ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[directive] A system of progressive discipline can include the following elements:  (a)  Oral reprimand or performance notice; (b) Written reprimand; 8 INTERNAL AFFAIRS POLICY & PROCEDURES | June 2021  (c)  Monetary fine;2 (d) Suspension without pay; (e) Loss of a promotional opportunity; (f) Demotion; and (g)  Discharge from employment.  2.2.7
[brief] (2T22:24-23:23:7).  Plaintiff had a verbal agreement with Defendant to take $1,000 a week from the pharmacy.  (2T24:3-6).  There were weeks, however, where plaintiff would take $1,500, $2,300, 5,000 a week from the pharmacy’s bank account.  (2T25:1-18)  He wrote and signed a number of these checks to himself.  (2T26:10-27:11; 2T27:19-30:15).  Defendant worked at the Pharmacy six days a week for about fifty-five hours a week.  (3T36:2-7).  As the pharmacist in charge of [...], Defendant was responsible for seizing all controlled substances, receiving medications, dispensing medications and filling prescriptions and putting them into the system, reviewing drug interactions or potential adverse effects, doing inventory, and dealing with expired medications.
[brief] Plaintiff was employed as a police officer with [...] and eventually entered into the November 5, 2021 Separation Agreement and Release as a result of pending disciplinary charges.  See DA012-DA022.  Under the Agreement, the Parties agreed that Plaintiff was medically disabled.  See DA015 at ¶ 3.  To that effect, the Township agreed to file for an IOD application for Plaintiff effective September 1, 2020 and that Plaintiff would be placed on medical leave effective February 20, 2020 pending the determination of the IOD retirement by [...].  Ibid.  The Township further agreed to “take all necessary steps to effectuate the [IOD] application, including, but not limited to, providing all medical information and taking all Governing Body action necessary. ”  See DA016 at ¶ 6.  ---
[brief] Model Criminal Jury Charge, Identification: Out-of-Court Identification  Only 2.  The jury should also have been instructed to scrutinize [...]’s identification closely, bearing in mind that “human memory is not foolproof” and that “[a]lthough nothing may appear more convincing than a witness’s categorical identification of a perpetrator, you must critically analyze such testimony.  Such identifications, even if made in good faith, may be mistaken. ”  Id. at 5.  That the jury was deprived of this information about [...]’s identification fatally undermines [...]’s convictions, especially since [...] was not able to be confronted with all these facts to be assessed by the jury.  In short, because the failure to give a complete identification charge in a misidentification case is reversible error, and because in this particular case the failure deprived the jury of critical information to assess an otherwise inscrutable identification, [...]’s convictions must be reversed.
[brief] On February 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Complaint, pro se against [...], Member, and Individually and [...] t/a [...] for wages with the Wage Collection Section, Division of Wage and Hour Compliance, Department of Labor and Workforce Development.  (Aa91).  On April 3, 2020, Plaintiff, individually, and derivatively on behalf of [...], filed an Amended Verified Complaint and Order to Show Cause against [...] members, [...], [...] and [...] for minority oppression, financial malfeasance, company mismanagement, waste, and theft.
[brief] As set forth above, through the end of 2018 [...], through its elected officials, was supportive of redeveloping the property since it (1) held the key to satisfy 55% of its affordable housing obligations under Mt. Laurel, (2) provided protection against builder’s remedy lawsuits, and (3) dramatically reduced its affordable housing obligation.  Such builder’s remedy lawsuits would result in much higher density obligations of affordable housing.  See 240-41a.  However, with the election of 2018, all of that changed when [...] elected [...], who ran a political campaign openly hostile to the Project and promising the electorate that she will impede or stop the Project in the form that it was approved by the court.
[directive] That system.  Scan Live the by fingerprinted been has defendant until the initiated offenses) of designation and that offense(s), present the indicate to officer arresting the requires whether example, for determine, to process risk-assessment pretrial automated the in used then is complaint- the where cases may be There raised.  be should flag activity criminal violent a new are that offenses or more one charges filed actually is that complaint-warrant or summons Scan Live of the part initially as entered been had that offenses) the from different approving officer supervisory designated or prosecutor a example, For process. fingerprinting defendant which for offense the downgrade to decide may 3.2 Section to pursuant charges the to substance controlled a distribute to intent with possession downgrade (e.g., arrested was second-degree downgrade assault; simple to assault aggravated an downgrade possession; simple offenses the any, of or all, charge to not decide or may etc.), burglary, third-degree burglary to a approves officer supervisory or prosecutor the where (e.g., officer arresting the by proposed filing approve not but does arrested was defendant the which for crime underlying for the charge Conversely, the arrest). resisting or of law administration of obstruction charging complaint a additional or add arrest of offense upgrade the to decide may officer supervisory or prosecutor public asecond-degree with offense distribution drug athird-degree supplement (e.g., charges third-degree of burglary instead second-degree charge offense; distribution drug zone park burglary, etc.). or theft addition to in robbery charge burglary; 36 Page run be should assessment risk pretrial automated new a feasible, when event, that In If complaint-warrant. or acomplaint-summons by charged be to offenses) actual the on based the and assessment risk pretrial automated new a initiate to feasible not reason is it for any whom the officer to judicial or court the acomplaint-warrant, apply for to made decision is was PSA automated initial the that advised be shall made is acomplaint-warrant for application sought.
[brief] See N.J.S.A. 59:9-2b.  •  Permits to homeowners for sidewalk repairs are handled by the City’s Engineering Office.  (Pa180, at p.27; Pa182, p.34.)  •  He has no knowledge if the sidewalk at the base of the tree was ever repaired or reconstructed.  (Pa181, p.33.)  •  The DPW’s involvement in sidewalk repairs is that he will go and see if a tree’s roots need to be shaved.  If the roots are shaved, it is minimal and no more, so the sidewalk repair can be done, and the tree can be saved.  (Pa182, p.36-37; Pa185, p.47.)  If shaving the roots would need to be more extensive, the tree would be taken down.  (Pa182, p.37-Pa183, p.38.)  •  Regarding shaving the roots of a tree, “[l]ike I said the only way I shave the roots is if I look at it and it’s not a lot of roots, it’s basically spider roots or something that I am taking away from it.  But if it’s too many roots, main root, the tree’s coming down before, you know, before they do any work on the sidewalk. ”  (Pa185, p46-47.)  •  If this shaving of tree roots is done, then it will be entered into the DPW’s SDL system, which tracks work orders.  (Pa183, p.40-41.)  •  He checked the SDL system for the tree in question to see if the tree roots had been shaved, and there were no such entries.  (Pa183, p.40-41.)  •  The SDL system did not contain any complaints about the tree in question.  (Pa184, p.43.)  •  Besides homeowner complaints, the DPW will also receive complaints from other City employees about trees, like from the City’s Code Enforcement.  (Pa184, p.44-45.)  •  He has never had job duties of assessing if a sidewalk is safe or needs to be repaired; that is not his job.  (Pa184, p.45.)  •  After the tree fell down, he was contacted by the Police Department because the tree was across the road.  (Pa186, p.50-51.)  •  He has no recollection of ever doing any work in that location for that tree or any other tree in the area.  (Pa186, p.50-51.)  •  When he got to the scene, he looked at the tree, and it was green, so he knew it was alive.  (Pa187, p.54.  •  He could also tell that “[the tree] was uprooted.  So that means that the wind was blowing hard enough for the tree to come down. ” (Pa187, p.54-55.)  •  The DPW then cut up the tree and hauled it away.  (Pa187, p.55.)
[brief] Cotto, 182 N.J. 316 (2005) | 12 | | State v. Cotto, 471 N.J. Super. 489 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 252 N.J. 166 (2022) | 9, 19 | | State v. Dunbrack, 245 N.J. 531 (2021) | 10 | | State v. Erazo, ___ N.J. ___ (2023) | 4 | | State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57 (2014) | 25 | | State v. Gaines, 377 N.J. Super. 612 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 185 N.J. 264 (2005) | 14 | State v. Galicia, 210 N.J. 364 (2012) .................................................................
[brief] As this Court observed in *Diaz*, “[a]ffirmatively misleading an interrogatee about the seriousness of the offense for which he or she was taken into custody strikes at the heart of the waiver decision. ”  470 N.J. Super. at 525; see also *State v. Nyhammer*, 197 N.J. 383, 407 (2009) (stating that evidence that an individual was tricked will render a waiver involuntary); *State v. O.D.A.-C.*, 250 N.J. 408, 422 (2022) (stating that suspects should not be misled about the consequences of speaking in the *Miranda* process).
[brief] However, the discovery rule does not apply here because Plaintiff knew immediately that he had fallen on ice and injured himself and that it was the fault of another, so the statute commenced running immediately and the discovery rule has no bearing on this case.  Plaintiff included in his complaint several “John Doe” defendants, to comply with the fictitious-party practice in Rule 4:26-4.  However, that rule is only appropriate when “the defendant’s true name is unknown to the plaintiff…”  R. 4:26-4.  It applies only when “the nature of the claim is known and the tortfeasor’s identity is not. ”  Freeman v. State, 347 N.J. Super. 11, 29 (App. Div. 2002).  In this case, Plaintiff unquestionably knew of [...]’s identity at the time of the accident, as Plaintiff conceding that he was on friendly terms with the restaurant’s owners, as they related by marriage.  (Pa746)  On that ground, alone, the fictitious-party pleading rule could not save Plaintiff’s claim from dismissal under the statute of limitations bar.
[brief] The Appellant herein, [...], is the owner of a property which is identified on the Keansburg tax map as Block 184, Lot 4 (“Lot 4”).  [...] operates the [...] on Lot 4.  As suggested by the lot numbering, the amusement park is directly adjacent to the Property (i.e. Lots 3 and 3.01) which is the subject of this litigation.
[brief] In addition, in failing to determine that Plaintiffs’ lost profits could be calculated with reasonable certainty, the Trial Court did not recognize that the calculation of damages is a question for the jury and that courts “permit considerable speculation by the trier of fact as to damages. ”  V.A.L. Floors, 355 N.J. Super. at 424.  This legal error calls for reversal of the decision below.  Above all, the Trial Court’s invention of a standard, its invention that the novice status of a business is the “preeminent” factor, its failure to apply the uncontroverted facts in the record and in the testimony of [...] and [...] establishing that the novice status of the business in this unique context was irrelevant, and its failure to apply the standard as simply set forth by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, was fatal and reversible error.
[directive] ”  The State should be represented, by the Municipal Prosecutor, at every stage of a case: pre-trial discovery or motions; trial; a guilty plea; or a guilty plea on a plea bargain or on a conditional plea of guilty.  This applies equally at the sentencing phase.  The appearance of the State will assure that there is adequate compliance with Constitutional requirements, the requirements for the imposition of mandatory sentences, and compliance with Court Rules.  It will also enable the prosecutor to ensure that there is an adequate record.
[brief] He stated that the proposed management on site would provide better water drainage than what presently exists and that the proposed water quality would drastically improve.  Pa122.  [...] also confirmed that water runoff will not increase and that there will be no runoff to or drainage along Kinderkamack Road.  Pa230, at 6:8-7:21.  Next, [...], [...]’s traffic engineer, provided the Zoning Board with the results of a traffic study conducted on multiple days and at multiple times and opined that the Second Application would have no or minimal impact on traffic conditions in the surrounding area as it would, on average, increase additional traffic volume by only a second or two.
[brief] ’”  Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 491 U.S. 440, 455 (1989).  Appellant argues that the Superior  Court erred in consulting legislative history to determine that Congress only desired to prohibit the disclosure of consumer information to friends, neighbors, and employers – and not the routine use of letter vendors – without first finding that the statute was “ambiguous” and without a “plain” meaning.
[brief] [...], *Prevalence of Youth Homelessness and LGBTQ+ Homelessness* (2023), https://nn4youth.org/lgbtq-homeless-youth/.  Transgender people whose families reject them are nearly twice as likely to have experienced homelessness (40%) as those who were not rejected (22%).  *2015 U.S. Transgender Survey*, at 65 (Da91).  The *2015 U.S. Transgender Survey* also reported that 15% of respondents either ran away from home or were kicked out of the house after coming out to their families.  *Ibid.*  The students most in need of a safe and inclusive environment at school, precisely because they may not have that at home, are the students most likely to be harmed by a forced-outing policy.
[brief] New Jersey pension statutes must be liberally construed, and under a liberal construction, [...] would be eligible for Ricci Act benefits.  Pensions for public employees serve a public purpose.  A primary objective in establishing them is to induce able persons to enter and remain in public employment, and to render faithful and efficient service while so employed.  3 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d Ed. Rev. 1963) § 12.141.  They are in the nature of compensation for services previously rendered and act as an inducement to continued and faithful service.  Being remedial in character, statutes creating pensions should be liberally construed and administered in favor of the persons intended to be benefited thereby.
[brief] further deliberations would be futile was, in light of all the circumstances of this case, itself a coercive act.  This was a jury that was trying hard to do its job, and had reached a partial verdict, but was also up against a serious deadline caused by the vacations of two of its members the next day.  But the court ignored those specifically-expressed concerns, at 4:45 in the afternoon, and instead told the jury that she was looking into how late she could keep them.  The case law has made it clear that reading the Czachor instruction is not a talisman that necessarily protects the resulting verdict from claims of error.  In Figueroa, 190 N.J. at 227, telling the jury at the conclusion of the Czachor instruction, “I got to be here tomorrow, I got to be here Friday.  I got nothing going on Saturday, and Giants are playing away on Sunday, so we will be here as long as it takes you to go through this process,” was seen as a “fundamental” violation of the spirit of Czachor which unduly coerced a verdict.
[directive] 1.  Èske w konprann ke le fèt ou plede koupab de [Wi/Yes]  [Non/No]  Do you understand that because of your plea of guilty to (Krim vyolans Premye oswa Dezyèm Degre kote lwa Aplike)  NERA (List First or Second Degree Violent Crime(s) to Which Applies)  NERA  W ap oblije pije 85% santans ke yo enpoze w an pou zak sa a ( sa yo) anvan pou w ta elijib pou libète kondisyonèl pou zak sa a (sa yo) you will be required to serve 85% of the sentence imposed for that offense(s) before you will be eligible for parole on that offense(s)?
[brief] PROCEDURAL HISTORY  On January 3, 2017, [...] filed its collection Complaint, demanding a judgment against [...] in the amount of $618.91, together with interest and costs of suit.  (Complaint, Pa1).  The Complaint and Return of Service (Da4) state that the Complaint was delivered to [...].  At that time, [...] was living at [...] and never received the Summons or Complaint.  [...]’s Certification (Da43).  On April 19, 2017, [...] requested the entry of default and applied for the entry of default judgment (Da6), which was entered on April 21, 2017 (Da27).  Thereafter, on June 7, 2023, [...] filed his first Motion to Vacate Default Judgment, which was denied on July 7, 2023 without prejudice due to a procedural issue, i.e., a pending Motion for Consolidation with a related action in the Law Division (Trans ID: [...]; Trans ID: [...]).  The trial court’s June 7th Order granted [...] leave to refile pending the outcome of the motion practice in the Law Division (Trans ID: [...]).  On January 3, 2024, [...] filed his second Motion to Vacate Default Judgment and on February 16, 2024, the trial court heard oral arguments on [...]’s Motion.
[brief] *Id.*  Even more brazenly, despite receiving voluminous responsive documentation, plaintiff in turn failed to provide any responses to the demands served by [...], yet still attempted to schedule defendant’s depositions.  *Id.*, at 602.  Indeed, plaintiff’s conduct evidences that formal discovery is ripe for “abuses, intrusion, delays, and costs. ”  [...], ARBITRATION: CASES, PROBLEMS AND PRACTICE 259 (2018).  And thus, by the time plaintiff sought to compel arbitration, plaintiff had derived the substantial benefits of formal discovery in litigation, that it would not have been afforded in arbitration, while also avoiding its own discovery obligations.  This was the central issue that tipped the totality of the circumstances in favor of waiver.  As compared to *Marmo*, the totality of the circumstances here does not rise to the level of waiver.
[brief] In this case, the Plaintiffs provided two Affidavits of Merit that contained the requisite language required by the Affidavit of Merit Statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27.  Furthermore, they contained the identity of all of the medical providers that were known at this time to be at issue in the case.  The Defendant did not raise any objection to the substance of the Affidavits of Merit or the qualifications of the affiants.  Therefore, they should have been found to be statutorily sufficient.  The only issue that has been raised by the Defendant is its claim – without any support - that it cannot be vicariously liable for the actions of any of the providers identified in the Complaint.
[brief] Moreover, Appellant should be barred from arguing discovery is needed under the Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel.  While Appellant could have elected to serve discovery in this matter in the ordinary course like any other litigant, Appellant made a calculated business decision to not engage in any discovery below.  Appellant made this decision because, like the Respondent, Appellant agreed that further discovery was unnecessary as the material facts are not in dispute.  This was Appellant’s choice and its right.  While Appellant could have opposed the Motion on the grounds that summary judgment was premature, the Appellant never argued a lack of ripeness below and instead chose to file the Cross-Motion.  Again, this was Appellant’s choice and its right.  Appellant’s litigation strategy below was to skip discovery, oppose the Respondent’s Motion, and file its own Cross Motion which included an extensive record of over two hundred (200) pages of supporting certifications, exhibits and other pleadings (Pa 210 to Pa431).
[brief] (a)  A resulting diminution of property values if the application was approved allowing construction of a dwelling so close to Maple Avenue; Ja127 Line 11 to Ja128 Line 4, Ja129 Line 13 to Line 15, Ja 134 Line 11 to Line 15, Ja135 Line 22 to Ja136 Line 1, Ja138 Line 6 to Line 17 (b)  Flooding on to the [...] property next door and Maple Avenue; Ja123 Line 12 to Line 25, Ja135 Line 7 to Line 14 (c)  Degradation of a scenic tree lined street by clear cutting along Maple Avenue; Ja130 Line 1 to Line 6, Ja 130 Line 22 to Ja131 Line 8, Ja 134 Line 11 to Line 16, Ja138 Line 6 to Line 17 (d)  Destroying the secluded nature of the neighborhood by allowing construction of a dwelling that will not be hidden from view; Ja129 Line 6 to Line 15, Ja138 Line 6 to Line 17 (e)  Construction of a septic system 10 feet from Maple Avenue; Ja124 Line 8 to Line 11, Ja135 Line 14 to Line 20 25.  Board Members determined that the application of [...] was substantially similar to the application of [...] thereby denying the Cole application on the basis of res judicata for the following reasons:
[brief] DEFENDANT’S CLAIMS THAT THE STATE VIOLATED THE RULES OF DISCOVERY ARE WITHOUT MERIT.  (Addressing Point IX of defendant’s brief)  Defendant argues that the court below erred in finding that the State did not commit violations of the discovery rules when the State allegedly failed to provide video evidence of the administration of defendant’s Alcotests performed by [...] in discovery.  (Db33).  Defendant is wrong.  On appeal, this Court determines “whether the findings made [by the Law Division] could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence presented in the record. ”  Johnson, 42 N.J. at 162; Locurto, 157 N.J. at 471.  Review of legal determinations is plenary.  State v. Handy, 206 N.J. 39, 45 (2011).  Defendant’s assertion that a video would have provided “exculpatory evidence” is simply not supported by the record below.  Here, there was testimony available from [...] who gave his lay opinion with respect to defendant’s condition and expressed his opinion with respect to whether defendant was under the influence.  *State v. Gordon*, 261 N.J. Super. 462, 465 (App. Div. 1993).  The court below properly found that defendant made “bald assertions that he was not provided with purported exculpatory evidence including video from the police station booking room[ . . . ]” (Aa50).  There is no reason to disturb those findings that “could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence in the record. ”  *Johnson*, 42 N.J. at 162; *Locurto*, 157 N.J. at 471.  The court below also correctly found that defendant provides no proof that any such videos exist or that any such discovery request was raised in the municipal court.  (Aa50).  Further, the State has no affirmative obligation to create a videotape of defendant’s failed sobriety tests.  *Gordon*, 261 N.J. Super. at 464-66.  “[A] prosecutor is not obligated to create tangible items of evidence; he [or she] is only required to turn over items ‘within the possession, custody or control of the prosecuting attorney. ’”  *Id.* at 465 (citing R. 3:13-3(a)(4), (6) and (8)).  Thus, defendant’s claim that the State violated discovery rules are without merit.  POINT III