ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] Case Management Conferences on Remand Proceedings  23.  On June 26, 2019, counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant appeared before the Trial Court for a Case Management Conference at which time the parties agreed to maintain the status quo until resolution of the remanded matters.  (Da837)  On July 15, 2019, the Trial Court entered a Case Management Order, in part, memorializing the parties’ agreement to maintain the status quo.  (Da845)  24.  On September 23, 2019, the parties appeared before the Trial Court for another Case Management Conference regarding trial of the remanded issues.  (Da886-890)  The parties and Trial Court conferred and agreed to bifurcate the remand proceedings.
[directive] (3)  Èske w konprann ke restriksyon konsènan kote ou kab abite kab [Wi/Yes] [Non/No] [pa aplikab/NA] gen ladann restriksyon pou abite nan kay ak timoun minè? Do you understand that the restrictions on where you can live may include restrictions on residing in a home with minor children?  (4)  Èske w konprann ke si w vyole kondisyon sipèvizyon kominotè a [Wi/Yes] [Non/No] [pa aplikab/NA] vi a epi yo ta akize w fòmèlman ak deklare w koupab de vyolasyon sa a, ou ta ka resevwa yon santans de 5 lane nan prizon (si ak yon santans espesyal de sipèvisyon kondisyonèl a vi enfraksyon kondisyon tèm yo te fèt le oubyen aprè le 1ye jiyè 2014)?  Do you understand that if you violate a condition of community supervision for life and you are indicted and convicted for that violation, you may receive a sentence of imprisonment of up to 5 years and a special sentence of parole (if the violation of the condition occurred on or after supervision for life July 1, 2014) (if the or you may receive a sentence of up to 18 months  Fòm Revize Kreye pa Direktif #01-18, (02/23/2018), CN 10080-Haitian Creole paj 3 nan 7 Revised Form Promulgated by Directive #01-18, (02/23/2018), CN 10080-Haitian Creole page 3 of 7 violation of the condition occurred before July 1, 2014)?
[brief] LEGAL ARGUMENT STANDARD OF REVIEW  An appellate court’s review of rulings of law and issues regarding the applicability, validity, or interpretation of laws, statutes, or rules is *de novo*.  See *Kocanowski v. Twp. of Bridgewater*, 237 N.J. 3, 9 (2019).  Accordingly, “[a] trial court’s interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference. ”  *Rowe v. Bell & Gossett Co.*, 239 N.J. 531, 552 (2019) (quoting *Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan*, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995)).  Furthermore, an appellate court’s *de novo* review of questions of law applies to a trial court’s review and interpretation of a contract, including an arbitration agreement.  *Serico v. Rothberg*, 234 N.J. 168, 178 (2018) (noting *de novo* appellate review of contracts); *Kieffer v. Best Buy*, 205 N.J. 213, 222 (2011) (noting same); *Goffe v. Foulke Mgmt. Corp.*, 238 N.J. 191, 207 (2019) (noting *de novo* appellate review of arbitration agreements).  The Court’s review of the trial court’s decision here therefore is plenary, and the trial court’s decision is not entitled to deference.  As to arbitration awards, the Court’s review of an arbitrator’s decision “is very limited. ”  *Bound Brook Bd. of Educ. v. Ciripompa*, 228 N.J. 4, 11 (2017) (quoting *Linden Bd. of Educ. v. Linden Educ. Ass’n ex rel. Mizichko*, 202 N.J. 268, 276 (2010)).  New Jersey’s Courts are guided by the principles set forth by the United States Supreme Court in the *Steelworkers Trilogy* when reviewing a challenged arbitration award.  *See New Jersey Tpke. Auth. v. Local 196, IFPTE*, 190 N.J. 283 (2007).  Thus, judicial involvement in disputes involving arbitration awards is limited to confined parameters of review.  Nonetheless, a reviewing court can accept an arbitrator’s award in a public sector arbitration only if the award constitutes a “reasonably debatable” interpretation of the parties’ contract.  *See, e.g.*, *Bd. of Educ. of Alpha v. Alpha Educ. Ass’n*, 190 N.J. 34, 42 (2006).  An award is “reasonably debatable” if it is “justifiable” or “fully supportable in the record. ”  *Policemen’s Benevolent Ass’n v. City of Trenton*, 205 N.J. 422, 431 (2011).  Similarly, the New Jersey Arbitration Act, *N.J.S.A. 2A:24–1 to –11*, which applies to disputes “arising from a collective bargaining agreement,” *N.J.S.A. 2A:24–1.1*, permits courts to vacate an arbitration award, among other situations, where “the award was procured by corruption, fraud or undue means.
[brief] ⁸  *Emails From Election Watchdog Reveal Fixation on LGBTQ Community*, N.J. Monitor, Mar. 24, 2023.  sent racist emails;\(^9\) that a political boss leveraged “extraordinary influence over the state’s tax break program” by crafting rules and regulations that advanced the interests of clients and friends,\(^10\) and so many other important stories.  Today, where so much local government work is done via email, easy access to emails is more important than ever.  Agencies sadly put up a fight over emails—they do not want the public to see them.  They deny requests they claim are not “specific” enough, even when they know exactly how to locate the responsive records.  That is precisely what happened in this case, and it is harmful to the public’s interest.  Moreover, a reporter shouldn’t be required to provide a keyword where the records custodian can readily identify and locate the records.  Reporters need to be able to investigate issues by seeking email communications, without giving a keyword that might tip the agency off as to what they are looking for.  Too often agencies will over-redact information that should be public.  Point II of [...]’s brief makes it clear that it is disgruntled that email communications are public records.  It goes so far as arguing that access to an email --- \(^9\) Palisades Park Councilman Sent Racist, Sexist Chain Letters to Friends, Bergen Record, Nov. 30, 2018.  \(^10\) Emails Show How Much Pull Political Bosses Had Over State Tax Breaks, ProPublica, Mar. 11, 2024.  log—something the Supreme Court has unequivocally made public—should be denied because disclosure of an agency’s communications “invites a level of intrusion into the public sphere” and agencies need to be able to discuss things in private.  OPRA, though, makes those communications public unless an exemption applies.  To the extent that [...] believes any of the exemptions it mentions in its brief are confidential, the trial court gave it authority to redact or withhold them so long as the lawful basis for each redaction is provided.  But [...] cannot avoid that disclosure requirement by making it impossible to request its emails in the first place.
[brief] *State v. Macon*, 57 N.J. 325, 336 (1971).  [...]’s convictions must be reversed.  Fingerprint analysis is subject to error.  It is particularly subject to error in two of the circumstances present here: (1) where the exemplar the examiner is given for comparison was found through a search in a large database; and (2) where the examiner has biasing information available during his comparison.  [...] knew AFIS returned a match for [...] and he knew [...] was the suspect, at the very least.  This information biases an examiner into confirming what the computer system and the prosecutors already believe.  The risk of mistaken fingerprint “matches” is not merely theoretical.  In 2005, one scholar found twenty-two reported cases of misattribution and suggested they are “merely the tip of the iceberg. ”  Cole, supra at 1017.  The match in this case might be a false attribution or it might be correct.  But the jury was not properly equipped to make that determination.  [...]’s convictions must be reversed.  In the alternative, a remand must be ordered for a full evidentiary hearing on the issues surrounding fingerprint analysis that stems from database searches and the appropriate scope of voir dire, testimony, and jury instructions that should accompany any fingerprint testimony.
[brief] Wherefore, for the reasons set forth above, this case should be remanded to the trial court for a new trial on the issue of the value of Lot 19 without disturbing the findings as to Lot 18 or the enhancements from the furniture, fixtures and equipment.  If the court wishes to exercise its original jurisdiction, it could amend the award to conform with the evidence of market rent set forth above.  Respectfully submitted  [...]  A Professional Corporation Attorneys for Defendants/ Appellants/Cross Respondents  [...] & [...]  Dated: November 16, 2022.
[brief] ”)  In the virtual setting, this means that where a judge grants a hardship excuse (whether in the presence of the panel or during individual questioning in a sidebar breakout room), the juror may be permitted to log out of the virtual session.  Consistent with Section 4.8 “judges in their discretion may alter the sequence and wording of the questions as they determine appropriate, as long as the substance is not materially modified. ”  The other provisions of the Bench Manual also will be followed during the virtual selection process. ” (Da106)  (Emphasis added).  Here, these mandatory protocols were not been followed.
[brief] Rather, the trial court had previously correctly determined in the Prior Action that the failure to pay the rent was due to internal strife among Appellants’ investors, which interfered with their ability to raise enough money to purchase the land, or apparently to pay the rent due 9 Da35. under the Lease.  [Pa140-41].  Appellants do not dispute this.  In fact, they alleged it in their proposed Second Amended Complaint in the Prior Action, acknowledging that [...]’s “inability to pay annual rent in 2017 was due, in part, to an internal shareholder dispute within the company, principally between [...] and another shareholder named [...] concerning the company’s direction and business strategy. ”  [Pa176].  Consistent with its prior findings and conclusions in the Prior Action, the trial court correctly determined that the Appellants’ fraud claim was not sustainable as a matter of law, finding:  [Appellants] cannot prove damages as a result of any representations or promises made by [...] in connection with the sale of the Solar Rights by clear and convincing evidence.  The Court found in the Prior Action that the direct and proximate cause of the [Appellants’] alleged losses, the same losses alleged herein, was their failure to pay rent which led to the default.
[brief] The [...] will rely upon the Statement of the Facts contained in their opening brief, except to note their disagreement with certain factual assertions made in Plaintiff’s opposition papers.  Plaintiff states, after acknowledging that its retail development application for the Property has been rejected:  “Axiomatically, to date, [...] has not persuaded the town of Edgewater to pursue the residential zoning which would have entitled Appellants to the conditional payments. ”  Pb, 2.  Plaintiff also laments that it “is obviously powerless to compel Edgewater to rezone, and the most it could ever do, which it is in fact doing, is apply for zoning in good faith. ”  Pb, 17.  All of this suggests, in a less than subtle fashion, that Plaintiff has attempted to pursue residential zoning for the Property which, if granted, could entitle the [...] to the “kicker” payment under the MOU.  This is simply not the case.  Plaintiff’s Site Plan Approval application before the [...], which Plaintiff’s opposition papers reference in touting its purported good faith efforts on the zoning issue (Pb, 17), makes clear that it sought approval for --- 2  The following references are used in this section and throughout the [...]’ reply brief:  Db – [...]’ opening brief  Da – [...]’ appendix  Pb – Plaintiff’s opposition brief  Pa – Plaintiff’s appendix
[directive] N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-34(c)(3).  This may require a referral to the Division of Child Protection and Permanency.  25  20 Prosecutor handling the case.  The Assistant Prosecutor shall promptly notify the Family Court of the circumstances of the violation, unless the Assistant Prosecutor determines that such notification would jeopardize an investigation or law enforcement operation, or endanger an officer or other person.  The Assistant Prosecutor shall also promptly determine whether they should seek revocation of release or request additional conditions of release.  Likewise, the Family Court should notify the Assistant Prosecutor when there is reason to believe that a juvenile has violated a condition of pretrial release.  If the juvenile was in an alternative placement, the program should notify the Family Court and Assistant Prosecutor handling the case.  If the suspected violation occurred outside the jurisdiction of the County Prosecutor’s Office handling the matter on which pretrial release conditions were imposed, the agency or officer detecting the violation may notify the Prosecutor’s Office in their jurisdiction, and they will notify the Assistant Prosecutor handling the original case.  If the violation would constitute a criminal offense if committed by an adult and two or more Prosecutor’s Offices are involved, the Offices shall confer and coordinate their efforts to ensure the safety of the public and victim to the greatest extent possible.
[brief] Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 3B:31-54, the Trustee was obligated to adhere to “applicable law,” which encompasses adherence to court orders.  (8T 28-31)  Florida Property.  Contrary to the required compliance of [...]’s Order, Plaintiff opted to acquire the Florida Property at its appraised value, proceeding without [...]’s consent.  While the Trust did confer upon [...] the authority to purchase [...] and [...]’s shares of the Florida Property herself, it simultaneously stipulated that any such purchase must be conducted at fair market value, pursuant to Trust Article 4, Paragraph 4.1(A)(b).
[brief] Moreover, defendant’s own messages to [...] and [...]’ responses display why [...] was at the house, and it was not [...] who did the threatening, but defendant.  Moreover, there was evidence that at least one of the gunshots to [...] was perpendicular to the decking on the porch, meaning [...] was likely already disabled when he was killed.  Thus, while there may have been self-serving evidence presented showing some basis that defendant “overreacted” to a provocation by [...], that basis was anything but rational.
[brief] Exhibit H, Report of Examination of [...], P.E., dated January 18, 2018, filed May 24, 2019 (omitted here – see 289a)  Exhibit I, Deposition of [...], dated July 11, 2018, filed May 24, 2019 (Volume 11 of 15 – Pa1961 to Pa2160)  Exhibit J, Order on Motion to Dismiss, dated August 4, 2017, filed May 24, 2019  Exhibit K, Deposition of [...], P.E., dated September 10, 2018, filed May 24, 2019 (Volume 12 of 15 – Pa2161 to Pa2360)  Exhibit L, Deposition of [...], P.E., dated June 12, 2018, filed May 24, 2019  Exhibit M, Report of [...], with Exhibits A through N, dated January 4, 2018, filed May 24, 2019 (omitted here – see 688a) Exhibit N, Agreement between [...] and [...], dated April 26, 2014, filed May 24, 2019
[brief] (Da170; Da207; A.  The Trial Court’s Denial of Defendant’s Motion to Compel Return of Monies was not an Abuse of Discretion.  (Da170; Da207; Da210-603; Da751-763; Da816-Da844; Da965-967; Da969; Da976; 5T 34:7-44:11; 6T 4-76)  i.  The Proofs Submitted during the 2017 Trial resulting in the $4,529.60 in Damages Awarded Remain the Same and Support the Award for Damages.  (Da177-209; 6T)  Among the damages awarded in the 2017 Judgment, $4,529.60 related to Defendant’s interference and resulting costs incurred related to the cutting of Plaintiff’s connection to Defendant’s heating system, the cost of reconnecting the system, and the costs related to removal of a barrier improperly installed by Defendant.  During the 2017 trial, Plaintiff produced several witnesses who testified as to this interference and the damages incurred by Plaintiff.  In response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel the return of monies paid prior to the 2019 Appellate Decision, Plaintiff argued that should the Trial Court once again determine that Plaintiff was granted easement rights in the Subject Property, the proofs related to Plaintiff’s damages claim will be identical to those which the Trial Court relied upon when it entered the 2017 Judgment.  (Da177-209)  The basis of the Appellate Division’s 2019 reversal and remand was the Trial Court should not have resolved the issue of whether an express easement was granted on Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment given the ambiguities of the 1963 Agreement.  (Da751-763)  The Appellate Division did not make any rulings as to the Trial Court’s determination of damages during the 2017 Trial.  As such, in response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel return of the monies paid, the Trial Court affirmed the award of these damages in its First Amended Order entered on April 26, 2022 by incorporating its prior ruling related to the 2017 Judgment.
[brief] Churm v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 634 A.2d 741, 742 (N.J. App. Div. 1994).  The purpose of the shift from the courts to arbitration was “to establish an informal system of settling tort claims arising out of automobile accidents in an expeditious and least costly manner, and to ease the burden and congestion of the State’s courts. ”  Id.  The mandatory arbitration statute provides that, “Any dispute regarding the recovery of medical expense benefits or other benefits provided under personal injury protection coverage . . . arising out of the operation, ownership, maintenance or use of an automobile may be submitted to dispute resolution on the initiative of any party to the dispute. ”  N.J.S.A.§39:6A-5.1(a)(emphasis added).  The statute also expressly mandates arbitration for the claims alleged in this case, including: “whether the treatment or health care service which is the subject of the dispute resolution proceeding is in accordance with” applicable law; “eligibility of the treatment or service for compensation”; “eligibility of the provider performing the treatment or service to be compensated under the terms of the policy or under regulations promulgated by the commissioner”; “whether the disputed medical treatment was actually performed”; “the necessity or appropriateness of consultations by other health care providers”; “disputes involving application of and adherence to fee schedules”; and “whether the treatment performed is reasonable, necessary, and compatible with the protocols provided. ”  *Id.* §5.1(c).  It would have been simple for the Legislature to include in AICRA a single sentence exempting insurance company civil suits under the NJIFPA/NJRICO.  However, no such carve out or exemption exists in AICRA, the subsequently passed legislation that supersedes and preempts the private cause of action afforded by NJIFPA/NJRICO.
[brief] PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND  A.  The Parties.  The [...] operates and manages the [...].  (Pa39\(^1\)).  The district is comprised of 25 schools—17 elementary schools, five middle schools, and three high schools, including [...]. \(^2\)  The [...] employs approximately 1,150 school teachers and staff. \(^3\)  [...] was a teacher employed by the [...] until his termination on November 18, 2021.  [...] was first hired as a Special Education teacher for the 2007-08 school year.  (Ra3\(^4\)).  [...] ultimately attained tenure with the [...].  B.  The Underlying Tenure Charges.  On the morning of May 21, 2019, [...] Principal [...] received information that [...] had been drinking in the school lobby while on duty on the previous day.  (Pa3-Pa4).  Pace learned that school staff members had observed [...] drinking from a water bottle that emanated a strong smell of alcohol.  (Pa2-Pa3).  --- \(^1\)  “Pa” refers to Plaintiff’s Appendix.  \(^2\)  Schools, [...], https://www.woodbridge.k12.nj.us/  \(^3\) Certificated Staff, NJDOE Data & Reports, https://www.nj.gov/education/doedata/cs/index.shtml (last visited March 13, 2024).  \(^4\) “Ra” refers to Respondent [...]’s Appendix.
[brief] Page  PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ........................................................................1  PROCEDURAL HISTORY .........................................................................3  STATEMENT OF FACTS ...........................................................................5  1.  Respondents opened and maintained six [...] accounts and agreed to resolve all disputes through FINRA arbitration.  ......................5  2.  Respondents registered for [...] online account access and again agreed to resolve all disputes through FINRA arbitration.  ........8  LEGAL ARGUMENT ..................................................................................10
[directive] A.  We begin with a brief overview of some basic points related to the CJRA.  Under the prior system of pretrial release, New Jersey, like most states, relied heavily on cash bail.  State v. Robinson, 229 N.J. 44, 52 (2017).  The CJRA replaced that approach with a risk-based system that, for the first time, 7 allowed judges to detain high-risk defendants pretrial.  Id. at 54.  The Act also provided speedy trial deadlines for detained defendants.  Ibid.  Since the Act went into effect on January 1, 2017, most defendants have been released pending trial subject to monitoring by pretrial services officers.  N.J.S.A. 2A:162-17, -25(d).  For higher-risk defendants, the State can move for pretrial detention.  Id. at -19(a).  After a hearing, if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that no combination of conditions of release would reasonably guard against the risk of danger, flight, or obstruction that a defendant poses, the person is held in custody pretrial.  Id. at -18(a)(1).  In recent years, approximately 19 percent of defendants charged by complaint have been ordered detained.  Annual Report to the Governor and the Legislature 2020 at 32 (20.1 percent); Annual Report to the Governor and the Legislature 2019 at 29 (17.6 percent); Annual Report to the Governor and the percent).2  Legislature 2018 at 36 (19.5  In tandem with other reform efforts, the pretrial jail population dropped from 8,899 at the start of 2016 to 4,976 at the start of 2020.
[directive] a.  Bc;dzie Pan(i) wpisany do rejestru karnego?  b.  Unless the plea agreement provides otherwise, you could be sentenced to serve the [Yes/Tak] [No/Nie] maximum time in confinement, to pay the maximum fine and to pay the maximum [...] Assessment?  Moze Pan(i) zostac skazany(a) na maksymalny okres pozbawienia wolnosci, opiate; maksymalnej grzywny lub maksymalnej nawil!Zki na rzecz [...] ([...]), chyba ze w porozumieniu z prokuratorem ustalono inaczej?
[brief] 20 Shell Oil Co. v. Winterthur Swiss Ins. Co., 12 Cal. App. 4th 715 (Ct. App.), review denied, 1993 Cal. LEXIS 2542 (Cal. 1993)  ......................................................19, 20 Sickles v. Cabot Corp., 379 N.J. Super. 100 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 185 N.J. 297 (2005)  .....................................................................................  8  Smith v. Motor Club of Am. Ins. Co., 54 N.J. Super. 37 (Ch. Div.), aff’d, 56 N.J. Super. 203 (App. Div. 1959)  ........................................................................  30 Velantzas v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 109 N.J. 189 (1988)  ............................................................................................................
[brief] N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) states:  I will uphold and enforce all laws, rules and regulations of the State Board of Education, and court orders pertaining to schools.  Desired changes shall be brought about only through legal and ethical procedures.  N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(e) states:  I will recognize that authority rests with the board of education and will make no personal promises nor take any private action that may compromise the board.  On August 23, 2022, the [...] dismissed Count 3 as to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) and (e) and dismissed Count 7 as to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1 (e).