ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] Plaintiffs’ failure to brief the “merits” of this issue was no oversight.  In the underlying motion proceedings, plaintiffs did endeavor to explain this claim, and we thoroughly debunked it.  In his underlying opposition to our motion to dismiss, plaintiffs explained that “the mortgage and deed could have been prepared in such a way so that [...]’s then wife, [...] was provided a smaller interest in the property that reflected the fact that it was completely purchased by [...]’s premarital funds; [...] never received this advice from Defendant. ”  (Da006².)  The facts of record eliminated this orphan claim.
[brief] N.J.S.A. 39:6A-5.1(b); see also N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1.2 (“The commissioner may promulgate any rules and regulations . . . deemed necessary in order to effectuate the provisions of this amendatory and supplementary act. ”).  AICRA provides that the type of disputes covered by PIP arbitration “may include, but not necessarily be limited to, matters concerning: (1) interpretation of the insurance contract; (2) whether the treatment or health care service which is the subject of the dispute resolution proceeding is in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of P.L.1972, c. 70 (C.39:6A-4), section 4 of P.L.1998, c. 21 (C.39:6A-3.1) or section 45 of P.L.2003, c. 89 (C.39:6A-3.3) or the terms of the policy; (3) the eligibility of the treatment or service for compensation; (4) the eligibility of the provider performing the treatment or service to be compensated under the terms of the policy or under regulations promulgated by the commissioner, including whether the person is licensed or certified to perform such treatment; (5) whether the disputed medical treatment was actually performed; (6) whether diagnostic tests performed in connection with the treatment are those recognized by the commissioner; (7) the necessity or appropriateness of consultations by other health care providers; (8) disputes involving application of and adherence to fee schedules promulgated by the commissioner; and (9) whether the treatment performed is reasonable, necessary, and compatible with the protocols provided for pursuant to P.L.1998, c. 21 (C.39:6A-1.1 et al.).
[brief] The Arizona court recognized that the [...] and [...] had incurred substantial harm resulting from the publicly disseminated documents.  Da133.  It accordingly approved a redaction protocol permitting the defendants in that case to redact “confidential and highly sensitive information such as financials, innovations, business plans, and information about United’s affiliated companies not involved in this litigation” out of documents that were otherwise responsive, relevant, and subject to production.  Da132-35; T13:8-12.  The trial court below effectively took the opposite approach.  Not only did it deny Defendants the opportunity to redact irrelevant information from documents with *some* relevant material, it ordered the production of *entirely* irrelevant documents.  And while the trial court did allow Defendants to withhold “a very small subset” of these irrelevant documents, T27:4-12, that ruling only underscores the error.  To invoke the narrow exception, Defendants must conduct a burdensome review of tens of thousands of wholly irrelevant documents to determine which contain information that “could result in business losses or disruption.
[brief] [3T19-12]  Specifically, [...] and [...] insist that when [...] read the term “disciplinary proceeding” in the 2016 Application, he thought it was referring to the defined term in the 2016 Policy or a prior policy, notwithstanding that the 2016 Policy had not yet been issued.  [...]’s assertion about how he read the Application questions is no more credible than his lies to the [...]; it is a post-hoc rationalization that fails as a matter of law for three reasons.  First, [...]’s subjective understanding of the question is irrelevant.  As explained above, [...] is not required to prove that [...] and [...] made an intentional misrepresentation.
[brief] (Pa484 to Pa492).  The Board members failed to properly consider the expert testimony presented by Plaintiffs and simply summarily dismissed the testimony.  Some of the Board members listed some of the aspects of the Application that they did not like; however, none of the Board members specifically considered whether the variances requested satisfied the positive or negative criteria.  In addition, none of the Board members specifically analyzed the requested d(5) density variance by applying the relevant positive criteria (special reasons) or negative criteria.  Furthermore, the Board improperly considered off-site projects and hypothetical scenarios from those projects without any evidence regarding same in rejecting the Application.
[brief] **Phasing (Rolling) Production**  When a party propounds discovery requests pursuant to proposed R. 4:104-5, the Parties agree to phase the production of ESI (*i.e.* produce the documents on a rolling basis), and the initial production will be from the above-agreed upon custodians and data sources.  Following the initial production, the Parties will continue to prioritize the order of subsequent productions.  9.  **Documents Protected From Discovery**
[brief] [...] addressed the applicability of the Collateral Source Rule, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-97 along with the established cases cited by [...] (Ingersoll, supra., t seqe, supra., and the unpublished decision in Mid-Century Ins. Co.  v. Freeman, supra.  In light of these cases and the express language of the Med-Pay Arbitration Agreement, [...] viewed the dispute as whether there was a valid agreement to arbitrate.  He noted that while there are no published decisions directly on point, the unpublished decisions support the conclusion that med-pay subrogation was prohibited in NJ.  Moreover, it he noted the statute providing for PIP subrogation, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 has been amended several times but did not provide for med-pay subrogation in New Jersey.  In light of the argument submitted, [...] concluded that med-pay subrogation was prohibited in New Jersey and as a result, the arbitration award in favor of [...] was invalid as the arbitrator has exceeded his/her authority.
[directive] Você cometeu o(s) crime(s) pelo(s) qual(is) está se declarando culpado?  [Sim/Yes]  [Não/No]  Did you commit the offense(s) to which you are pleading guilty?  b.  Você entende que antes de o juiz poder considerá-lo culpado terá que dizer a ele quais os [Sim/Yes] [Não/No] atos cometidos por você que o torna culpado desse(s) crime(s) específico(s)?  Do you understand that before the judge can find you guilty, you will have to tell the judge what you did that makes you guilty of the particular offense(s)?
[directive] DIRECTIVE#  Assignment Judges  To:  Questions may be directed to Criminal Presiding Judges the Criminal Practice Division Trial Court Administrators t (609) 815-2900 ext. 55300.  Criminal Division Managers  [...], Administrative Director,;, From: Criminal - Expungements - (1)  Guidance on the New Compelling Subj: Circumstances Standard; (2)  Handling Fugitive from Justice Charges with Regard to Expedited Expungement; (3)  Additional eCourts Expungement System Information and Enhancements  March 13, 2023  Date:
[brief] SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY  APPELLATE  DIVISION CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. [...]  On Appeal From: Trial Court  Docket No. [...]  Hon. [...], J.S.C.  Civil Action  BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS  [...]  [...], Esq.  New Jersey Attorney ID #16961982  [...]  [...] P: [...]  F: [...]  [...]  Attorneys for Defendants/ Respondent
[brief] ” (Pa385).  For instance, the variance for buffer width, where 20 feet is required and 9.6 feet is provided relates to the existing lack of buffer area on the western side of the property that has been in that condition for almost 50 years.  (Pa385).  The variance requested regarding structures located within a buffer also relates to an existing condition.  (Pa385).  Regarding maximum length of buildings, the Application sought a variance for a proposed 256 long building, whereas a 348.8 long building is already existing on the site.  (Pa385-386).  In addition, the requested variances related to multifamily dwelling setbacks from internal roadways, principal building setbacks from parking areas, dwelling units in a line without a setback, and parking in front yard setbacks are all conditions that currently exist on the site, and some of those existing conditions are more significant variances than those requested in the Application.
[brief] (Pa13-Pa14).  An Order issuing the commission was entered by the [...] on January 13, 2023.  (Da69-Da75).  As a result of [...]’s pursuit of [...] documents, return dates on the Order to Show Cause and Verified Complaint were adjourned (February 27, 2023, March 27, 2023, April 21, 2023 and May 12, 2023).  On December 23, 2022, [...] filed an answer to [...]’s counterclaim in docket number [...].
[brief] THE HISTORY OF OPPOSING COUNSEL’S COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR THE LAW IN THIS CASE IS WELL DOCUMENTED  On October 11, 2006, the Honorable [...], U.S.D.J struck the [...] Complaint “in its entirety,” ([...] v. [...] [...] id at 7) writing (Pa 58 id 3):  Moreover, the Court finds the disqualification of Plaintiff’s previous counsel for violations of the attorney-client privilege and [...]’ Order sealing Plaintiffs’ Complaint particularly relevant.  On two separate occasions, magistrate judges have found [...] to completely disregard the sanctity of the attorney-client privilege in furtherance of his or his parents’ litigation.  Indeed, this Court affirmed [...]’s finding that confidential information may have been disclosed to the attorney who prepared Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the Court orders Plaintiff’s Complaint stricken in its entirety.  (Emp. added)  The Court subsequently disqualified [...] and his original counsel, but permitted the [...] parents to continue with new counsel.  The Court and [...], however, remained unaware of the criminal conspiracy that had been committed by [...] and the two other officers of the court in Massachusetts on January 11, 2006 to unlawfully breach the FBI database and disseminate the confidential content.  [...] and the new [...] lawyer [...], well knew this case history the amended complaint (the Operative Complaint) was filed (Pa 276) on November 6, 2006.
[brief] As a result, [...] enriched himself and enriched [...].  As our Supreme Court has held, “[t]he shared economic interest of the entire firm in the clients of individual members also supports treating a partnership as one attorney. ”  *Dewey*, 109 N.J. at 215 (citing *Bellucci*, 81 N.J. at 541) (emphasis added).  The motion judge’s statement that “[n]o defendant entities or individuals are part of the Office of the Attorney General that issued the indictment against [...] in his personal capacity” (T8:2-5) is simply erroneous because the Office of the Attorney General is charged with representing the State of New Jersey in all legal matters and supervises all outside counsel so therefore the fact that “[n]o defendant entities or individuals are part of the Office of the Attorney General that issued the indictment” (see ibid.) is not dispositive or even germane to the analysis.  [...], a partnership, and [...], one of its partners, are two sides of the same coin.  As [...] withdrew from representation of the State of New Jersey and the other defendants in this matter, so also must the [...] law firm.  CONCLUSION
[brief] In the second part of that heading “[he] continues on with various federal case law for several sentences into the next page. ”  Pa39-40, ¶81.  Those are not “case law. ”  They are cases I litigated against the [...] & [...] that give me, my clients and my family “protected person” status.  (There are three state and two federal cases.)  This is a particularly unfair characterization given that a Federal Judge told me to list my cases to assure protected status.  (The Revised SAC states the 5 cases in numbered order.  Pa290, ¶246.)  In the revised Complanit [...] has abandoned and eliminated the Summary at Pa40-42, ¶182-189 as well as the Liability Sorted by Defendant Heading on Pa its breadth and (very numerous) irrelevant criminal allegations.
[directive] Do you understand that the judge is not bound by any promises or recommendations of the prosecutor and that the judge has the right to reject the plea before sentencing you and the right to impose a more severe sentence?  Iniciales del acusado/Defendant’s Initials  Formulario principal de declaración/Formulario enmendado promulgado por la directriz #01-18 (02/23/2018), CN 10079-Spanish página 6 de 7 Main Plea Form/Revised Form Promulgated by Directive #01-18 (02/23/2018), CN 10079-Spanish page 6 of 7 23.
[brief] (Dca 1, clip four, 37:48  Before entering [...]’s apartment, [...] reminded [...] they should get the Consent to Search form signed “first. ” (Dca 1, clip four, 38:20 to 38:25).  As [...] and [...] entered [...]’s apartment, Ortiz asked which Building they were in.  (Dca 1, clip four, 38:30 to 38:35).  Once inside the apartment, [...] immediately cautioned [...] that she should not touch anything.  (Dca 1, clip four, 38:45 to 38:50).  Having learned [...] was the named tenant on the apartment lease, [...] directed the officer filling out the Consent to Search form that both [...] and [...] should sign the form.  (1T11-6 to 12-21; 1T13-16 to 16-15; Dca 1, clip four, 38:50 to 38:58; Dca 1, clip four, 40:25 to 40:40).
[directive] All automatic/semi-automatic weapons instructors (supervising firearms instructors and firearms instructors) engaged in the prescribed automatic/semi-automatic including police carbine training and qualification program must satisfy one of the following requirements.  •  An instructor must be certified by the [...] (PTC) to instruct in an approved "Basic Course" as defined in N.J.A.C. 13:1-1.1.  •  An instructor must possess training equivalent to the PTC-approved firearms instructor course and be able to demonstrate knowledge and skill in firearms instruction.  Equivalent training includes successful completion of a firearms instructor training program such as offered by the Federal 9-32 Revised (5/03) Semi-Annual Firearms Qualification and Requalification Standards [...], [...], [...], [...], [...], or [...] Police Firearms Instructor Program.  •  An instructor must have satisfactorily completed some other recognized firearms instructor course as determined by the chief of police or agency executive.  In addition to those qualifications required for automatic/semi-automatic assault weapons firearms instructors, supervising instructors must have successfully completed an automatic/semi-automatic assault weapons instructor course offered by the [...] or an equivalent course, such as those courses offered by either the [...] or [...].
[brief] The statute states in part, “No redevelopment project shall be undertaken or carried out except in accordance with a redevelopment plan . . .”  The “Scope of the Project Rule” also known as the “Project Influence Doctrine” in New Jersey and across the United States provides that when determining just compensation for the taking of property, the Scope of the Project Doctrine excludes value attributable to the governmental project for which the property was acquired.  For decades, New Jersey courts have followed the United States Supreme Court’s seminal decision on the Scope of the Project Rule, and New Jersey courts have uniformly held that the zoning in place prior to the adoption of the redevelopment plan shall be used to determine just compensation for the taking of property.  Hence, the zoning contained in the [...] is the redevelopment project for which the Property is being acquired shall be excluded as the zoning in place on the applicable Date of Valuation pursuant to the Scope of the Project Rule.
[brief] Plaintiff slipped entering a bathtub in her room at the defendant casino.  While she was falling, she grabbed onto the towel rack that was centered on the right-hand wall above the tub to steady herself.  But the rack was not load-bearing, so it came out of the wall.  Plaintiff landed and sustained injuries.  She sued the casino for negligence.  Plaintiff’s expert admits that the construction and design of the bathtub and towel rack do not violate code or industry standard, and that no regulation or standard required the casino to install a grab bar near the tub.  There is also no allegation that other conditions in the bathroom, including the flooring or lighting, were dangerous or caused plaintiff to slip.  Plaintiff’s sole argument is that the towel rack looked like a grab bar so it should have been designed to meet the load-bearing requirements for grab bars.  It if had, according to plaintiff, maybe she would not have fallen.  Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s exclusion of her expert’s opinion that the towel rack created a dangerous condition.  Plaintiff cites no case law supporting her position that an expert’s personal opinion, unsupported by any fact or industry practice, is admissible.  Absent any evidence demonstrating the casino’s negligence, defendant respectfully asks the Appellate Division to affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment—because not all falls are caused by a proprietor’s negligence.  **PROCEDURAL HISTORY**
[brief] [...] [...]  Telephone: [...]  Attorneys for [...] On the Brief: [...], Esquire (172292015)  [...]  TABLE OF CONTENTS  TABLE OF JUDGMENTS, ORDERS AND RULINGS .................................................................  ii  TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ iii  PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................  5  STATEMENT OF FACTS ..........................................................................................................  8  LEGAL ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................  12  I.  The Trial Court Correctly Determined that a Zoning Board Interpretation Was Necessary Given the Differing Interpretations Offered by the Plaintiff, Defendant, and Objector (5T 27-24 to 28-2)  ...........................................................................................................  12  II.  The Trial Court Correctly Dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint and Remanded this Matter to the Board  For the Board to Expand Upon its Decision As Memorialized by Resolution (5T 27, 28)  ......................................................................................................................  14  III.  The Board Properly Interpreted and Applied the Ordinances to Conclude the Applicant Required a Use Variance to Permit Multiple Principal Uses at the Property (5T 25-11 to 28-7)  ....................................................................................................................  14  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 21 | TABLE OF JUDGMENTS, ORDERS AND RULINGS¹ | Number | |----------------------------------------|--------| | [...], Memorialized on May 4, 2022.
[directive] Any police activity pertaining to the investigation of an indictable crime, disorderly persons offense, or petty disorderly offense, including but not limited to responding to a report of a possible criminal offense; an investigative detention based on or leading to reasonable and articulable suspicion to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed; an arrest for a criminal offense; an interview of a potential witness to a criminal offense; or canvassing an area, neighborhood, or premises for potential witnesses to a criminal offense.  Law enforcement agency, agency, or department.  A law enforcement agency operating under the authority of the laws of the State of New Jersey.  Law enforcement officer.  A person whose public duties include the power to act as an officer for the detection, apprehension, arrest, and conviction of offenders against the laws of this State.  Some BWC models may be turned on and remain in a standby or buffering mode, during which the device 1 does not make a permanent record of images/sounds unless the officer activates the recording mode/function.  With respect to these models, when the officer activates the recording mode/function, the device automatically preserves an electronic recording of the events that transpired a fixed period of time (e.g., 30 seconds) before the recording mode/function was activated.  This time-delay or “buffering” feature allows the device to capture data concerning the event/circumstances that prompted the officer to activate the BWC.  When an officer does not activate the recording mode/function, data captured while the device is in standby/buffering mode is overwritten automatically.
[brief] The State disagrees.  [...] made this comment within the first ninety seconds of questioning defendant after re-approaching the car.  Defendant was unrestrained outside of the vehicle and smoking a cigarette.  [...] was calm and informal in his manner.  (V:16:59:18 to 59:25).  Merely informing defendant that the officer could call for a dog sniff did not impose a restraint on defendant’s freedom to the degree associated with a formal arrest.
[brief] As set forth below, all of Plaintiff-Appellant’s claims against [...] should have been dismissed at the trial level as time-barred.  Moreover, the Trial Court’s decision to dismiss all of Plaintiff-Appellant’s claims on their merits should be affirmed.  7  Even were his misrepresentation claim deemed tort-based, [...] still would be held to a six-year statute of limitations.  N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2.