ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[directive] Under no circumstances may a law enforcement agency’s internal affairs investigatory function be contracted or delegated to a private entity.  Instead, when necessary, law enforcement agencies may request that an internal affairs complaint be investigated directly by the County Prosecutor, who shall determine whether to investigate the matter, refer the matter to the Internal Affairs function of another law enforcement entity, or return the matter to the originating law enforcement agency if the County Prosecutor determines that the original agency can appropriately investigate the matter.  INTERNAL AFFAIRS POLICY & PROCEDURES | November 2022 17  4.2.8
[brief] (6T94:8-9).  [...] was with the plaintiff at the [...] store on the day of the incident, but she did not witness the plaintiff’s fall.  (6T119:14-15; 6T120:12-15).  [...] testified about the plaintiff’s prior falls and that she parked in a handicapped parking spot with the plaintiff on the day of the plaintiff’s fall.  (6T113-24; 6T114:21-115:4; 6T115:14-23).  Notably, [...]’ testimony lends support to the defendant’s theory that the cause of the plaintiff’s fall at the [...] store was due to the plaintiff’s unsteady gait and balance issues and not a dangerous condition in aisle 58 of the store.
[directive] Attorney General Guidelines - Stationhouse Adjustments Page 13  Appendix C  Model Stationhouse Adjustment Warning  Juveniles and their parents, guardians or caregivers or responsible adult designee who participate in a stationhouse adjustment should be warned that any further delinquent offenses may result in serious consequences.  A stationhouse adjustment is a substantial benefit to the juvenile, which permits the juvenile to avoid those consequences.  However, this benefit is rarely extended to a juvenile more than once.  Possible Consequences of Delinquent Acts  Juveniles who are charged with serious offenses, or who cannot be relied on to voluntarily ! appear at future court dates, may be held in detention while awaiting adjudication.  Juveniles do not have a right to bail.  A juvenile delinquency record will be created that will be accessible statewide.  While ! juvenile records are for the most part confidential, records of certain juvenile arrest or adjudications may disqualify a juvenile from owning a firearm or obtaining employment in law enforcement or other sensitive positions.
[brief] Hennessey, 129 N.J. at 100, 609 A.2d 11.  Here, the record has established Plaintiff’s concerns in Defendant [...]’s group home were firmly grounded from sources of law and public policy under N.J.A.C. § 10:44 and other statutes which created same.  MacDougall, 144 N.J. at 391, 677 A.2d 162.  Of course, these sources for public policy are not susceptible to hard and fast rules, and the Court can define said cause of action in a “case-by-case determination. ”  Pierce, 84 N.J. at 72, 417 A.2d 505.  Because Plaintiff complained about staff reduction and poor training to Defendants, upon weighing the competing interest of the underlying public policy for same, it is indisputable these concerns upon review of the policy interests within N.J.A.C. § 10:44 and N.J.S.A. § 30:1AA on balance benefit the public at large, and particularly those who have developmental disabilities and reside in group homes such as Defendant [...].
[directive] The Domestic Family Court information from the having request this cases without to violence pending domestic information about any Registry permits direct access at Central hours.  The regular business court's during the operate only that DV units cases in requested/issued and order previously was which a restraining in information about cases and displays time, depends electronic inquiry system of alleged.  The utility this been restraining order has violation of a previous which a strongly encouraged to enforcement agencies are atl law Accordingly complete. database is which the extent to on the Violence restraining order, and the Domestic domestic violence seeking system when a Judiciary's eTRO utilize the system.  the use of the eTRO require be amended to may reviewed and Manual will be Procedures
[brief] The following factual conclusions are therefore settled for purposes of this appeal:  - “It is uncontested that the [...] proceeded, and a final award was issued on July 15, 2021. ”  See Pa7 (Opinion at p. 5, citing to [...] Cert. (Pa41 to Pa47) which includes as Exhibit F the Nacirema Award (Pa131)).  Appellants acknowledge that the arbitrator issued a “final decision” on July 15, 2021 and that the final decision was “part of the motion record. ”  Pb12.  - “The Consent Order . . . provided each party with the option of re-filing, within sixty (60) days, a ‘separate action . . . any of the affirmative claims, counterclaims, and/or third-party claims that were advanced, and not dismissed, by any respective party in this action (a ‘Refiled Action’). ”  (Pa7 (Opinion)).  - “[S]ixty days after the July 15 award was September 13, 2021. ” (Pa7 (Opinion)).  Appellants do not challenge this factual finding.  •  Appellants did not file the Complaint until March 27, 2023.  (Pa3 (Opinion)).  Appellants do not challenge this finding and the filed copy of the Complaint substantiates it.  (Pa14 (Complaint file stamped on March 27, 2023)).  •  Appellants filed the Complaint “nearly two years after” September 13, 2021.  (Pa7 (Opinion)).  This finding is also undisputed.  The Trial Court acknowledged that Appellants and Respondent disputed the meaning of the term “without prejudice” in the context of the Consent Order.
[brief] The reimbursement was contingent on Tenant satisfying six specified conditions (the “Reimbursement Conditions”) related to Tenant’s Work: (i) Tenant’s Work shall have been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by Landlord; (ii) Tenant shall have opened the Premises for business with the public; \(^5\) Tenant’s rent is set to increase in phase three, for Lease years 6-10, on August 1, 2024, and again in later years within the 190-month term, however, because the Lease is still in phase two, these scheduled increases are not pertinent here.  (iii)  Tenant shall have furnished Landlord with a written certification of the actual cost of the leasehold improvements comprising Tenant’s Work excluding Tenant’s movable trade fixtures, together with evidence of such cost and the payment in full thereof, as Landlord shall require; (iv) Tenant shall have furnished Landlord with “as-built” plans for the leasehold improvements comprising Tenant’s Work; (v) Tenant shall have provided Landlord with final lien waivers from Tenant’s general contractor and all subcontractors that performed Tenant’s Work and all suppliers of material used in the performance of Tenant’s Work; and (vi) at or prior to Tenant’s opening for business at the Premises, Tenant shall have, at its sole cost and expense, obtained and delivered to Landlord a final certificate of occupancy for the Premises.  [Da17.]  There is no dispute that Tenant fully satisfied the six Reimbursement Conditions.
[brief] Notwithstanding his qualifications and having provided the why and wherefore of his analysis, by order dated October 7, 2022, the court granted plaintiff's motion to exclude as net opinion the entirety of [...]'s report and testimony at trial as to the increased vulnerability of the subject property to wave overtopping.  (Da503)  The court referred to [...]'s not having done calculations for estimating overtopping discharge rates and not having addressed the physical damage to the property that would result from the increase in wave overtopping.  (6T23:1-24:8)  Although having previously indicated there would be a Rule 104 hearing (5T38:14-39:1), the court decided the motion on the papers with reference to [...]'s deposition.  (Da456)
[brief] Passaic Valley Sewerage Comm’rs v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 206 N.J. 596 (2011) ...........................................................................................................  52, 62 Peabody Essex Museum, Inc. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 802 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2015)................................................................................................. 45, 46 Polaroid Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 414 Mass. 747, 610 N.E.2d 912, 922..................................................................................
[directive] b.  A menos que el convenio declaratorio estipule otra cosa, se le podría sentenciar a cumplir el [Sí/Yes] [No/No] tiempo máximo de reclusión, a pagar la multa máxima y a pagar la multa máxima de la Oficina de Compensación a Víctimas de Delitos?  Unless the plea agreement provides otherwise, you could be sentenced to serve the maximum time in confinement, to pay the maximum fine and to pay the maximum Victims of Crime Compensation Office Assessment?
[brief] On August 31, 2023, this Court issued its decision in *Matter of Proposed Constr. of Compressor Station*, 476 N.J. Super. 556 (App. Div. 2023), interpreting Exemption #11 of the Highlands Act to exempt only “routine upgrades to a public utility’s lines, rights of way or systems in the [Highlands] Preservation Area…”  *Id.* at 561.  This Court also vacated [...]’s June 23, 2021 Highlands Applicability Determination issued to [...] (“Original HAD”) and remanded the matter back to [...] to determine whether [...] qualified as a “routine upgrade” to [...]’s pipeline system.  Id. at 574.  Given this determination, this Court did not address Appellants’ remaining arguments.  Id. at 563, n. 7 and 572, n. 13.  On September 1, 2023, in response to this Court’s August 31, 2023 decision, [...] submitted supplemental information to [...] and requested a new HAD and WQM Plan consistency determination (“Consistency Determination”).  On October 10, 2023, [...] filed a Notice of Petition for Certification with the New Jersey Supreme Court ([...]) to review the August 31, 2023 decision.  On October 19, 2023, [...] filed its Petition for Certification with the New Jersey Supreme Court, which was granted on February 2, 2024.  On January 11, 2024, [...] issued a new HAD (“New HAD”) and Consistency Determination in accordance with this Court’s August 31, 2023 decision.  Rma001-002.¹  The New HAD was accompanied by [...]’s staff report setting forth [...]’s findings as to [...].  Rma003-016.  On August 6, 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed this Court’s August 31, 2023 decision, holding that “routine” under Exemption #11 of the Highlands Act only modified the activities of “operations and maintenance. ”  In re Proposed Constr. of Compressor Station (CS327), 258 N.J. at ___.  The Supreme Court remanded the matter back to this Court to review the remaining substantive issues.  Id.  On August 26, 2024, ¹“Rma” refers to [...]’s Appendix to its Motion to Supplement the Record filed on August 26, 2024.  [...] filed a motion to supplement the record with the New HAD decision and its supporting staff report.  On September 11, 2024, this Court granted [...]’s motion and ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the remaining issues and address whether the matter should be remanded to [...] or the OAL for further fact-finding.  **FACTUAL BACKGROUND**
[brief] Even if the Court wished to harmonize *[...]* with the rest of the legal authority on this topic, notwithstanding being outdated, we respectfully submit that the facts of *[...]* are so distinguishable from this case that it can only support the Respondents’ position.  The licensed land surveyor in *[...]* was required to pay prevailing wages, and thus register under the PWCRA, because his business employed non-professional workers who were clearly required to be paid prevailing wages, and were not.  *See* 1405a-1406a, 1408a-1409a.  Although the principal of [...], [...], claimed to be a licensed land surveyor, his employees were not and they occupied positions that are identified as crafts under prevailing wage determinations made at the outset of the project such as party chief, instrument operator, and rod man.  *See* 1408a-1409a.  As explained by the Commissioner,  Thus, even if [...] is a licensed land surveyor and even if the work of a licensed land surveyor is not covered under the collective bargaining agreement of the International Union of Operating Engineers, respondents [DeMuro] are still under a statutory obligation on a public works project to pay their, party chief, instrument operator and rod man the prevailing wage rates posted by the Commissioner for those classifications of work.  *See* 1409a.  Accordingly, the Commissioner found [...]’s firm, [...], guilty of having failed to pay prevailing wages to his non- professional staff and of failing to register his firm under the PWCRA.  See 1409a-1410a.  In contrast, the registered archaeologist in this case is not expected to do more than monitor excavation on site and prepare reports as far as work is concerned, and not expected to need to hire a crew of craftsmen or tradesmen.
[brief] See N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1(b) (“Robbery is a crime of the second degree, except that it is a crime of the first degree if in the course of committing the theft the actor … is armed with or uses … a deadly weapon. ”)  These inadequate instructions had the clear capacity to produce an unjust result absent any evidence that [...] even knew that the principal, [...], was armed or intended to use a gun in the commission of the robbery.
[brief] [...] heard gunshots while she was standing outside [...], located on the Northwest corner of the intersection of 6th St. and East Jersey Ave., about half a block away from where the victim was found wounded.  (2T95-23 to 96-15)  (Da13)  Guifarro saw a man outside the [...] – located diagonally across from the liquor store, on the Southeast corner of the same intersection – run towards and enter a white vehicle.  (2T97-18 to 22)  (Da13)  The white car was parked on 6th St. between East Jersey Ave. and Livingston St., about half a block away from the Speed Wash.  (2T101-8 to 12, 107-7 to 15)  (Da13)  Guifarro observed the man for only “a very short period of time,” and caught only “a glimpse” of him.  (2T111-5 to 24)  She could not make out any facial features and could only see that he was “wearing a gray hoodie, holding a gun in his hand”; that he was “not short…like, five eight, five ten” and that he was light skinned, or “tannish. ”  (2T100-4 to 101-3, 106-2 to 13)  [...] was standing outside the same liquor store when she heard gunshots.
[brief] The jury did not believe [...]'s testimony and convicted [...] of murder and sentenced him to death.  Had the prosecutor disclosed [...]'s prior testimony the jury would have heard, that [...] provide information against [...] in an Essex County murder case.  The jury would have heard, while [...] was in the County Jail he reached out to the prosecutor's office and became a witness against [...].  However, [...] testimony was not reliable in the [...] matter and the jury acquitted Lance in that Murder case.  Had the prosecutor disclosed [...]'s prior testimony the jury would have heard, that [...] provided information against [...] in a Camden County double murder case.  The jury would have heard, while [...] was in the County Jail he reached out to the Camden County Prosecutor's Office and became a witness against [...].  Ultimately, [...] was convicted of the double murder.  Upon appealing his case the New Jersey Attorney General's Conviction Review Unit, exonerated [...] and determined he was wrongfully convicted.  During the course of the Attorney General's review it was discovered that [...] provided an affidavit detailing how he provided false information against [...] and others in exchange for favorable treatment in his own case.  Barrick [...] has demonstrated a consistent pattern of behavior where he provides false information in exchange for favorable treatment from county prosecutors.  In the three cases the prosecutor failed to disclose [...] false accused three innocent men of committing murder.  Such powerful impeachment material would have penetrated the credibility of Barrick [...] testimony.  But for the false testimony he provided in the circumstances before the court there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury would have returned a verdict of justifiable homicide, self-defense, or passion provocation manslaughter.  For the foregoing reasons defendant's conviction must be reversed and the matter be remanded for a new trial.
[directive] A. 2C:35-7b, it may be more appropriate for the prosecutor to tender a plea offer that requires the defendant to plead guilty to a non-school zone charge, especially when the non-school zone charge is graded as a second-degree or higher crime, since a second-degree offense invokes the presumption of imprisonment set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1d.  The new statute expressly provides in this regard that "[n]othing in this subsection shall be construed to establish a basis for overcoming a presumption ofimprisoument authorized or required by subsection d. of N.J.S. 2C:44-1...."  The Legislature thus expressly recognized that the presumption of imprisonment can apply to school zone offense conduct notwithstanding that the school zone offense itself is graded as a third-degree crime, which ordinarily would not presumption.3 trigger the
[directive] Expectation of continued assistance and documentation  a.  PSP staff shall continue to provide updated location information at the request of law enforcement who are engaged in an attempt to locate and arrest the defendant.  i.  During these follow-ups, PSP staff shall only provide updated location information, and copies of the Pretrial Release Order.  b.  PSP staff shall continue to document communications with law enforcement, or any follow up provided by law enforcement by adding to the “Emergent Electronic Monitoring (EM) Alert(s) Reporting to Law Enforcement” form.  c.  PSP staff shall not be required to actively seek follow up from law enforcement.  Contacting Law Enforcement for Electronic Monitoring Violations
[brief] The trial court was correct to conclude that the information regarding the Lease was disclosed to the [...] by Appellants themselves as early as 2015 – well in advance of the alleged (and disputed) disclosure by [...], [Pa293-94].  In addition, the trial court was correct to conclude that Appellants could not prove damages, in light of its prior determination that their losses were directly and proximately caused by their default under the Lease, not on account of any purported breach of confidentiality.  [Pa294].  Thus, the trial court’s determination to dismiss Count 2 of the Complaint under Rule 4:6-2(e) was appropriate.
[brief] § 12.21  Statement by defendant—Forms Research References  West's Key Number Digest, Criminal Law ☞273(4.1)  C.J.S., Criminal Law §§ 384, 389  These forms are frequently revised.  Contact the Criminal Division Manager to get the latest versions.  They are in the September 9, 2002 issue of the New Jersey Law Journal, 169 N.J.L.J. 1070.  § 12.22  Conditional guilty pleas  Research References West's Key Number Digest, Criminal Law ☞1026.10(5)  C.J.S., Criminal Law § 1680  \(^2\)State v. Herman, 47 N.J. 73, 219 A.2d 413 (1966).  \(^3\)State v. Deutsch, 34 N.J. 190, 168 A.2d 12 (1961).  Rule 3:9-3(f) provides for "conditional pleas" of guilty.  A "conditional plea" of guilty is a guilty plea where the defendant reserves the right to appeal from the adverse determination of any specified pretrial motion.  If the defendant wins the appeal, he/she is then afforded an opportunity to withdraw his/her guilty plea.
[brief] (Id.)  She further held that the legal --- \(^3\)  The 2015 action was finally fully resolved by way of settlement among the then-remaining parties on August 18, 2022, while scheduled for trial, and through an order enforcing settlement, issued on November 7, 2022.  malpractice claims were barred because, as non-clients, Plaintiffs were not owed a duty by the [...].  (Id.)  Litigation then ensued over whether Plaintiffs should be sanctioned for frivolously filing the Amended Complaint.
[brief] ”  \textit{Willingboro}, 215 N.J. at 245.  Although the instant matter was not resolved via mediation such that this requirement would be apposite, it was still more than met to the extent the settlement reached during the administrative department hearing was memorialized on the record by a certified court reporter, with Defendant’s acknowledgement and acceptance.  (Pa33-Pa34); see \textit{Willingboro}, 215 N.J. at 263 (recognizing that recording would meet memorialization requirement). at 453.  If “the parties do not agree to one or more essential terms . . . courts generally hold that the agreement is unenforceable. ”  *Weichert Co. Realtors*, 128 N.J. at 435.  Nonetheless, “[w]here the parties agree upon the essential terms of a settlement, so that the mechanics can be ‘fleshed out’ in a writing to be thereafter executed, the settlement will be enforced notwithstanding the fact the writing does not materialize because a party later reneges.
[brief] (Pb40-41).  The *Williams* case was not a LAD case and did address the pertinent Court Rules dealing with the failure to join indispensable parties.  In addition, in that case, no one had been appointed/promoted to the Chief’s position in issue such that the plaintiff-officer’s lawsuit might impact or upset a promotion or seniority already awarded.  Rather, the plaintiff brought the action prior \(^8\)  In its Opposition to the City’s first motion to dismiss, Plaintiff stated direct involvement in all alleged instances alluded to in its Complaint; thus, the potentially adversely impacted individuals were known and readily available to Plaintiff.  (Pa130-132).  to even the start of the promotional testing process.  Thus, the case is inapposite and does not present the same issues and concerns (and potential detriment to absent parties) as the present case.
[brief] Plaintiff’s Complaint Against [...] Should Have Been Dismissed On The Grounds That Plaintiff Failed To File The Complaint Within The Two-Year Statute Of Limitations Period.  (Presented at PA522-529; IT5:1-48:22; PA888-928; 3T4:2-66:6)  In the alternative, if this Court were to somehow find error with the Law Division’s finding that [...] owed Plaintiff no duty to maintain the property on the side of the strip mall building, on either the theory that the lease imposed a duty or that there was a common law duty, this Court should nevertheless find that the Plaintiff’s complaint was properly dismissed because he failed to file suit against [...] within the two-year statute of limitations.  [...] erred by denying the motion to dismiss the complaint on statute of limitations grounds, and [...] erred by not crediting that theory when it was re-raised in the second motion for summary judgment.
[brief] (29T186-9 to 189-8)  On March 5, [...] called and messaged with [...] using his “trap phone”—the phone he used to sell drugs—to set up the meeting at [...].  (30T215-17 to 216-22)  [...] testified that, at 7:24 p.m., he and Defendant left the Ramada to go to [...].  [...] identified himself and Defendant leaving the Ramada Inn in a still of a Ramada surveillance video.  (30T205-23 to 206-14)  [...] parked in a nearby apartment complex and he and Defendant walked to [...] apartment D-4.  (30T207-3 to 24 to 211-15 to 25, T281-25 to 282-2)  [...] called [...], who told [...] he would be right there.