ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] Both the NJ Supreme Court and State Legislature recognized the holding in Tyler by introducing legislature amending the TSL and implementing the Notice to the Bar.  (Da35)  Application of Tyler to this matter which was pending and in the pipeline is mandated.  257-261 20th Ave. Realty LLC v. Roberto 2023 N.J. Super LEXIS 121.  (Da58)  Upon realizing same, [...] filed motion for reconsideration March 5, 2024.  (Da20) and the court denied same for lack of jurisdiction on April 26, 2024.(Da59)  [...] filed this appeal on June 10, 2024.
[brief] The Judge was very clear in her ruling there was no evidence whatsoever that the subject transaction was initially presented to Appellant as a “short sale” and/or that Appellant’s prior approval was necessary before payment could be made.  (1T8:3-25 to 1T10:1-3).  In fact, after further questioning, Appellant’s counsel confirmed that Appellant was really relying on Paragraph 9(b) rather than Paragraph 9(a) of the Mortgage.  (1T9:21-25 to 1T10:1-4).  In the end, Appellant refuses to comprehend that Appellant’s predecessor and their servicer did not have the right to reject and return the First Wire Transfer under the loan documents and applicable law.  Their only choice was to apply the funds to the balance of the Loan or hold the funds in a suspense account.  Returning the wired funds simply was not an option.  CONCLUSION
[brief] The Court noted that under CEPA “the wrong imputed” to the defendant-employer “is the retaliatory action” against the plaintiff taken by the defendants, and “it is irrelevant that the alleged illegal acts of” the co-employees “cannot be attributed to” the defendant-employer.¹  Id. at 424.  Defendants also argue that “[p]laintiff was never advised to perform illegal acts, violate public policy, or to pursue procedures that did implicate laws, rules, regulations or public policy. ” (Defendants-Respondents’ Brief at 12).  Defendants point to the Trial Court’s imposing a requirement that the employer have previously announced an established “order, directive, practice, policy or procedure” to violate law or public policy.  (Id. at 13-14).  There is no such requirement under CEPA.
[directive] Table Contents - Standards for the Holding Period and Tracking of Forfeiture Property 5 2:6 2 - AGLEFNAMA 5 2 - - Chart Flowchart Accounts -Forfeiture Program 2 - 6 of Internal Audit and Compliance Review 2 - 7 l/SOP Attachment 0YCash Management Fund 8 2 - Cash Management Fund 8 2 - Deposit Cash of 8 2 - of Establishment Accounts 2 - 8  Transferring of Funds 2 - 9  CMF Withdrawals 2 - 1 0  Case Tracking 2 - 1 0  Case Files 2 - 1 0 - Reports 2 10-11  SOP No. Countv Prosecutor's Office 03 - Forfeiture Proprams 3- 1 m Ad 1
[brief] [...] adopts and incorporates the Procedural History set forth in plaintiff’s brief, but adds the following.  On March 21, 2023, [...] filed an answer to plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, and asserted the following defense:  “The claims in the subject second amended complaint and/or this litigation are barred or limited by the New Jersey Worker’s Compensation Act and interpretive case law. ”  (Da12).  STATEMENT OF FACTS
[brief] EXHIBIT  A  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA  SAN FRANCISCO  DIVISION IN RE: [...]  CONSUMER PRIVACY  USER PROFILE  LITIGATION  This document relates to:  ALL ACTIONS  [...]  [...]  PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL  [...] AND [...] AS DOCUMENT  CUSTODIANS  Judge: Hon. [...]  Hon. [...]  Special Master [...]  Courtroom: 4, 17th Floor [...]
[brief] Following the Court-ordered document production process will not delay completion of discovery.  Plaintiffs put the cart before the horse when they urge the Special Master to scrap [...]’s Order on the timing and scope of document collection from custodians beyond the current list of 81 because they are afraid [...] will deliberately run out the clock on discovery, leaving no time to collect documents from [...] and [...].  For the reasons explained above, there is no need to collect and produce documents from [...] and [...], so Plaintiffs’ concern about the timing of that collection and production is misplaced.  But Plaintiffs’ concern would be misplaced in any event.  The substantial-completion deadline is January 31, 2022, and discovery does not close until June 2022.  Dkt. 706.  So there would be several months to conduct targeted collections and make small productions from [...]’s and [...]’s files if Plaintiffs were able to make a compelling and particularized showing that doing so is necessary to fill gaps in [...]’s production.  Nor is [...]’s production proceeding at a “glacial” pace, as Plaintiffs contend.  [...] has produced more than 100,000 documents in the last three months.  [...] Decl., ¶ 3.  More to the point, the type of highly targeted gap-filling production [...]’s Order contemplates could typically be completed without significant delay.  Finally, while Plaintiffs’ motion does not demand the depositions of [...] and [...], there is likewise no risk that a targeted collection of documents from [...]’s and [...]’s files after January 2022 would delay depositions.  Collection from their files need not occur before the depositions of other custodians commence; another custodian’s interactions with [...] or [...] would be captured by the collection and production from that custodian’s files.  And if [...] and [...]’s depositions are required over [...]’s objections, they will be the last of [...]’s witnesses to be deposed, since there is no question that they are apex personnel.
[brief] A claim for conspiracy requires proof of “a combination of two or more persons acting in concert to commit an unlawful act, or to commit a lawful act by unlawful means, the principal element of which is an agreement between the parties to inflict a wrong against or injury upon another, and an overt act that results in damages. ”  Morgan v. Union County Bd. of Chose Freeholders, 268 N.J. Super. 337, 364 (App. Div. 1993).  A claim for “aiding and abetting” arises where one defendant “knows that the other’s conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other to so conduct himself.
[brief] THE ACCIDENT  According to the Complaint, on September 12, 2015, at approximately 1:00 P.M., Plaintiff was traveling on his motorcycle on the southbound side of the Parkway when he approached the Structure 40 Bridge at mile marker 40.0.  (Pa1698 at ¶1; Pa5; Pa8).  As [...] began crossing the bridge, he lost control of his motorcycle.  (Pa380 at T17:8-21).  He veered towards and made contact with the concrete Jersey barrier separating the north- and southbound lanes, which caused his left leg to be pinned between the motorcycle and the barrier.  (Pa380 at T13:6 - Pa385 at 22:13).  [...] has no understanding of how or why he lost control of his motorcycle.  (Pa378 at 15:25 – Pa379 at 16:17).  Moreover, none of the firsthand witnesses, including [...]’s wife, his friend riding nearby, and the responding police officer, could identify the cause of the accident or any dangerous conditions in the roadway.  (Pa378 at T15:25 – Pa379 at T16:17; Pa564 at T12:13-23; Pa860 at T23:19 – Pa861 at T24:6; Pa885 at T14:2-8; Pa908 at 19:4-20; Pa909 at T20:7-9).
[brief] **C.  *Wollen* and its progeny do not require expressed affirmative assent to the terms of service. **  *Wollen* makes clear:  “Our decision should not be interpreted to suggest that a consumer contract cannot be formed by reference to a hyperlinked document, or that we are invalidating browsewrap agreements in toto. ”  *Wollen,* 468 N.J. Super at 487-88.  Likewise, *Racioppi* and *Vercammen* both relied on *Wollen* and enforced hyperlinked terms of use where the website did not require affirmative assent.  *See supra* Pt. III.B.  Respondents thus have no support for their assertion that, under *Wollen*, a website must require “open and affirm assent” to terms of use in order for such terms to be enforceable.  (Pb31-32).  Under Respondents’ misplaced view, only “clickwrap” agreements—those requiring users to “consent to any terms or conditions by clicking on a dialog box on the screen in order to proceed with the internet transaction,” *id.* at 496—would be enforceable, while “browsewrap” and “sign-in wrap” would be unlawful *per se*. (Pb30-32).
[brief] Without identifying a single instance of actual bias or prejudice arising from [...]’s involvement in presiding over the proceedings, defendant maintains that the sheer fact that a part-time Municipal Judge was the victim prompts sua sponte recusal of every Superior Court judge in the county.  (Db23-25).  Defendant’s belated claim is belied by the facts and the law, especially when weighed against the overwhelming objective evidence of guilt in the case.  Because defendant did not raise this issue below, “the scope of review on appeal is narrow.”
[brief] Pa029.  The following week, on April 15, 2024, the court below denied Appellants’ Motion to Stay as moot.  Pa031.  With every respect to [...], who presumably believed that this Court’s grant of leave divested the court below of jurisdiction, this act was strictly speaking error.  The combination of R. 2:9-5(a) and -(b) reveal that the court below still has jurisdiction to consider a stay as of today’s date.  See R. 2:9-5(b) (jurisdiction with trial court until oral argument in Appellate Division).  The following day, April 16, 2024, [...], Esq., of [...] wrote to the court below.  Pa032.  In that letter, [...] asserted that having his motion denied as moot meant that proceedings in the trial court had in fact been stayed.  Ibid.  Harsh words would not doubt be hurled at [...] here, save for the fact that he was essentially correct in that no proceedings have taken place in the trial court since leave to appeal was granted.  Thus, although the instant case is not stayed at the time of filing, in effect all counsel have acquiesced to awaiting this Court’s decision before proceeding.
[brief] The purpose of the land exchange is to provide open space for the residents of [...].  The land exchange, with the inclusion of these two subject properties, will permit the township to preserve open space in a desirable location of the Township.  The location of the open space which will be made possible by adoption of this Ordinance and condemnation of the subject parcels, will create open space in a centrally located portion of the Township, creating open space to be utilized by residents.
[brief] | | | D’Atria v. D’Atria, | 45 | | 242 N.J. Super. 392 (Ch. Div. 1990) | | | Denville Amusement Co. v. Fogelson, | 30, 31, 32 | | 84 N.J. Super. 164 (App. Div. 1964)  | | | Flynn v. Sevastakis, | 30, 31, 32 (Da248-50) | | 2006 WL 664180 (App. Div. Mar. 17, 2006) | | | Fusco v. Bd. of Ed. Of City of Newark, | 44 | | 349 N.J. Super. 455 (App. Div. 2002)  | | | Fusco v. City of Union City, | 28 | | 261 N.J. Super. 332 (App. Div. 1993)
[brief] (Pa473).  As cited by the lower court in its Decision, the City’s Redevelopment Plan, which is codified at §345-86 of the Code of the [...], enumerated objectives that are directly served by an expansion, improvement, and renovation of such a community amenity:  A.  Reestablish the identity of Long Branch as a multifaceted community for residence, work and leisure, in a framework of both historic legacy and citizen consensus.  E.  Increase employment opportunities for residents, stabilize taxes and increase maintenance and amenities as part of a better quality of life.  G.  Improve the City’s image by replacing vacant lots and poorly maintained buildings with new, carefully designed buildings, both commercial and residential.  (Pa80 to Pa81).  The LRHL explicitly authorizes the very type of negotiation and collection of revenue to defray costs that were undertaken by the City.
[directive] 3.4.7  For further information regarding the Attorney General’s requirements for early warning systems, agencies should consult the Early Warning Systems Directive.  3.5  Staff Inspections  3.5.1  While the primary responsibility for enforcing agency policies rests with the line supervisors, management cannot rely solely on those supervisors for detecting violations.  Administrators should establish a mechanism to determine whether an agency's policies and procedures are being properly implemented.  It is necessary for management to know if behavior is, in fact, consistent with the agency's rules and regulations, policies and procedures.  The task of detecting such defects should be delegated to an inspection unit or function.
[directive] Procedure in 2.  All seized currency not yet forfeited, and not held for evidence a to criminal matter, shall turned over the county prosecutor within be A (48) of forty-eight hours of the seizure.  copy a completed United the States Currency Seizure Report prepared by agency executive, for or their designee, shall accompany all seized funds-  Procedures are the completion of the United States Currency Seizure Report in detailed Forfeiture Proqrarn Administration Standard Operating 05.
[brief] The remainder of the court’s analysis of maturity was also erroneous in that it focused on [...]’s actions as a teen, instead of his maturation as an adult.  See Comer, 249 N.J. at 395 (holding that courts cannot rely on a juvenile’s behavior at the time of the offense to find them incapable of maturation when they are adults).  The court’s improper analysis of whether [...] “still fails to appreciate risks and consequences” illustrates this error.
[directive] Any agency receiving a subpoena, court order, or request pursuant to the Open Public Records Act, or the common law right to know, for a BWC recording shall, within one business day of receipt of such subpoena, court order, or request, and before complying with it, provide notice to the County Prosecutor, or to the Division of Criminal Justice where the recording was made by a state-level law enforcement agency.  Such notice shall state clearly the deadline by which a response must be made.  12  Authority of County Prosecutor to Impose Additional Requirements  Nothing in this Policy shall be construed to in any way limit the authority of a County Prosecutor to issue directives or guidelines to the law enforcement agencies subject to his or her supervisory authority, setting forth additional procedural or substantive requirements or restrictions concerning BWCs and BWC recordings, provided that such directives or guidelines do not conflict with any explicit provision of this Policy.
[brief] Pa80, Pa82, Pa84, Pa86.  Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Complaint sought, among other things, to nullify and invalidate [...], adopted on March 6, 2019 (the “Ordinance”), which granted a thirty (30) year tax abatement to Defendant-Respondent, [...] (“[...]”) pursuant to the New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency Law of 1983, as amended and supplemented, N.J.S.A. 55:14K-1 et seq. (the “HMFA Law”) in connection with a project to rehabilitate two hundred sixty-eight (268) units of affordable housing located at [...] in the [...] (the “Project”).
[brief] The expert witness must “give the why and wherefore” that supports the opinion, rather than a “mere conclusion. ”  Pomerantz, supra at 372.  Furthermore, “if an expert cannot offer objective support for his or her opinions, but testifies only to a view about a standard that is “personal”, it fails because it is a mere net opinion. ”  Id. at 373.  The Supreme Court stated, “[w]e have repeatedly stressed that the gatekeeper’s critical determination is whether comparable experts accept the soundness of the methodology, including the reasonableness of relying on [the] type of underlying data and information.  In re Accutane Litigation, 234 N.J. 340, 390 (2018), citing, Rubanick v. Witco Chem. Corp., 125 N.J. 421, 451 (1992).  The Supreme Court stressed the importance of the trial court’s gatekeeping role:
[brief] The Trial Court Rules, [...] Withdraws the Notices, and Appellants Appeal  On September 29, 2023, the trial court granted Appellants’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.  On October 23, 2023, the trial court granted [...]’s Arbitration Motion and directed the parties to “submit this dispute to binding arbitration before the [...] in New York, New York pursuant to Section 11 of the Wholesaler Agreement between [Appellants] and [...]. ”  (Pa2.)  Appellants did not initiate arbitration.  Accordingly, on November 3, 2023, [...]’s counsel called Appellants’ counsel to discuss whether and when Appellants would commence arbitration and to revisit [...]’s buy-out offer.  (Da77.)  Appellants’ counsel advised Appellees’ counsel that Appellants would not make a counteroffer to [...]’s buy-out offer and that Appellants wanted to renegotiate the Wholesaler Agreement.  (Id.)  On November 14, 2023, [...]’s counsel sent a letter to Appellants’ counsel expressing [...]’s disappointment over Appellants’ refusal to entertain [...]’s buy-out offer after having invited that offer in their October 11, 2022 letters.  (Id.)  However, in a good faith attempt by [...] to end this litigation for the benefit of all parties, [...]’s counsel withdrew the Notices because “it is in all parties’ interest to end their dispute and continue operating under the Wholesaler Agreement. ”  (Id.)  Notwithstanding that [...] had withdrawn the Notices on December 7, 2023, and continues to supply Appellants with beer under the Wholesaler Agreement, Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal with this Court.
[brief] 1.  Institution of a Criminal Action  First, the trial court erroneously reasoned that because the Municipal Court judge did not find probable cause to issue a summons, no criminal action was actually instituted against [...].  (1T10:14-19; 1T11:17-23; 1T12:12-13; 2T25:18-2T27:5; 2T70:7–2T71:20).  In so doing, the trial court relied solely on Restatement (Second) of Torts § 654, cmt. d and Richmond v. Thompson, 901 P.2d 371 (Wisc. App. 1995).  Under New Jersey law, the “institution of criminal action” element does not require that the criminal matter proceed past the filing stage.
[brief] THE CENTRAL ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER RESPONDENT  [...] FAILED TO PERFORM ITS OBLIGATIONS TO ACCURATELY EXECUTE APPELLANTS’ CONSTRUCTION PLANS; PLAINTIFF [...], AS A FACT WITNESS, IS QUALIFIED TO PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY TESTIMONY ON LIABILITY AND DAMAGES TO DEMONSTRATE HOW [...]’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE SURVEYOR [...] WITH ACCURATE, UP-TO-DATE GRADING PLANS UPON WHICH TO STAKE OUT ELEVATIONS ON THE PROPERTY CAUSED SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN COSTS, LOSS OF PROFIT AND LONG DELAYS IN COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT.
[brief] Table of Judgments, Orders and Rulings Being Appealed...........  3  Table of Citations..........................................................  4 Preliminary Statement.................................................. 7 Procedural History.......................................................  10 Statement of Material Facts..........................................  12  Legal Argument..........................................................  21  I.  The Trial Court  Erred by Refusing to Enforce a Valid and Legal Agreement Between the Plaintiff and Defendants, and in Finding the Parties to be *in Pari Delicto* (44a-48a)......................  21  II.  Defendants Breached Their Contractual and Fiduciary Duties to Plaintiff (46a-47a)............................................. 26  III.  Standard of Review.................................................. 33  Conclusion .................................................................  34  TABLE OF JUDGMENTS, ORDERS and RULINGS BEING APPEALED
[brief] Robbins v. Jersey City, 23 N.J. 229, 239 (1957).  “One who has no knowledge of a fact except for what [they have] read or for what another has told [them] cannot provide an affidavit in compliance with Rule 1:6-6 and thereby support a favorable disposition of a summary judgment. ”  Sellers v. Schonfeld, 270 N.J. Super. 424, 428 (App. Div. 1993).  Here, as the trial court expressly noted, the Borough submitted no competent evidence in opposition to the Motion.  (Da11.)  The only affidavit submitted by the Borough as part of its summary judgment opposition was a certification of its attorney in this case, which certification simply attached the transcripts of two 2018 Planning Board hearings (Da515-Da560), despite the fact that this case does not involve an appeal of any ruling of the Planning Board.
[brief] PCAST suggested that any fingerprint testimony be “accompanied by accurate information about limitations on the reliability of the conclusion—specifically, that (1) only two properly designed studies of the foundational validity and accuracy of latent fingerprint analysis have been conducted, (2) these studies found false positive rates that could be as high as 1 error in 306 cases in one study and 1 error in 18 cases in the other, and (3) ¹ OSAC, administered by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) “and part of NIST’s Forensic Science Program, was created in 2014 to address a lack of discipline-specific forensic science standards. ”  Nat’l Institute of Standards and Technology, The Organization Of Scientific Area Committees For Forensic Science, https://www.nist.gov/organization-scientific-area-committees-forensic-science . because the examiners were aware they were being tested, the actual false positive rate in casework may be higher. ”  PCAST Report at 149.  The testimony in this case went beyond what is supported by any relevant organization and by the evidence about the reliability of fingerprint analysis.
[brief] The union filed an unfair practice charge, “alleging that the board’s insistence upon public negotiation constitute[d] an illegal pre-condition to negotiations…”  PERC determined that “the board’s refusal to negotiate unless such negotiations sessions are conducted in open public session establishe[d] an illegal condition precedent to negotiations, inconsistent with its duty to negotiate in good faith…”  Moreover, the Commission emphasized the importance of upholding the Act’s provision regarding “exclusive representation”:
[brief] For the foregoing reasons, the order of the trial court should be reversed.  Respectfully submitted, [...] [...], [...], and [...]  Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. [...], and the MAYOR AND BOROUGH COUNCIL OF THE [...], Defendants-Appellants.  SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE  DIVISION APPELLATE  DOCKET NO.: [...]  CIVIL ACTION  Sat Below: HONORABLE  [...], J.S.C.  SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW  DIVISION  MONMOUTH COUNTY  Docket No. [...]  Date of Submission: 8/22/2024  BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, [...], [...], AND 1030  LIQUOR PARTNERS, LLC  [...] [...]