ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[directive] Each law enforcement officer must be sensitive to the feelings, needs, and fears that may be present in the victims, and the community at large, as a result of a suspected or confirmed bias incident.  Law enforcement agencies handling bias incidents shall:    Approach victims in a sensitive and supportive manner.    Reassure victims that appropriate investigative and enforcement methods will be used by the law enforcement agency to properly address the bias incident.    Ensure that a thorough and complete initial response and follow-up investigation are conducted as required by the facts and circumstances surrounding the suspected or confirmed bias incident, which includes providing for appropriate community relations activities and crime prevention programs.    Refer the victims/witnesses to the appropriate Office of Victim-Witness Advocacy or the Division on Civil Rights, where appropriate.    Interact with concerned community service organizations, civic groups, and religious institutions regarding the suspected or confirmed bias incident.    Effectively calm victims and reduce their fear and alienation through direct, ongoing official communication regarding the bias incident.    Notify the Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ), the Division of State Police (NJSP), and the appropriate County Prosecutor’s Office of all bias incidents as detailed herein.    Ensure that victims and other concerned parties are afforded all the rights and protections provided under the New Jersey Constitutional Amendment for Victim’s Rights (N.J. Const. art. I, para. 22) and the Crime Victim’s Bill of Rights (N.J.S.A. 52:4B-34, et seq.)
[brief] Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff had a good faith and reasonable belief one of the district’s own policies was violated, she never reported such a violation pursuant to any of those policies.  At all relevant times during Plaintiff’s employment, the [...] maintained anti-retaliation and anti-discrimination policies (District Policy Nos. 3381 (Pa392-93) and 1550 (Pa394-95), respectively).  The anti-retaliation policy provides that “[an] employee who has reason to believe that the Board has engaged in an illegal activity or an activity contrary to public policy must report that belief in writing to the Assistant Superintendent for Personnel ...” (Pa394-95).
[brief] [...]’s testimony, and his conclusion, that “the design and maintenance defects together with the low coefficient of friction caused by the icy conditions, directly resulted in [...]’s slip and fall” was considered by the Court.  In considering Plaintiff’s expert report, along with Plaintiff’s testimony that he slipped and fell on ice during active freezing rain, the Court correctly ruled that Pareja applies and all Defendants were entitled to summary judgment as no party had a duty to clear the snow and ice during an ongoing storm.
[brief] D.  The Prosecutor’s Opening and Closing Arguments  Unfairly Vouched for the Thoroughness and Competence of the Police Investigation  .................................................................  32  E.  The Prosecutor’s Unnecessarily Graphic Opening and Closing Arguments -- Including Comparison to the Mobsters in “Goodfellas” -- Improperly Urged the Jury to Convict Based on Emotion, Rather than the Evidence ........................................  34  POINT III
[brief] On June 15, 2023, [...] filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Trial Court’s rulings on the two motions for summary judgment.  (Da0830)  On July 13, 2023, [...] filed her opposition to [...]’s Motion for Reconsideration.  (Pa076)  On November 13, 2023, the Trial Court denied [...]’s motion for reconsideration.  (Da0846)
[brief] (1T39.14-25).  A number of the DOC’s exhibits were summarily introduced as exhibits.  As to the logbooks, on cross-examination, [...] admitted that he could not determine what, if anything, [...] had written in the logbook.  (1T162.1-17).  Likewise, [...] could not testify if [...] had not called in a count as recorded on the logbook.  (1T169.13-20).  More importantly, [...] admitted that he could not state with any specificity that the entries that appeared in the logbook were false or even what those entries meant.  (1T170.1-22; 1T178.10-16).  Held the Court in *State v. Brown*, 463 N.J. Super. 33, 51 (App. Div. 2020), “[I]t is well-settled that a videotape “qualifies as a writing[]” under *N.J.R.E.* 801(e) and must be “properly authenticated” before being admitted.
[brief] (Aa65-66; Aa82-83; Aa450; 6T48:20-49:4).  Specifically, as the Project would increase reliability and promote the provision of safe, adequate, and reliable natural gas services to customers, as described in EMP Strategy 5, the Project is consistent with the EMP’s goals relating to the maintenance of a reliable gas distribution system.  (Aa84); N.J.S.A. 48:2-23.  While the [...] and [...] recognized that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants, such as carbon dioxide, is one of the described goals in the EMP and the station’s heater may emit greenhouse gases, the record notes that the proposed heater’s generation of criteria and non-criteria emissions would be negligible compared to the State’s overall emissions, as previously stated.  (Aa56; Aa79-80; Aa90; Aa474).  As such, the [...] reasonably found that the proposed Project is consistent with the EMP’s goals to maintain the reliability of [...]’s natural-gas system.  (Aa54-55).
[brief] 13.  Critically, the Regulator Station will be equipped with an aboveground, natural gas-fueled heating unit designed to pre-heat the natural gas traveling through the regulators connecting the transmission system to the distribution system.  This heating unit is an essential component of the Regulator Station because of the 600 psig pressure reduction that will take place between the transmission system and the distribution system.  Specifically, due to the thermodynamic principle known as the Joule-Thomson Effect, that significant pressure reduction will result in an approximately 40 degree Fahrenheit decrease in the temperature of the natural gas flowing through the regulators.  (For every 14.7 psig reduction, the temperature of natural gas drops one degree Fahrenheit.)  14.  Such a temperature change will result in gas temperatures well below freezing, especially during the winter months, because gas within a pipeline typically travels at the temperature of the surrounding ground.  For example, in winter—when the average ground temperature in New Jersey is slightly below 40 degrees Fahrenheit, and possibly colder—gas will flow into the Regulator Station at that temperature, and as a result of the 600 psig reduction, will drop to 0 degrees Fahrenheit or lower (absent a heater).  15.  Without a heating unit, that drastic temperature reduction will cause significant amounts of ice to form on the regulators and other instrumentation that control the flow and pressure of natural gas in [...]’s system.  Such ice casing can easily reach a thickness of more than twelve inches, and possibly even twenty-four inches.  This icing effect occurs not just in the winter months, but rather throughout the year; because the average ground temperature in the summer is approximately 55 degrees Fahrenheit, a forty degree temperature drop would still result in sub-freezing gas temperatures and icing around the regulator equipment, even during those warmer months.  Such significant ice encasing can cause the regulator equipment to malfunction or to cease operating entirely, which can cause damage to the equipment and result in loss of service to some or all of the many [...] customers serviced by the subject regulator station.
[brief] Article, [...] and [...], Contemplating the Presence of Third Party Observers and Facilitators in Psychological Evaluations, 16 ASSESSMENT, 362 (2009)  .......................Pa198  American Psychological Association Council on Representatives, APA Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation (March 2020)  ..............................................................................................................  Pa209  American Psychological Association, Statement on Third Party Observers in Psychological Testing and Assessment: An Updated Framework for Decision Making (2022)  .................................................................Pa241  American Psychological Association, Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (Eff. Jan. 1, 2017)  .................................................................Pa247
[brief] Additionally, unlike *In re Grand Jury*, which was a criminal case that carried criminal penalties, including imprisonment, this is a civil case with possible civil damages.  While the harm in a criminal case is not fully indemnifiable because a person cannot serve the prison sentence of another, the damages in a civil case can be addressed through indemnification, as the Supreme Court noted in *Opinion 552*.  The consequences of applying a strict reading of *In re Grand Jury* to this case make clear that the case’s holding is limited.
[brief] [...] guaranteed payment of the $330,000 Loan pursuant to a Guarantee that was also executed on or about July 7, 2008.  Da113.  The [...] guarantee was duly recorded as a Collateral Mortgage with the Bergen County Clerk’s Office on September 24, 2008.  Da127.  After the principal was transferred to [...] in 2008, [...] was not able to make consistent monthly interest payments on the $330,000 Loan due to the economic downturn in 2008-2009.
[brief] In the very second paragraph, Defendant references Plaintiff’s request for information regarding Estate assets and thereafter denies that such information was refused to him.  Defendant then cites to the information that Plaintiff already possessed, and claims that to constitute “all relevant information regarding the Estate. ” (Db1).  Not only does Defendant ignore his own letter to Plaintiff, wherein he states, “I will discuss the personal property issues with [...] once he has met all of his obligations under the court’s numerous orders and the February 4, 2022 Judgment, and has vacated the UES Property and the Long Beach Property” (Pa507), but he also fails to even mention, let alone address, any of the stocks, bonds, or cash owned by the Decedent at her death, or the disposition of the Estate’s liquid assets – all of which are unknown to Plaintiff, and all of which are unquestionably relevant information regarding an estate.  Defendant then states that Plaintiff “has been told numerous times that the vast majority of Estate expenses were legal fees occasioned by his conduct. ” (Db2).  Defendant provides no citation to the record for this factual statement, as this was never set forth before the trial court.  Indeed, Plaintiff expressly argued before the trial court that he was unaware as to the disposition of the Estate’s liquid assets.  (See, e.g., 2T10:25-11:11; 2T12:12-17).  Such information is an integral part of an accounting.  Next, Defendant tries to accuse Plaintiff of attempting to distract the Court with his lack of information about the “Estate’s assets and expenses,” rather than merely “continuing to search for his personal property,” and that his request for information about the sale of the personal property “has been answered countless times. ”  (Db3).  First, the last portion of such sentence is contradicted by Defendant’s own correspondence dated October 12, 2022.  (Pa507) (stating, “I will discuss the personal property issues with [...] once he has met all of his obligations under the court’s numerous orders and the February 4, 2022 Judgment, and has vacated the UES Property and the Long Beach Property. ”) (emphasis added).  Second, as an attorney who has been appointed as a fiduciary previously, Defendant is well aware that an accounting has a particular format, and he cites to no statute that would allow Plaintiff to compel an executor to provide information on a “piecemeal” basis.  Finally, Defendant cites to several pending lawsuits he has in New York, two of which involve Plaintiff as a party, regarding eviction and access to the Estate’s property on the Upper East Side.  (Db7).  Of course, Defendant gives no particulars as to such suits because they are each several years old and yet Defendant has been unsuccessful in his efforts because, contrary to Defendant’s belief, Plaintiff has rights in these properties that are recognized by the New York Courts.  LEGAL ARGUMENT POINT I THIS COURT’S REVIEW OF THE TRIAL COURT’S DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION WITH PREJUDICE AT THE RETURN DATE OF THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IS PLENARY.
[brief] DA at 323a et seq.  According to [...], b2933 was initially required to be completed by June 1, 2018.  Id.  Neither [...] nor any other regulatory authority such as the [...] must approve the route selected by [...] to satisfy the requirements of b2933 and neither did; all that needed approval was the construction of a connection for the two substations.  DA at 301a.  In fact, the approval of b2933 did not specify or give approval to any specific route for the connection.  DA at 323a et seq.  Indeed, at this point in time, the determination of the particular route by which the connection would be made had not been decided.  DA at 285a.
[brief] THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY PERMITTED THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE RELATING TO PLAINTIFF’S PRIOR MEDICAL CONDITIONS AND FALLS AND THE USE OF A HANDICAPPED PLACARD.  (1T12:9-14; 1T173:24-174:1T174:4-16; 1T175:16-176:8; 1T177:6-14; 2T29:4-23; 2T33:23- 34:2; 8T31:22-32:2; 8T32:10-15; 8T32:7-33:1)  ..........................................................12  A.  The Testimony of the Plaintiff and Her Witnesses Created Credibility Issues, Substantive Questions of Fact as to the Cause of the Plaintiff’s Fall, and Established a Proper Foundation for the Admission of Evidence on the Plaintiff’s Prior Medical Conditions, Falls and Use of a Handicapped Placard.  .................................................................14  B.  Expert Testimony Is Not Required To Admit Evidence of Plaintiff’s Prior Medical Conditions, History of Falls and Use of Handicapped Placard Where the Evidence Is Used to Rebut the Plaintiff’s Claim of Causation for the Incident Itself  ..........................................................................................................................20  POINT TWO ..................................................................................................................26
[brief] For whatever reason, Plaintiff’s counsel was unable to draft a conforming pleading in either federal or state court, but, as demonstrated by succinct description above, it is not because this matter is particularly complex.  Furthermore, even if the facts of this case were “complicated” as Plaintiff asserts, respectfully, Plaintiff is represented by licensed counsel with decades of experience practicing law.  As such, it is Plaintiff’s job as an attorney filing a pleading to distill this matter down to the material facts and then present those facts in a coherent, concise manner without digressions, rambling compound averments and irrelevant discussions.
[directive] You are pleading guilty to possession of a firearm with intent to use it against the person of another or to murder, aggravated manslaughter, manslaughter, aggravated assault, kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual contact, robbery, burglary or escape; or (2)  You are pleading guilty to one of the following offenses that occurred on or after January 13, 2008: possession of a shotgun, 2C:39-3b; possession of a defaced weapon, 2C:39-3d; possession of a weapon (firearm) N.J.S.A. N.J.S.A. for an unlawful purpose, 2C:39-4a; possession of a firearm while in the course of committing a CDS offense N.J.S.A. or other offenses, 2C:39-4.1a; unlawful possession of a machine gun, handgun, rifle or shotgun, N.J.S.A. N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5a, b or c; certain persons not to have weapons, 2C:39-7; or manufacture, transport, disposition and N.J.S.A.
[directive] Conditional Guilty Pleas R. 7:6-2(c) permits, with the consent of the prosecuting attorney, a defendant to enter a “conditional plea of guilty. ”  However, it is strongly recommended that where this provision is employed, that prosecutors, on the record, elicit from the defendant the factual predicates in support of the “conditional plea of guilty,” and the precise offense for which a “conditional plea entered.6 of guilty” is being  This recommendation becomes relevant in the event of an appeal or a PCR application.  6  See, State v. Greeley, 178 N.J. 38 (2003) discussing R. 7:6-2 and the “practice of pleading guilty with a reservation,” when the issue involved is rooted in a motion to suppress, R. 3:5-7; 7:5-2.  Id. at 50-1.  Attorney General Guideline: Page 15  Prosecution of DWI & Refusal Violations
[brief] Gross negligence is the failure to exercise even slight care or diligence and “refers to a person’s conduct where an act or failure to act creates an unreasonable risk of harm to another because of the person's failure to exercise slight care or diligence. ”  Model Civil Jury Charge 5.12.  Gross negligence includes the “fail[ure] to exercise even scant care,” “undoubtedly denotes ‘the upper reaches of negligent conduct,’” “is commonly associated with egregious conduct,” is “an extreme departure from ordinary care or the want of even scant care,” and is “the failure to exercise slight care or diligence. ”  Steinberg v. Sahara Sam's Oasis, LLC, 226 N.J. 344, 364-66 (2016) (quoting Parks v. Pep Boys, 282 N.J. Super. 1, 17 n. 6 (App. Div. 1995)).  Moreover, absent a specific factual allegation of intentional misconduct implicating the statute’s exception, plaintiff certainly cannot overcome the COVID-19 immunity statute or ever satisfy the standards mandated by the Punitive Damages Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:l5-5.9 to -5.17, and associated caselaw.  See, e.g., Rivera v. Valley Hospital, Inc., 252 N.J. 1, 22 (2022) (prohibiting plaintiff in a medical malpractice case from “recasting” ordinary negligence as “actual malice” or “wanton and willful disregard” and directing that summary judgment be entered on the punitive damages claims); Edwards v. Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, 217 N.J. Super. 448 (App. Div. 1987) (reversing punitive damages verdict in a medical malpractice case absent evidence of knowing or intentional wrongdoing).  [...]’ AOM demonstrates that it is not possible for plaintiff in this case to overcome the COVID-19 immunity statute by way of a gross negligence or punitive damages claim.
[brief] R. 1:3-4(a) provides that a period of time fixed for the doing of an act may be enlarged before or after its expiration by court order on notice or (unless a court has otherwise ordered) by consent of the parties in writing.  R. 1:3-4(c) specifies the time periods which cannot be enlarged.  Nothing in R. 1:3-4(c) would have prevented the lower Court from enlarging the 10-day period and finding that Defendant’s opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment was permitted under R. 1:3-4(a).  R. 1:1-2 permits the Court to relax or dispense any Rule if adherence to it would result in an injustice.  Given the due process issues with the Summons, Complaint and Motion for Summary Judgment, the lower Court should have invoked the application of R. 1:1-2 and R. 1:3-4(a) and held that Defendant’s opposition was timely.
[brief] Here, rather, the Genesis Deed plainly put Plaintiffs on notice that the property owners’ association had the authority to implement and enforce “any rules and regulations it chooses. ”  Plaintiffs, like every other property owner subject to similar restrictions, were required to “faithfully abide” by these “rules and regulations. ”  Plaintiffs, unlike the plaintiff in Kalway, were plainly on notice of [...]’s existence and authority, and its ability to implement and enforce any “rules and regulations it chooses. ”  And, unlike the plaintiff in Kalway, Plaintiffs here do not challenge the reasonableness of the height restriction, other than arguing that it has been inconsistently enforced, an issue that is not currently before this Court.  Kalway is not “on all fours” with this case; the language in the Genesis Deed is more clear than the declaration at issue in Kalway; the Genesis Deed, unlike the declaration in Kalway, put Plaintiffs on specific notice that the “property owners’ association” had its own “rules and regulations” to which Plaintiffs were contractually obligated to “faithfully abide”; and Plaintiffs do not claim lack of knowledge or notice of [...]’s “rules and regulations,” including the height restrictions.
[brief] (Pa1-3).  Defendants-Respondents opposed the motion and per the directives of the trial court, supplemented the record with the following certifications:  (1)  [...], Legal Specialist, [...], Office of Legal and Regulatory Affairs stated, in part, that Defendants-Respondents have not requested that [...] withdraw as their counsel and Defendants-Respondents are satisfied with the representation that [...] has provided in this matter and desire for [...] to remain their counsel (Pa172-73); (2) [...], Director, [...], Office of Legal and Regulatory Affairs stated, in part, Defendants-Respondents have not requested that [...] withdraw as their counsel, that [...] is satisfied with the representation that [...] has provided and desire for [...] to remain their counsel, and none of the individually named Defendants have requested that [...] withdraw as counsel (Pa175-77); and (3)  [...], Assistant Attorney General, Litigation Practice Group, [...] stated, in part, Defendants-Respondents have not requested that [...] withdraw as their counsel and the [...] has not terminated [...]’s representation of Defendants-Respondents as counsel in this matter.  (Pa180-81).  On or about July 31, 2024, the trial court entered an Order denying [...]’s Motion to Disqualify [...] as counsel for the Defendants-Respondents, finding there is no conflict of interest under RPC 1.7, RPC 1.9, RPC 1.10 and no positional conflict under the Outside Counsel Guidelines requiring disqualification.
[brief] According to the [...]’s own regulations, respondents must prepare and file with the [...] a “statement of information” (the [...]’s version of an answer) and it must be filed within five days after receipt of a blank statement of information form from the [...].  Such forms must be provided by the [...] to records custodians and respondents.  N.J.A.C. 5:105-2.4(a) (“SOI firms will be provided by Council’s staff or may also be downloaded from the [...] website . . .”).  Since the deadline for a respondent to file a completed SOI is triggered by the date when an SOI is transmitted to a respondent, for the [...] to have jurisdiction over any person, they must transmit a blank SOI form to that person.