ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] **LEGAL ARGUMENT**  This is a motion to dismiss the Respondent’s Complaint on the pleadings, and compel arbitration.  *New Jersey Court Rule 4:6-2*  There has been limited discovery and plenary hearing.  The Court Rules provide where information is presented outside the pleadings on a dispositive motion, the summary judgment standard should apply.  The Respondent’s allegations therefore should be viewed in a light most favorable providing all reasonable inferences to the Respondent’s claims.
[brief] ¹  Petitioner, a former Police Officer with the [...] (formerly the [...]), filed for Accidental Disability (“AD”) on June 29, 2016 with an effective date of July 1, 2016.  (Pa1).  ¹ “Pa” refers to the Petitioner’s Appendix.  Petitioner’s application states it was filed as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on October 17, 2015.  (Pa1).  By letter dated October 17, 2017, the Board denied Petitioner’s application for AD, finding his disability was not the direct result of the 2015 incident, and was instead the result of a pre-existing disease alone or pre-existing disease that is aggravated or accelerated by the work effort.  (Pa2).  The Board granted Petitioner Ordinary Disability.  (Pa2 - Pa3).  Petitioner appealed the Board’s decision, and the matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) as a contested case on January 18, 2018.  (Pa77).  Hearings were held on September 6, 2019, September 11, 2019 and, after a significant delay due to Covid 19, on September 21, 2020.  (Pa77).  The OAL record was closed on May 31, 2023, and on June 29, 2023, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued an Initial Decision reversing the Board’s decision and determining that Petitioner is entitled to AD retirement benefits (Pa76, Pa77, Pa91).  The Board filed Exceptions to the ID on July 27, 2023, and Petitioner filed a Reply to Exceptions on July 30, 2023 (Pa95, Pa102).  At its August 14, 2023 meeting the Board voted to reject the ID.  (Pa110).  The Board Secretary prepared findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its decision which were presented to the Board at its September 18, 2023 meeting.  (Pa110).  At that same meeting, the Board approved the findings of fact and conclusions of law and issued a FAD rejecting the recommendation of the ID and denying Petitioner’s application for AD.  (Pa111- The Board also determined that Petitioner would continue to receive Ordinary Disability benefits.  (Pa113).  Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal of the Board’s FAD on October 11, 2023, and filed its Appellate Brief on the Merits and related Appendices on April 5, 2024.  The Board files the within Brief on the Merits in opposition to the Petitioner’s appeal.  **COUNTER STATEMENT OF FACTS**
[brief] First, there is no dispute that Plaintiff and Defendant had binding contracts with one another.  That is obvious through the discovery elicited and the mere fact that Defendant has filed a Counterclaim premised on Breach of Contract.  Pa30.  Accordingly, Plaintiff satisfied the first element of its breach of contract claim.  **B.  Plaintiff’s Performance Under the First Contract (Pa15; Pa46-50; Pa223; Pa224; Pa225; Pa263; Pa284; Pa285; Pa310-311; Pa442; Pa435; Pa437)**
[brief] [...] advanced from an Environmental Engineer Trainee to the Section Chief in the Bureau of Safe Drinking Water, Division of Water Supply and Geoscience in the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.  (Pa409).  [...] was professionally active and achieved numerous accomplishments awards in the field of Safe Drinking Water including receiving several awards and citations from the American Water Works Association, the largest nonprofit, scientific and educational association dedicated to managing and treating water; serving as President of the Association of Boards of Certification, the national association of certification of water and wastewater operators; serving for many years as course coordinator for the Rutgers University Safe Drinking Water Act Regulatory Update annual course and being recognized as a leader in the field of Safe Drinking Water – lecturing and writing on issues of public concern in this important field.  (Pa410; Pa453).  After [...] brought to the attention of his employer his managers were engaged in discrimination, hostility and harassment against him, including official complaints on May 23, 2012 resulting in a finding that [...] created a hostile environment, Dillon’s stellar career took a nosedive.
[brief] [...] never made the required payment under the Lease.  [...] terminated the Lease with [...] on October 17, 2017.  Representatives of [...] testified during depositions that if [...] had made its payment under the lease, [...] would not have terminated the Lease.  (Pa002137).  (“Q: And given your frequent contact with [[...]’s counsel] and familiarity with the situation, had [...] made his rent payment, would [...] have proceeded with the lease and gone forward?  A: Yes. ”).  In fact, a [...] representative testified that [...] told him after they sent the notice of default that “he didn’t have the money. ” (Pa002138).  Appellants’ admissions, moreover, nullify all claims asserted by the Appellants in the Verified Complaint.
[brief] One simply cannot stand on the sidelines and choose not to participate in the game when they have the opportunity to do so, and then complain that your team lost the game because they didn’t play well enough.  As a result, we assert that the Appellant effectively but wrongly alleges a cause of action for which relief cannot be granted.  The adoption of the Ordinances authorizing the land exchange has been affirmed and found to be valid.  Therefore, Appellant does not have any realistic argument to persuade this Court to stop the Township from continuing to acquire the remaining lot which is the subject of the land exchange.
[brief] (15T 4-12 to 16-23, 34-20 to 41-8; Da 181-96)  .................................................................................................................. 61 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 66 INDEX TO APPENDIX [...] ........................................ Da 1-2 Miranda Waiver Form .............................................................................. Da 3 HCPO Transcript of Defendant’s Police Statement ................................. Da 4-108 DVD of Defendant’s Police Statement .................................................. Da 109 Order and Opinion Denying Defendant’s Motion to Exclude His Statement to Police .............................................................................. Da 110-28 HCPO Transcript of [...]’s First Police Statement ......................... Da 129-54 HCPO Transcript of [...]’s Second Police Statement ..................... Da 155-67 Order and Opinion Granting Defendant’s Motion for a Wade/Henderson Hearing to Exclude a Partial Identification ............ Da 168-78 Verdict Sheets ....................................................................................... Da 179-80 Order and Opinion Denying State’s Motion for an Extended Term and Amplifying Sentencing Decision ........................................ Da 181-93 Amended Judgment of Conviction ......................................................... Da 194-96 Notice of Appeal ................................................................................... Da 197-200 Appellate Division Order Granting Appeal as Within Time ................ Da 201 Certifications of Transcript
[brief] In addition, any proposed utility work must be done by a public utility which is operating “…under privileges granted or hereafter to be granted by this State or by any political subdivision thereof. ”  N.J.S.A. 48:2-13(a).  Here it is undisputed that the proposed project is not a part of any normal “routine” utility work.  It is also clearly established that the Respondent [...] is not operating “…under privileges granted or hereafter to be granted by this State or by any political subdivision thereof” and, therefore, is not a “public utility” as that term is defined by the State’s very specific definition at N.J. S.A. 48:2-13(a) and included by reference in the Highlands Act, at N.J.S.A. 13:20-3.
[brief] The consideration for the transfer was $1.00, indicating that it was not an arm’s length transaction.  The deeds do not contain any recitation of how the [...] acquired the Strip or the purpose of the deeds.  Pa0091.  By deeds dated January 19, 1972, the properties are conveyed back to the original grantors, the [...].  Pa0098.  The assumption made by Defendant’s expert, and ultimately the trial court, is that these deeds effectuated the transfer of property detailed in the unrecorded subdivision documents.  However, the Strip was placed back in the chain of title for Plaintiff’s property in a deed dated May 24, 1972.
[brief] The sixteen (16) officers promoted to sergeant, the six (6) officers promoted to lieutenant, and the two (2) officers promoted to captain during the time period germane to this litigation, never waived their respective rights to the wage rates set forth in the CNAs.  Defendants then incorrectly argue that the promoted officers never earned the wages sought in this matter which nullifies all four (4) causes of action alleged in the Complaint.  For the reasons discussed in the moving brief, Plaintiffs have adequately alleged the following counts: Count I- Breach of Contract; Count II- Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealings; Count III- Promissory Estoppel; and Cout IV, New Jersey Wage Payment and Collection Law.
[brief] The fact that there are other state agencies or boards that are comprised of private individuals does not serve to ameliorate the constitutional violations.  The professional licensing boards cited by the defendants in their motion papers below are distinguishable, because the private members of those boards regulate themselves and not the public in general, in contrast to the policies and regulations --- \(^3\)  The pro-hunting bias of the Council is a relevant consideration for the defendants’ motion to dismiss, but not plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.  formulated by the Council.  The State Board of Agriculture cited by the State defendants below is also distinguishable, because the members representing the four (4) leading agricultural commodities and engaging in the production of farm crops or livestock products in New Jersey are dispersed, so that no one group has majority control of the Board.  See N.J.S.A. 4:1-4 and 4:1-15.  In contrast, the plaintiffs in the case at bar assert that the legislative delegation of regulatory authority to the Council violates the separation of powers and distribution of governmental authority under Art. III, Par. 1, N.J. Const. (1947) and constitutes an improper delegation of legislative power vested in the Senate and General Assembly to a private organization, or an organization controlled by a private group and individuals in violation of Art. IV, Sec. 1, Par. 1, N.J. Const. (1947).
[brief] SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET #[...] ______________________________ [...], Esq., [...] d/b/a [...] and [...], Plaintiffs-Appellants v. [...], [...], Newark Mayor [...], the City of Newark City Council, Newark City Clerk [...], Newark Corporation Counsel [...], Esq., Newark Business Administrator [...], Esq., Newark Director of Economic and Housing Development [...], Newark Director of Finance [...], Newark Division of Tax Abatement and Special Taxes Manager [...], CTC, Newark Tax Assessor [...], Esq., [...], Essex County Executive [...], [...], Attorney General of New Jersey [...], [...], [...], and [...], Defendants-Respondents
[brief] (10T169-17 to 170-10; 10T172-22 to 23).  [...] and a surveillance team arrived at the location.  Because weapons had been observed during the search of the apartment, other members of law enforcement, including the SWAT team and the Emergency Response Team, arrived to assist in effectuating the arrest of defendant and [...].  (10T171-25 to 172-23; 11T35-9 to 21).  [...] observed the vehicle in the parking lot and entered the Cheesecake Factory to locate defendant and [...].  (10T173-5 to 7).  [...] confirmed that [...] and a male he believed to be defendant were inside the restaurant.  [...] decided to make the arrest in the parking lot.  (10T173-12 to 175-3; 10T181-19 to 25; 11T35-22 to 37-18).  At approximately 9:25 p.m., [...] and defendant exited the restaurant.
[brief] *Denbo v. Twp. of Moorestown*, 23 N.J. 476, 481 (1957).  It reminds that "[i]n enacting legislation the lawmakers are deemed to have had a definite purpose in mind, and to have included the component parts of the enactment to accomplish that purpose."  *Ibid.*  The Legislature announced its purpose in enacting the Highlands Act in ringing tones, declaring the Highlands' "exceptional natural resources" in the form of clean drinking water, "clean air, contiguous forest lands, wetlands, pristine watersheds, and habitat for fauna and flora" were "at serious risk of being fragmented and consumed by unplanned development," and "because of [the Highlands'] vital link to the future of the State's drinking water supplies and other key natural resources," it was essential "that the State should take action to delineate within the New Jersey Highlands a preservation area . . . where stringent protection policies should be implemented."
[brief] A defendant has a right to the effective assistance of counsel on a direct appeal.  State v. Guzman, 313 N.J. Super. 363, 372 (App. Div.), cert. denied, 156 N.J. 424 (1998).  In judging a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, the two-pronged test of Strickland applies.  Id. at 374; State v. Morrison, 215 N.J. Super. 540, 545-46 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 107 N.J. 642 (1987); State v. Gaither, 396 N.J. Super. 508, 516-17 (App. Div. 2007), certif. denied, 194 N.J. 444 (2008).  Under the Strickland standard, an appellate attorney need not advance every argument which the defendant urges, even if non-frivolous.  Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751 (1983).  “Experienced advocates since time beyond --- 5
[directive] 8.4.7  If the subject officer refuses to answer on any other grounds, he or she should be advised that such refusal will subject him or her to disciplinary action, including dismissal, in addition to discipline for the matter that triggered the interview in the first place.  If the officer still refuses, the interview should be terminated and appropriate disciplinary action initiated.  8.4.8  The courts have decided that a public employer must permit an employee to have a representative present at an investigative interview if the employee requests representation and reasonably believes the interview may result in disciplinary action.9
[brief] However, as to disgorgement, N.J.S.A. 49:3-69(a)(2) provides that the Court may order rescission, restitution, or disgorgement.  N.J.S.A. 49:3-69(a)(2) (emphasis added).  The Court, here, finds that Plaintiff may receive one, but not all three of the remedies set forth in N.J.S.A. 49:3-69(a)(2).  Plaintiff, here, seeks both restitution in the amount of $15,161,043 and disgorgement in the amount of $1,500,000.  Despite [...]’s egregious conduct, the Court finds the same to not be authorized by N.J.S.A. 49:3-69(a)(2).  Accordingly, the request for disgorgement is DENIED.
[brief] ” (Pb19).  Conveniently, Plaintiff leaves out an important part of the statute: Any retail shopping facilities or service establishment which supplies commodities or performs a service primarily for residents of the surrounding neighborhood, such as grocery stores, delicatessens, meat markets, drugstores, variety stores, antique and gift shops, furniture stores, bakery shops, restaurants, luncheonettes, barbershops, beauty shops, clothes cleaning and laundry pickup establishments, banks, real estate offices, business or professional offices.  https://ecode360.com/8940473?highlight=&searchId=12411646464321965#8940473, last visited 11/15/2024 (emphasis added).  Plaintiff admits that it was “aware that the Property was not being used as a retail establishment due to the ongoing remediation…” (Pb19).  Apparently, Plaintiff knew that the Property could not be used for a permitted use due to the presence of contamination.  To suggest that a storage facility is the same type of “service establishment” as those items set forth in the Ordinance violates the statutory principle of *ejusdem generis*, which is “‘when specific words follow more general words in a statutory enumeration, we can consider what additional items might also be included by asking whether those items are similar to those enumerated.
[brief] 408 (2009) | 6 | | Burnett v. County of Gloucester, 415 N.J. Super. 506 (App. Div. 2010) | 13 | | Capitol Info Ass’n v. Ann Arbor Police, 138 Mich App 655 (1984) | 8 | | Hangartner v. City of Seattle, 151 Wash. 2d 439 (2004) | 7 | | Kenney v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 603 F.Supp.2d 184 (D.D.C. 2009) | 15 | | Libertarian Party of Cent. New Jersey v. Murphy, 384 N.J. Super. 136 (App. Div. 2006) | 17 | Livecchia v. Borough of Mount Arlington, 421 N.J. Super. 24 (App. Div. 2011) .................................................................17 MAG Entm’t, LLC v. Div. of Alcoholic Bev. Control, 375 N.J. Super. 534 (App. Div. 2005) ......................................................... 8, 9, 14 Muckrock, LLC v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 300 F. Supp. 3d 108 (D.D.C. 2018) ......................................................... 14, 15  Paff v. Twp. of Galloway, 229 N.J. 340 (2017) .............................................................................. passim Pub. Employees for Env’t. Responsibility v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 314 F. Supp. 3d 68 (D.D.C. 2018)  .................................................................17  Scheeler v. Office of the Gov., 448 N.J. Super. 333 (App. Div. 2017)  .............................................................13  Simmons v. Mercado, 247 N.J. 24 (2021) ..................................................................................7, 13  Smith v. Hudson Cnty. Register, 411 N.J. Super. 538 (App. Div. 2010) .............................................................18  South Jersey Pub. Co. Inc. v. N.J. Expressway Auth., 124 N.J. 478 (1991)  ....................................................................................6  Spectraserv, Inc. v. Middlesex Cnty. Utils. Auth., 416 N.J. Super. 565 (App. Div. 2010) ...........................................................9, 10 Sussex Commons Assoc., LLC v. Rutgers, 210 N.J. 531 (2012)  ..................................................................................6  Statutes: N.J.S.A. 47:1A–1 .........................................................................................6
[directive] Appear to Failure (i) the and crime second-degree or afirst- for is charge present if detention the risk- pretrial automated the by determined score (NCA)  Activity Criminal or New (FTA) of regardless 4 a is (NCA) score Activity Criminal New the if (ii) or 6, or 5 is process assessment score.  (FTA)  Appear Failure to the Criminal 0~ New of a 6 Score Risk a Involving Crimes Fourth-Degree o~ ThiNd- 7.4.2.b S. of Score  Activity seeking of presumption the unless 7.3, Section under covered otherwise not cases  In 25 detained, will be defendant presumption the that a establishes Law Reform Bail the circumstances, In these evidence. the of preponderance a by rebutted presumption is the that finds court the unless 2A:162-19(b), N.J.S.A. 2A:162-19(e)(2).
[brief] ”  Here, no change in the facts or law has occurred between the first trial court judge’s decision to enforce the Arbitration Agreement and the second trial court judge’s Decision of May 14, 2024 which necessitate such reversal.  Moreover, *Ginsberg ex rel. Ginsberg v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc.*, 441 N.J. Super. 198, 249 (App. Div. 2015), aff’d sub nom. *Ginsberg v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc.*, 227 N.J. 7 (2016) specifically applied to the trial court’s initial “choice-of-law” ruling *not* arbitrability.
[brief] Specifically, the trial court correctly opined that while these court records showed that [...] had been convicted for drug and related offenses in 2018, 2019, and 2021 in roughly the same neighborhood where the victim was killed, defendant failed to prove how these convictions were relevant because there was zero connection between the incidents giving rise to these convictions and [...]’s murder on an entirely different date.  (Da55).  The trial court also declined to take judicial notice of the majority of [...]’s criminal history because “rules regarding judicial notice are designed solely to provide a speedy and efficient means of proving matters which are not in genuine dispute,” and cannot be used to circumvent other rules of evidence, for example, testimony that could potentially be subject to cross-examination.  (Da55-Da57).  The trial court correctly determined that defendant failed to establish proof an alleged drug rivalry based only on the fact that heroin was recovered on the victim’s body, and that [...] was convicted for selling heroin one and a half months before the murder.
[directive] 1.  School Zone Working Group.  The School Zone Narcotics Enforcement Working Group established pursuant to Directive 5.14 of the Statewide Action Plan for Narcotics Enforcement shall reconvene to examine ways to enhance cooperation between the law enforcement community and the professional educational community with respect to delinquency prevention and intervention and with respect to the goal of achieving crime-free schools.  The membership of this Working Group may be expanded as necessary to address these additional concerns.  The Working Group shall recommend specific guidelines or directives to the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Education, and shall develop model agreements or memoranda of understanding between local law enforcement agencies and appropriate school officials concerning the following areas: The reporting of criminal or delinquent activity occurring on school property; The reporting of any fire-setting activity occurring on school property; The duties and responsibilities of law enforcement officers assigned to patrol in and around school property; The entry by law enforcement officers onto school property for the purpose of effecting an arrest, taking a juvenile into custody or seizing contraband; Coordinating referrals to and from law enforcement agencies and providing appropriate services to juveniles and their families; and Law enforcement participation in student instructional or awareness programs concerning crime, juvenile justice, health or other related issues.  PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE EXERCISE OF POLICE DISCRETION
[directive] Prior to the submission of a urine specimen, an officer shall execute a form (Attachment C) advising the officer that a negative result is a condition of employment and that a positive result will result in the consequences outlined in Section III C of this policy.  The form shall also advise the officer that the refusal to participate in the test process carries the same penalties as testing positive.  Sworn officers shall complete the Drug Testing Medication Information form (Attachment D) listing all prescription medication, non-prescription (over-the-counter) medication, dietary supplements, and nutritional supplements that were ingested by the officer during the past 14 days.  The Drug Testing Medication Information form shall be placed in an envelope which is sealed by the donor.  The donor shall date and initial the seal, and write their unique identifier (Donor ID) on the envelope.  B.