church, but this is entirely unclear.  There are no maps or plats attached to this Resolution (Pa209) in the record which reflect an intention of public street dedication.  Rather the description refers to access roads.  Furthermore the foregoing Paragraph within the Resolution is contingent upon the execution of a Developer’s agreement which indicates: “the Applicant shall execute a Developer’s Agreement in form and content satisfactory to the Planning Board Engineer and Planning Board Attorney”.
[directive] Bail Schedule 2  STATUTES WHERE BAIL MAY BE SET BY A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE OR A MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE OR, IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE’S ABSENCE, THE MUNICIPAL COURT ADMINISTRATOR OR DEPUTY COURT ADMINISTRATOR, PURSUANT TO RULE 3:26-2 requires warrants  Rule 3:3-1(c)(1) on the Bail Schedule 2 charges of robbery, criminal sexual contact, second degree aggravated assault, aggravated arson, arson, burglary, first or second degree violations of Chapter 35 (drug offenses), any crime involving the possession or use of a firearm, or conspiracies or attempts to commit such crimes.
[brief] Next to testify was [...], who was [...]’s son-in-law, and who worked for [...] in the pizza parlor while he operated it.  It should be noted that he was a totally objective person who had no “skin in the game. ”  He reviewed the photograph marked J-23 (Pa 136) and indicated that [...] had no appliances like [...] as reflected in that photograph.  [...] had no induction cooktops, no microwave and [...] had more refrigeration.  In addition, [...] had no food deliveries and no bread deliveries because he picked up whatever he needed for his operation himself.  (T3 at 30:20-32:9).  [...] then reviewed Exhibit J-19 and testified that [...]’s menu was much more expansive than [...]’s.  (Pa 106-117).  [...] had no soups and salads, he had less sandwich selections, he had no dinner options (like the chicken and seafood offered by [...]), he had no desserts and he had no catering.  (T3 at 32:10-33:18).  He further testified that [...]’s hours of operation were Thursday to Saturday from 1:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.  Finally, he testified that the [...] operation was only pickup and delivery and that there was no eating on premises, either inside the building or outside.  (T3 at 34:8-14).
[brief] Under N.J.R.E. 702, an expert witness must have sufficient expertise to offer the intended testimony.  See State v. Jenewicz, 193 N.J. 440, 454 (2008).  “The mere self-proclaimed nomenclature designating a witness as an expert does not make all proffered testimony admissible. ”  North Jersey Media Group, Inc. v. IC Sys. Solutions, 2015 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 327, *60-64 (Law Div. February 18, 2015), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, and remanded, 2017 N.J. Super. Unpubl. LEXIS 2176 (App. Div. August 30, 2017).  “[A]n expert’s bare conclusions, unsupported by factual evidence or other data, are inadmissible as a mere ‘net opinion.
[brief] [...]’S Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendant’s Affirmative Defense, entered November 9, 2022  Da1  Lower Court Rider and Statement of Reasons, filed November 9, 2022  Da29 #  TABLE OF APPENDIX | Appendix document | Appendix page number | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------| | Order Granting Summary Judgment, filed November 9, 2022 | Da1 | | Complaint, undated | Da2 | | Summons, filed April 18, 2022 | Da4 | | Track Assignment Notice, filed March 16, 2022 | Da5 | | Answer, filed April 29, 2022 | Da6 | | Notice of Mandatory Arbitration, filed September 29, 2022 | Da8 | | Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment, filed October 6, 2022 | Da9 | | Plaintiff’s Statement of Material Facts in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, filed October 6, 2022 | Da11 | | Defendant’s Brief in Opposition to Grant of Motion for Summary Judgment, filed November 3, 2022 | Da15 | | Lower Court Rider and Statement of Reasons, filed November 9, 2022 | Da29 | | Notice of Appeal, filed December 6, 2022 | Da33 | | Summary of All Items
[brief] For the reasons and authorities set forth at length herein, the State respectfully requests this Court reverse the lower court’s suppression order.  Respectfully submitted, [...]  [...] /s/ [...]  By: [...], 041202006  Assistant Prosecutor Director, Appellate Section Of Counsel and On the Letter Brief email: [...]  MD/mc c [...], Assistant Deputy Public Defender  January 6, 2025  [...] ID. NO. 054081991  Assistant Deputy Public Defender Of Counsel and  On the Brief  LETTER BRIEF ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT