ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[directive] 8  The county prosecutor and the Attorney General shall consider the following factors in deciding whether or not to seek a waiver of forfeiture of public office pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2(e):  1.  The totality of the circumstances surrounding the event; 2. The nature of the offense, including its gravity and substantiality, whether it was a single or multiple offense and whether it was continuing or isolated; 3.  The quality of moral turpitude or the degree of guilt or culpability, including the employee’s reasons, motives and personal gain; 4.  The duties of the employee; 5.  The relationship between the offense and the duties of the employee, including but not limited to, whether the criminal activity took place during work hours or involved work facilities, contacts, relationships, or equipment; 6.  The employee’s length of service; 7.  The employer’s desires; 8.  The need and interests of the victim and society, including consideration of the victim’s desires; 9.  The extent to which the employee’s offense constitutes part of a continuing pattern of anti-social behavior; 10.  The employee’s prior record of convictions and disciplinary infractions; 11.  The threat presented to coworkers or the public if the employee is permitted to retain his or her position; 9  12.  Any involvement of the employee with organized crime; 13.  Whether the employee has been granted waiver on a prior occasion; 14.  The impact of waiver on the employment status of codefendants as to avoid an injustice if similarly situated culpable individuals are tried in separate trials; 15.  Whether waiver of forfeiture of office would undermine public confidence in the integrity of important governmental functions, including but not limited to law enforcement functions; and 16.  Nature and scope of cooperation with the prosecuting authorities.
[brief] See Aa004.  Specifically, the Project sets forth green stormwater infrastructure of approximately 104 features including 82 small-scale bioretention basins, 3 large-scale infiltration surface basins, 2 constructed wetlands, 2 large-scale subsurface infiltration basins, and 15 areas of permeable pavement (11.5 acres).  Ra82, Ra86.  In sum, these features would result in significantly more than the state’s required 80% TSS removal rate in the stormwater runoff.  Aa090.  The [...] concluded that the green stormwater infrastructure improvements “not only meet but exceed [...] requirements.
[brief] Plaintiffs’ Brief excerpt attached under Rule 2:6-1(a)(2))  .................................................................107a  Exhibit N: March 29, 2018, transcript of the Motion to Quash/Vacate before the Honorable [...], J.S.C.  ...........................................114a  Exhibit O: March 29, 2018, Order of the Honorable [...], J.S.C., denying plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate the Order of November 10, 2016.
[brief] In both Simms and Reeds, our Supreme Court held that the admission of a detective’s expert testimony pronouncing the defendant guilty of the charged offenses requires reversal.  Ibid.  The Court noted that, in both cases, the detectives mimicked the statutory language of the charged offenses in their testimony – thereby rendering “an ultimate-issue opinion expressing a belief in the guilt of the defendants. ”  Ibid.  Here, both [...] and [...] opined on [...]’s guilt and testified to the ultimate issue numerous times throughout the trial.
[directive] Supervision  3.3.1  Proper supervision is critical to the discipline and management of a law enforcement agency.  To maximize their effectiveness, agency supervisors should receive appropriate supervisory training as close as possible to the time of their promotion.  Emphasis should be placed on anticipating problems among officers before they result in improper performance or conduct.  Supervisors are expected to recognize potentially troublesome officers, identify training needs of officers and provide professional support in a fair and consistent manner.  3.4
[brief] [...], Plaintiff-Respondent, vs. [...], and [...], Defendants-Appellants.  SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY  APPELLATE  DIVISION  Docket No. [...]  ON APPEAL FROM: Law Division, Ocean County  Docket No.: [...]  SAT BELOW: Hon. [...], A.J.S.C.  REPLY BRIEF ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT  [...]  Of Counsel: [...], Esq.  On the Brief: [...], Esq.  [...], Esq.  # TABLE OF CONTENTS | Section | Page | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | PRELIMINARY STATEMENT | 1 | | LEGAL ARGUMENT | 3 | | POINT I | 3 | | PLAINTIFF MAY NOT RETROACTIVELY CREATE A RECORD IN ITS APPELLATE BRIEFING IN A TRANSPARENT ATTEMPT TO TRY AND SATISFY THE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED IN *Mt. Laurel Twp. v. Mipro Homes, L.L.C.*, 379 N.J. Super. 358 (App. Div. 2005) | 3 | | POINT II | 7 | | THE TOWNSHIP’S COMPLIANCE WITH PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE EMINENT DOMAIN ACT AND OFFER TO PAY CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED JUST COMPENSATION ARE NOT PROPER CONSIDERATIONS IN THIS RIGHT TO TAKE CHALLENGE | 7 | | POINT III | 8 | | COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE EMINENT DOMAIN ACT AUTHORIZES THE EXCLUSIVE FORUM TO ADJUDICATE ALL ISSUES RELATED TO A GOVERNMENT TAKING | 8 | | POINT IV | 10 | | A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO A PRIVATE PARTY IS NOT A VALID PUBLIC USE AND THE CONTRACT HERE DOES NOT REQUIRE THE TAKING OF DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTIES | 10 | | CONCLUSION | 11 | # TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | Cases | Page | |----------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | **Casino Reinvestment Dev. Auth. v. Banin,** | | | 320 N.J. Super. 342 (Law Div. 1998) | 7 | | **Essex Fells v. Kessler Inst. Of Rehab.,** | | | 289 N.J. Super. 329 (Law Div. 1995) | 7 | | **Mt. Laurel Twp. v. Mipro Homes, L.L.C.,** | | | 379 N.J. Super. 358 (App. Div. 2005) | 3, 4, 5 | | **White Road, HOA, LLC v. Twp. of Jackson,** | | | Docket No. [...] | 8, 9 | TABLE OF JUDGMENTS, ORDERS, AND RULINGS BEING APPEALED October 20, 2023 Order Appointing Condemnation Commissioners .................. Da14
[brief] All of these conclusions were made to a reasonable degree of professional engineering certainty.  (Pa1036).  [...]’s opinion that the streetlight was likely not operable is based purely on actual discovery evidence, as the following demonstrate: a history of the streetlight being more off than on (deposition testimony, photograph); the streetlight being to be out during the accident investigation (deposition testimony, photograph); and [...] could not see what he struck (deposition testimony, police reports, recorded insurance statement).
[brief] The De Novo Court Erred in Denying Defendant’s Request for an Adverse Inference.  (Da18).  The de novo court erred as a matter of law in rejecting [...]’s request for an adverse inference because [...] was within the State’s control, he had knowledge superior to [...] regarding the administration and scoring of the standardized field sobriety tests, he was available within the courthouse, and there information went to crucial issues in the suppression motion and trial.
[brief] ” (citing Quigley v. KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP, 330 N.J. Super. 252, 265 (App. Div.), certif. den., 165 N.J. 527 (2000)). in our jurisprudence.  (Pb26 – Pb28).  Initially, Plaintiff’s reliance on *Fawzy v. Fawzy*, 199 N.J. 456 (2009) is misplaced.
[brief] The offense “contains all the elements of murder except that the presence of reasonable provocation, coupled with defendant’s impassioned actions, establish a lesser culpability. ”  Id. at 482.  Essentially, passion/provocation manslaughter “is an intentional homicide committed under extenuating circumstances that mitigate the murder. ”  Id. at 481.  “As to the first element, ‘the provocation must be “sufficient to arouse the passions of an ordinary [person] beyond the power of his [or her] control. ”’”  Carrero, 229 N.J. at 129-130 (quoting Mauricio, 117 N.J. at 412 (alterations in original)).
[brief] Cases  Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services Group, L.P., 219 N.J. 430 (2014)  ........... 12-13, 19, 26  Cohen v. Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, No. 2484CV00283-BLS2, 2024  Mass. Super. LEXIS 59 (June 10, 2024) (Da0511-Da0517)  .................................................................  15, 17-18  Deloitte Noraudit A/S v. Deloitte, Haskins & Sells, U.S., 9 F.3d 1060 (2d Cir. 1993)  ..............................................................................................................  16  E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Rhone Poulenc Fiber & Resin Intermediates, S.A.S., 269 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2001) .................................................. 16, 18  Facta Health, Inc.  v. Pharmadent, LLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186892 (D.N.J. Oct. 8, 2020) (Da0518-Da0524) .........................................................  18  Fastenberg v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 309 N.J. Super. 415 (App. Div. 1998) .............................................................................................................  12  Goffe v. Foulke Mgmt. Corp., 238 N.J. 191 (2019)  ..................................................  11  Haskins v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 866 F. Supp. 2d 343 (D.N.J. 2012) .................... 16  Heuer v. Heuer, 152 N.J. 226 (1998)  ........................................................................  18  Hirsch v. Amper Fin. Servs., LLC, 215 N.J. 174 (2013) ........................................ 11, 18  Hoffman v. Supplements Togo Mgmt., LLC, 419 N.J. Super. 596 (App. Div. 2011) .........................................................................................................................  19  Interactive Brokers, LLC v. Barry, 457 N.J. Super. 357 (App. Div. 2018) ......................................................................................................................... 11 James v. Global Tel*Link Corp., 852 F.3d 262 (3d Cir. 2017) .................................. 23 Jansen v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 342 N.J. Super. 254 (App. Div. 2001) ......................................................................................................................... 12 Kernahan v. Home Warranty Adm’r of Fla., Inc., 236 N.J. 301 (2019) ............... 11, 26 KPH Healthcare Servs. v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196095 (D.N.J. Oct. 8, 2021) (Da0525-Da0535) ...........................................18 Lloyd v. Retail Equation, Inc., No. 21-17057, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233637 (D.N.J. Dec. 29, 2022) (Da0536-Da0549) ..............................................25 Mucciariello v. Viator, Inc., No. 18-14444 (FLW), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166696 (D.N.J. Sep. 27, 2019) (Da0550-Da0558)
[brief] values.  N.J.S.A. 13:20-10; N.J.S.A. 13:20-14.  The Act also requires DEP to implement a Highlands permitting review program.  N.J.S.A. 13:20-3; -31 to -34.  Accordingly, DEP has promulgated rules effectuating the permitting program at N.J.A.C. 7:38-1.1 through -14.2, implemented by DEP’s Division of Land Resource Protection (formerly the Division of Land Use Regulation).  N.J.S.A. 13:20-32.  Any “major development” in the preservation area is generally subject to Highlands permitting review.  N.J.A.C. 7:38-1.1 to -14.2.  N.J.S.A. 13:20-3; -31 to -34.  However, certain activities are exempt from permitting requirements and, when granted, a Highlands Area Determination (“HAD”) documents the exemption determination.  N.J.S.A. 13:20-28(a); N.J.A.C. 7:38-2.3(a).  Relevant here, N.J.S.A. 13:20-28(a)(11) (Exemption #11) exempts a utility project from the Act’s permitting requirements if the project proposes “routine maintenance and operations, rehabilitation, preservation, reconstruction, repair, or upgrade of public utility lines, rights of way, or systems, by a public utility, provided that the activity is consistent with the goals and purposes of this act. ” (emphasis added).  The Legislature only required DEP to evaluate consistency with the Highland Act’s goals and policies for Exemptions #9 (involving transportation projects) and #11 (involving utility projects).  N.J.S.A. 13:20-28(a)(9) and (11).  Regardless of an activity’s Highlands Act exemption status, DEP must also find that the activity is consistent with the applicable areawide Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP).  N.J.A.C. 7:38-2.4(a) and (e).  B.
[brief] While defendant highlighted his lack of a girlfriend at 16 years old as somehow so unique for a 16 year old as to be indicative of his inability to comprehend rights explained to him at length, the lower court found such a conclusion to be wholly unsupported by any evidence before it.  In doing so, the lower court noted that after admitting to not having a girlfriend, defendant joked with the detectives about masturbation being a substitute for a girlfriend.  This clearly evinced for the lower court a knowledge at least on par with that of his 16-year-old compatriots.  Defendant presents to this Court, as he did to the lower court, the idea that he just “yes-ed” the detectives, as though use of the word yes in response to a yes or no question was somehow indicative in the abstract of his lack of knowledge or voluntariness.  The lower court correctly found this to be patently absurd.  In watching the video recording of defendant’s statement, the lower court was able to see for itself that his responses were wholly appropriate and responsive.  The lower court saw a defendant fully engaged in his conversation with the detectives and saw that this conversation reached its goal of ensuring the defendant understood, and thereafter, knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights.  Relying on the video recording, the lower court correctly found the defendant fully understood each and every Miranda right.
[brief] 1.  Plaintiff [...] (“[...]”) is an optometrist, with his offices located at [...].  [...] is engaged in the practice of optometry, and he entered into an agreement with [...] (“[...]”) on or about December 23, 2010, so that he could offer payment by credit card to his patients.  The contractual documents drafted by [...], establishing an Agreement to provide [...] with their credit card processing services, consist of the [...] Merchant Application, and [...]’s Merchant Processing Terms and Conditions (Pa000117).
[directive] ABC Bulletin 1368, Item 5 (Nov. 3, 1960); ABC Bulletin 1202, Item 5 (Nov. 21, 1957); See ABC Bulletin 1159, Item 2 (Apr. 3, 1957).  In addition, with the support of and in consultation with ABC Director [...], I am ordering and directing the following actions:  A. actions.  Concurrent Issuance of ABC Special Ruling vacating pre-1967 enforcement with the issuance of this Directive, the Director of ABC shall issue a Special Ruling that formally vacates all enforcement actions issued prior to 1967 premised on the Rule 4 prohibition against “female impersonators” and the Rule 5 prohibition against conducting a business as a “nuisance” when applied to the congregation of “apparent homosexuals.
[brief] 9a-14a - [...]-to-[...] revised letter dated 1/9/23 ....................................  18a-20a - [...]-to-[...] letter dated 8/5/22 ...........................................  23a-24a  ## APPENDIX - Amended Notice of Appeal dated 7/10/23 .............................................  1a-4a - Civil Case Information Statement dated 7/10/23 ....................................  5a-8a  Final Administrative Determination dated 5/5/23.
[brief] There shall be a board of health in every municipality in this state, which board shall consist of members appointed or designated, or both, as provided by this chapter, except that in any municipality operating under laws establishing a form of government for such municipality under which the full powers of a local board of health can not be exercised by a local board of health so appointed or designated, the respective functions of a local board of health shall be exercised by such boards, bodies, or officers as may exercise the same according to law.  An alternative to individual local boards is for municipalities to join a regional health commission pursuant to N.J.S.A. 26:3-92.  That section, in turn, provides that:  Each regional health commission shall have jurisdiction in matters of public health within the geographic area of the participating municipalities.  It shall succeed to all powers and perform all the duties conferred and imposed upon the municipal boards of health which it shall have superseded and, in addition, shall have all the powers and perform all the duties within the geographic area of the participating municipalities which by law are conferred and imposed upon any township, city or other local board of health in this State.  [...] has joined the [...] (the “[...]”), and has therefore surrendered its authority over local health nuisances to the [...].
[brief] By the claw back of the $60,000 mortgage payments made by [...] that should have been made by [...] personally, [...] was actually unjustly enriched to the detriment of the [...].  [...] is the party who directed the mortgage payments to be made by [...], Inc.  The fact that the [...] accepted these payments is irrelevant to the issues involved.  Any implication made by the court or Defendants-Respondents that the [...] had some duty to reject these payments is contrary to banking procedure and would place an impossible burden upon the lending industry generally.  Appellant contends that [...] is the party who committed the fraud, misled the [...], and thus came to a Court of Equity with unclean hands.
[brief] To the extent that the State relied upon, and the Court accepted, [...]’s statements to DOC to provide the necessary residuum, this Court has held, “[a person’s] admissions or prior sworn statements serve to potentially contradict some of the hearsay evidence admitted under *N.J.A.C. 1:1-15.5(a)*, but certainly cannot serve to corroborate or supply a residuum of competent proof sufficient to support the appointing authority's allegations. ”  (emphasis added).
[directive] 1 - 1  Standard Operating Procedures 7 - 3 1 :6  Noncompliance 3 1 - Barred from participation 3 1 - Offsets from future sharing 1 - 3  Civg cnforcement actions 3 1 - of Prosecution for violations applicable criminal laws 11- 1  Non-Law Enforcement AgencylFund Disbursement 12- 3  Participating law enforcement agency, defined 12- 3  Prosecuting agency, defined 1 - 1 :l  Policy Statement 1 - Page Program SOP 5 fndex State New Administration of Jersey Forfeiture - 2 - 1 2: 1
[brief] ”)  Id.  The Court cited this after hearing that [...] paid his personal credit card bill, and that [...] was in charge of all tax documents for salaries which he knew were not paid from company accounts in addition to acknowledging [...] and [...] used the company funds for personal items like hearing aids, dental work, and boarding horses.  1T49:4-50:24; 2T72:19-73:5; 2T74:8-18; 1T47:13-23.  Finally, the Trial Court also quashed Plaintiff’s request to appoint a receiver or special fiscal agent for [...] and instead ordered immediate dissolution within thirty (30) days.
[brief] 2  Federal cases: Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 212 (1988)  State cases: Fusco v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Newark, 349 N.J. Super. 455, 460 (App. Div. 2002)  Matter of Proposed Constr. of Compressor Station, 476 N.J. Super. 556, 561 (App. Div. 2023)  Mazdabrook Commons Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Khan, 210 N.J. 482, 505 (2012)
[brief] And the final thing is that there is no harm to the intent or purpose of the zoning ordinance and the zone plan...  So I think you’ve been presented with sufficient evidence to weigh it all out, and make those determinations.  (4/17/23 Transcript @T61-T62).  [...] noted particularly that the fact that [...] had not read the actual traffic study but had only read certain testimony related as a “strike against” the credibility of Mr. Shropshoire’s report.  (4/17/23 Transcript @T69:15-T69:22).  [...] believed the siting/aesthetics were the intent of the ordinance, and voted “no. ” (A4/17/23 Transcript @T69-70).  [...] expressed that he was concerned about traffic safety, noting the heavily trafficked intersection location, and noted that the distance from the intersection for the variance would be 350 feet, not even close to the 1,000-foot restriction.  He thus voted “no. ” (4/17/23 Transcript @T70).  [...] noted the volume of “traffic and all the exits and entrances on everything that you have here [at this intersection] … [which is] dangerous to begin with. ”  [...] also voted “no. ” (4/17/23 Transcript @T70-T71).  [...] voted “yes” to granting the variance.  (4/17/23 Transcript @T71-72).  Board Member [...] noted that he did not think the location of the proposed billboard is “for the public good” and that “to me, the negative criteria far outdo the positive on this one. ”  [...] thus also voted “no… for all the other reasons stated. ” (4/17/23 Transcript @T72).  [...] noted that the billboard gave concern with “visual pollution” in the area of the intersection with the volume of signage already there.  (4/17/23 Transcript @T72-T73).  She voted “no,” based on “the location only,” as it would “add clutter, visual clutter to the area. ”  (4/17/23 Transcript @T72-T73).  [...] stated that he agreed with [...]’s reasoning (incorrectly called “[...]” in the transcript) and notes that the site was a busy intersection congested already with signs on both sides.  (4/17/23 Transcript @T73-T74).  He thus voted “no… based on the intersection and the location. ” (4/17/23 Transcript @T73-T74).  The Board Vote was thus recorded as “Vote 6 No: [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], [...]; 1 Yes: [...]. ” (4/17/23 Transcript @T69-T74).  IV.
[brief] N.J.S.A. § 40:55D-10(d); *Witt v. Borough of Maywood*, 328 N.J. Super. 432, 453-54 (Law Div. 1998), aff’d o.b. 328 N.J. Super. 343 (App. Div. 2000) (nullifying the decision of a planning board that did not allow objectors the opportunity to address the full range of issues contained in an application).  A board may not arbitrarily deny any objector the right to testify or to cross-examine other witnesses.  See *Cox & Koenig, New Jersey Zoning and Land Use Administration*, § 18-3.2, at 376 (2022) (citing *Village Supermarket v. Mayfair*, 269 N.J. Super. 224, 238 (Law Div. 1993)).  In fact, a planning board’s refusal to give a party a fair opportunity to present all of their witnesses “deprives the ultimate conclusion of legitimacy.
[brief] Plaintiff refused to turn over the keys.  Instead, Plaintiff began to run away but the officers were able to pull him back.  A scuffle ensued, and Plaintiff resisted the officers’ attempts to restrain him and handcuff him.  The officers had to strike Plaintiff several times to subdue him, gain control of his hands and place him in handcuffs.  After the arrest, the officers learned that Plaintiff had an outstanding warrant for child support and his backpack contained a small amount of marijuana and a methamphetamine tablet.  Plaintiff undoubtedly tried to escape because he knew that he would be arrested for these violations.  After a trial in the [...], Plaintiff was found guilty of obstruction of justice and resisting arrest, and he was given a fine.
[brief] In Gentry, the judge instructed the jury as to the use of force element that it had to find that the defendant “did inflict bodily injury or use force upon [...] and/or [...]. ”  183 N.J. at 31.  The jury was thus apprised that it had to decide which of these individuals force was used against, and its question to the judge indicated its uncertainty as to whether it needed to be unanimous in this decision.  By contrast, the jury instructions here did not make plain that the jury had to decide that [...] committed robbery against a single victim, as opposed to the “employees and patrons of the [...]” as a whole.  In fact, the instructions on the robbery charge did not mention [...] or [...] individually at all.  Thus, the jury may not have even decided on a single victim of the robbery, and it is therefore unsurprising that they had no questions for the judge about the unanimity requirement as it applied to the facts of this case.}  The circumstances are analogous to those in State v. Tindell, where the defendant, charged with terroristic threats, was alleged to have made multiple distinct threats against a number of different individuals.