ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] POINT II  THE DEFENDANT'S CONVICTIONS SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT MISAPPLIED  ITS DISCRETION AND DEPRIVED THE DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE BY DENYING TRIAL COUNSEL'S MOTION TO EXCUSE JUROR NUMBER 4.  POINT III  THE JURY CHARGE WAS PREJUDICIALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE GUIDANCE TO THE JURY AS TO HOW TO ASSESS ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY (NOT RAISED BELOW).
[brief] “[The New Jersey] Supreme Court has expressed its disapproval of defendants' manipulation of the system to secure the removal of a judge they dislike. ”  Goldfarb, at 32 (citing, e.g., State v. Dalal, 221 N.J. 601, 607-08 (2015)).  “It is just as damaging to the integrity of the judicial process when parties secure, without the opposition's knowledge or consent, the assignment of a judge they prefer.
[brief] (Pa83-84).  These postcards included notice of the enactment of L. 2019, c. 157, how to file for Accidental Disability Retirement Benefits under the new law, the deadline for filing for such benefits, and the ramifications for missing the deadline.  (Pa85).  A postcard with this information was sent to [...]’s home address on August 9, 2019.  (Pa14; Pa85).  4  Also available at: https://www.nj.gov/treasury/pensions/ricci-ch157.shtml.  (Pa10).  On June 10, 2021, the Division posted a news item on its website advising members that the statutory eligibility period to register under the Ricci Act was expiring soon and that members must submit the Eligibility Registration Form by July 8, 2021.
[directive] Administrative Investigations  Only  1.  I am being questioned as a subject of an investigation by this agency into potential violations of department rules and regulations, or for my fitness for duty.  This investigation concerns 2.  This is an administrative investigation.  I will be asked questions specifically, narrowly and directly related to the performance of my duties, or for not answering truthfully.  3.  I may be subject to departmental discipline for refusing to answer a question directly related to the performance of my duties, or for not answering truthfully.  4.  I have the right to consult with a representative of my collective bargaining unit, or another representative of my choice, and have him or her present during the interview.  5.  I acknowledge that this investigation is confidential, and I am hereby ordered not to disclose any information discussed during this interview.  Signature: _______________________  Print Name: ______________________  Date: _____________  Time: _________  Witnessed by: ___________________________  Print name: _____________________________  Appendix K  Sample  Internal Affairs Case Reporting Sheet
[brief] The Agreement specifically provides, in conspicuous bolded font, that “all disputes, claims, complaints or controversies” [...] may have then or in the future against [...], including her claims for wrongful termination and retaliation under the LAD, must be resolved exclusively via private arbitration: Except (i) as expressly set forth in the section, “Claims Not Covered by this Agreement,” all disputes, claims, complaints or controversies (“Claims”) that I may have against [...] Scientific, LLC and/or any of its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, employees, agents and/or any of its clients or customers (collectively and individually the “Company”), or that the Company may have against me, including contract claims; tort claims; discrimination and/or harassment claims; retaliation claims; claims for wages, compensation, penalties or restitution; and any other claim under any federal, state, or local statute, constitution, regulation, rule, ordinance, or common law, arising out of and/or directly or indirectly related to my application for employment with the Company, and/or my employment with the Company, and/or the terms and conditions of my employment with the Company, and/or termination of my employment with the Company (collectively, “Covered Claims”), are subject to confidential arbitration pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and will be resolved by Arbitration and NOT by a court or jury.  The parties hereby forever waive and give up the right to have a judge or a jury decide any Covered Claims.
[brief] The State Related Defendants, the [...] Related Defendants and the [...] Related Defendants continue to permit the approval of discretionary long term tax exemptions by resolutions and not by ordinance in express violation of [...]’ contrary common law ruling that our State Legislature later codified.  See, Millenium Towers v. Municipal Council, 343 N.J. Super. 367 (Law Div. 2001); P.L. 2003, Chapter 125, Section 9; N.J.S.A.40A:20-9.  The State Related Defendants and the [...] Related Defendants continue to permit certain financially distressed municipalities not to pay 5% of certain long term tax exemption revenues to [...].  Enough is enough.
[directive] Telephone Number _ Telephone Number ---------- ---------------  Fax Fax ---------------- Em ail  Em ail --------------- --------------- ________  If yes, language _ Interpreter needed? No Yes ________  If No Yes yes, describe _ ADA  D accommodation needed?  D  Contact List attached by Form Promulgated Directive #21-20 (08/05/2020), CN 12556 (KROL Order 1)  Courts New .--..... . Jersey - .. New Jersey Judiciary List Contact  Krol Order lndtptndence • lnte,g1i1y F, lmHS.  Quility Service of In the Matter - Select County - County Prosecutor: Defendant's Attorney: Name Name ________ ---------  Telephone Number Telephone Number _ Em ail Email  Provider Agency: Name ---------------------------  Provider Agency CEO ----------------------------  Telephone Number Em ail Court Contact: Name Title  ----------------------------  Telephone Number Em ail by Form  Promulgated Directive #21-20 (08/05/2020), CN 12556 (KROL Order 1)
[brief] M.R. also occurred after the MOU occurred in our case and was not approved for publication.  (Pa118-123).  Lastly, the Board ignored that [...] was permanently disabled.  It had been three years since the shooting as of 2021 and no one disputed the therapist’s report that [...] was permanently disabled, and ignored that [...] would be eligible for law enforcement work in New Jersey except for the PPD if he were ever to regain fitness.  (Pa29-41, Pa124-130).  The Board also misinterpreted N.J.A.C. 43:16A-8(2).  (Pa82-96).  However, the Board on 4/13/21 did allow for the administrative law judge to consider these issues and render a decision as to whether [...]’s application should be allowed to filed and heard on the merits.
[brief] MATERIAL ISSUES OF FACT EXIST REGARDING DR. HOLE’S SUBJECTIVE INTENT.  (1T at 22:4 to 23:18).  [...]’s argument regarding this issue is, again, misguided.  [...] continually focuses on the merits of the Underlying Action.  (Pb21-22).  Although [...] strongly feels that the Underlying Action was frivolous – demonstrated by [...]’s last minute dismissal, [...]’s argument as it pertains to this issue is that New Jersey law required the trial court to inquire as to [...]’s subjective intent.  See, e.g., Superior Integrated Sols., 2020 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2147, at *23 (citing SL Indus., Inc., 128 N.J. at 212).  [...]’s intention was to ensure hospital staff and patient safety along with compliance with state and federal laws, including anti-kickback laws and HIPAA, and not to intentionally or maliciously interfere with [...]’s relationship with [...].  Indeed, [...] confirmed that [...] did not impact its relationship with [...].  (See [...] provided no undisputed facts that shed any light on [...]’s subjective intentions, and [...] did not proffer any evidence that [...] intended to inflict an injury on [...].  In fact, [...] has not even identified the relationships that [...] allegedly interfered with and the impact of that interference to even conduct a Karlinski analysis.  Additionally, [...] fails to address that, during the duration of this litigation, the parties have conducted themselves with the understanding that the Underlying Action is likely to be dispositive of the issues raised in the Declaratory Action.  This is supported by [...]’s conduct, where multiple extensions and adjournments were obtained with the consent of all parties to allow for the conclusion of the Underlying Action so the parties can obtain a better understanding of the basis for [...]’s claims against [...].
[brief] ### TABLE OF APPENDIX | Description | Page | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | Complaint, Summons | Pa1 | | [...]'s Aug 11, 2022 Motion to Dismiss | Pa8 | | [...]'s Aug 24, 2022 Motion to Dismiss | Pa11 | | Plaintiff's Aug 29, 2022 Opposition / Cross motion | Pa19 | | *(Most relevant pages)* | | | Plaintiff's Aug 20, 2022 certification | Pa22 | | Police Department released vehicle to Plaintiff | Pa38 | | Transcript of May 12, 2022 phone call | Pa40 | | Most junk car buyers don't need a title | Pa43 | | Plaintiff's letter-brief (germane to the appeal) | Pa55 | | Plaintiff's Aug 29, 2022 certification | Pa66 | | [...]'s Aug 31, 2022 Reply to Opposition / Cross motion | Pa68 | | Trial Court's Sep 23, 2022 order granting motion(s) to dismiss | Pa70 | | Trial Court's Sep 23, 2022 order denying all cross motions | Pa71 | | [...]'s Sep 29, 2022 Motion for Sanctions | Pa73 | | *(Most relevant pages)* | | | [...]'s (undated) certification | Pa75 | | [...]'s Aug 16, 2022 R. 1:4-8 letter | Pa77 | | [...]'s Sep 29, 2022 affidavit of services | Pa79 | | [...]'s attached itemized bill | Pa81 | | Plaintiff's Oct 10, 2022 Opposition / Cross motion | Pa83 | | *(Most relevant pages)* | | | Plaintiff's Oct 9, 2022 certification | Pa84 | | Letter of Estate Administration from Surrogate's Office | Pa90 | | [...]'s Oct 17, 2022 Reply to Opposition / Cross motion * | Pa105 | | Trial Court's Oct 21, 2022 order denying all cross motions | Pa110 | | Trial Court's Oct 21, 2022 order granting motion for sanctions | Pa112 | | [...]'s cover letter for the attached consent order | Pa113 | | The attached Nov 10, 2022 consent order signed by all parties | Pa114 | | Plaintiff's Nov 15, 2022 Notice of Appeal (and CIS) | Pa116 | | [...]'s Dec 8, 2022 letter to the case manager * | Pa120 | | [...]'s Dec 29, 2022 letter to the case manager * | Pa121 | *
[brief] Bell is informative.  There, the New Jersey Supreme Court held:  The ordinance fails to reveal either its particular governmental objectives or its factual underpinnings.  As the Appellate Division noted, the record is almost completely devoid of any evidence concerning what interests of [...] are served by the ordinance and the extent to which the ordinance has advanced those interests.  Because the exercise of first amendment rights and freedom of speech are at stake, the municipality cannot seek refuge in a presumption of validity.
[brief] Fraudulent Conveyance  By the same token, [...]’s fraudulent conveyance claim should be dismissed.  The only theory advanced in the Opposition Brief is “actual intent to defraud. ”  However, as discussed supra, [...] cannot establish Defendants’ actual intent to defraud in light of the fact that [...] created the December 10, 1998 deed listing [...] as the title owner, and that Defendants relied on [...]’s investigation and advice.  Moreover, again, the unclean hands doctrine bars [...]’s fraudulent conveyance claim.  C.  Conspiracy To Commit Fraud/Civil Conspiracy
[brief] 1  For brevity, the procedural history and statement of facts are combined.  2  [...] was twenty-two years old at the time of the offense.  (PSR 1)  3  That separate indictment charged [...] with one count of first-degree attempted murder under N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3, three counts of second-degree endangering under N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4A(2), two counts of second-degree aggravated assault under N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1B(1), one count of third-degree tampering with a witness under N.J.S.A. 2C:28-5A, and one count of fourth-degree tampering with physical evidence under N.J.S.A. 2C:28-6(1), for conduct related to his abuse of his older child, which was discovered pursuant to the investigation in this case.  (PSR 6-7)  On that indictment, [...] pleaded guilty to two counts of endangering, one count of aggravated assault, and one count of tampering on October 29, 2019.  (PSR 6-7)  He was sentenced on March 13, 2020.  (PSR 6-7)  In giving the factual basis for the plea, [...] initially stated that on March 8 or March 9 of 2019, he laid on the couch with his infant child in a manner that “could be very dangerous to her,” and admitted that he “knew that there was a risk . . . [of] rolling over on her and suffocating her by her being on the couch.
[brief] Moreover, as indicated above, [...] admits to not attempting to cross-examine any witnesses because it felt like the Board would not allow the objection.  However, such a conclusion is purely speculative due to [...]’s own choice not to cross-examine the witnesses.  See Pb18.  Additionally, the Board opened the hearing up to the public and heard four (4) members of the public provide testimony.  Transcript of 11.1.23, Hearing Page 40-48.  Accordingly, [...]’s claims have no factual basis and the trial court’s decision should be upheld.  III.
[brief] For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that this Court affirm the Foreclosure Court’s order which dismissed the Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice and denied the Plaintiff’s cross motion to amend the complaint.  Respectfully submitted, [...]  Attorneys for Defendants/Respondents  By: s/ [...]  [...], Esq.  Dated: July 3, 2024  SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE  DIVISION DOCKET NO. [...]  [...], a Banking Corporation of the State of New Jersey  Plaintiff-Appellant v. [...] and [...]  Defendants-Respondents  CIVIL ACTION ON APPEAL FROM: Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division, Bergen County
[brief] The Jury’s Verdict Was Contrary to the Evidence Applied here, the jury’s verdict allocating 60% fault to [...], 40% fault to [...], and 0% to Plaintiff was so far contrary to the weight of evidence presented at trial that a miscarriage of justice occurred.  The jury’s unfounded allocation of fault among the parties leads to the inescapable conclusion that the jury’s verdict was influenced by several improper rulings by the trial court that deprived [...] of a fair trial and the jury’s perception that [...] and the [...] defendants had the deep pockets needed to compensate the Plaintiff.  Each of those legal errors is addressed separately below.  However, the principal flaw in the jury’s verdict is that it simply does not make sense in light of the evidence presented at trial.
[brief] "Rule 5:1-1.  Scope and Applicability of Rules  The rules in Part V shall govern family actions.  All family actions shall also be governed by the rules in Part I insofar as applicable.  Civil family actions shall also be governed by the rules in Part IV insofar as applicable and except as otherwise provided by the rules in Part V.  Criminal and quasi-criminal family actions shall also be governed by the rules in Part III insofar as applicable except as otherwise provided by the rules in Part V.  Juvenile delinquency actions shall be governed by the rules in Part III insofar as applicable and except as otherwise provided by the rules in Part V."  27.
[directive] Criminal Sexual 3rd Degree $25,000 to $100,000  10% permissible uses physical force or coercion and victim suffers severe personal injury; or actor knew or Contact should have known that victim was physically helpless, or had a mental disease or defect which rendered the victim temporarily or permanently incapable of understanding the nature of his conduct, including, but not limited to, being incapable of providing consent, or was mentally incapacitated.  2A:160(1-25)  Uniform  Not Addressed in Extradition Court may withhold bail or grant bail to fugitive charged in another state; if the person is Criminal Extradition Depends Upon Crime Charged Statute.
[brief] The court must also look at “all favorable inferences that may be deduced in a light favorable to the plaintiff and if reasonable minds may differ then the grant of summary judgment was not appropriate. ”  See *Id.*  A party may defeat a motion for summary judgment by demonstrating that the evidential materials relied upon by the moving party, considered in light of the applicable burden of proof, raise sufficient credibility issues “to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party.
[brief] (Da846 to 870), the plaintiff filed opposition.  (Da871 to 885)  [...] on January 17, 2020 (5T) again denied the Recusal.  (Da891)  Also on December 24, 2019, the School filed a Motion to Compel Return of Monies paid pursuant to the Trial Court’s Final Judgment and sanctions/enforcement Orders which had been vacated by the Appellate Court ruling (Da816 to 813).  Opposition was filed (Da835).  [...] also denied this Motion by Order dated February 5, 2020 (Da976).  The Trial on the remand was held by [...] on January 28 (6T), January 29 (7T), January 30 (8T), February 3 (9T), February 4 (10T) and February 5, 2020 (11T).  It was held in abeyance due to the Covid Pandemic, and continued on July 27, 2021 (12T), July 28, 2021 (13T) and August 2, 2021 (14T).  Trial Briefs were submitted.  On March 29, 2022, [...] rendered a written Opinion/Order (Da978, 980) that the [...] (Lot 8) by the 1963 Agreement had been granted an easement (so long as the Synagogue exists) to park its staff/attendee vehicles on the School Lot 5 --- in the Sixth Street courtyard and the Fifth Street parking lot without limitation --- that remains in force.  The Court’s March 29, 2022 Order specifically relied on the Court’s oral decision on June 5, 2017 (Da177) --- although that decision had been reversed and vacated by the Appellate Court.  An amended Order was entered April 26, 2022 (Da1004), again adopting the Courts June 5, 2017 oral decision and dismissing [...]’s counterclaim.  The Order further provides that the 1963 Agreement provides an express easement for [...] to use the School’s heating system “for as long as it’s HVAC is located on that site. ” (Da978).  [...] filed a timely Notice of Appeal on May 13, 2022.  (Da953)
[brief] On the morning in question, the parking space at the end of the east-west vehicular travelway in the distant area of the employee lot where [...] was required to park was occupied by a vehicle.  Pa655; Pa416-Pa429.  Thus, the driver of any vehicle traveling east-bound and attempting to make a left turn at the T-intersection in question would have his or her view of any pedestrians who were around the corner crossing the intersection blocked by the parked vehicle.  Pa663.  As [...] was walking within the distant section of the expansive parking lot where [...] required her to park, attempting to cross the subject T-intersection without any pedestrian safeguards, she was struck and run over by a vehicle owned and operated by Defendant [...].
[brief] [...]: Again, Detective, I'm going to show you now what's been marked as S-113 and ask if you've seen that before?  [...]: Yes, sir, I've seen this picture before.  [...]: And what is that?  [...]: It's a picture of [...].  [...]  No, I don't want you to identify the picture.  It's a picture --  [...]: It's a photograph, yes, sir.  (26T 72-19 to 73-8).  There was no objection by the defense after this statement, nor was there any objection to the subsequent request by the State to admit S-113 as well as another photo, S-114, which depicted Defendant after he obtained the teardrop tattoos, into evidence.  Critically, the photos were not published to the jury at the time [...] made the identifying statement.  The trial court waited to allow the defense to cross-examine [...] before granting the State’s request to publish.  (26T 97-21 to 97-22).  Furthermore, the Court issued a limiting instruction directing the jury as to the permissible use of the photos and [...]’s testimony which appropriately narrowed the jury’s focus to the fact that the photos were extracted from a cellphone:
[brief] The question of what constitutes a traumatic event is guided by the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in *Richardson v. Board of Trustees, Police & Firemen’s Retirement System*, 192 N.J. 189, 212-13 (2007), which requires an applicant for AD to show each of the following five elements: 1.  That he is permanently and totally disabled; 2.  As a direct result of a traumatic event that is a. identifiable as to time and place, b. *undesigned and unexpected*, and c. caused by a circumstance external to the member (not the result of preexisting disease that is aggravated or accelerated by the work); 3. that the traumatic event occurred during and as a result of the member’s regular or assigned duties; 4. that the disability was not the result of the member’s willful negligence; and 5. that the member is mentally or physically incapacitated from performing his usual or any other duty.
[brief] Plaintiffs did not name [...] as a party because there is no claim against the developer.  Plaintiffs take no issue with the Genesis Deed --- 5  The Court dismissed some of Plaintiffs’ claims but no dismissal was granted for failure to name an indispensable party.(Da331) restrictions.  Plaintiffs’ issue is with [...] imposing new building restriction.  Plaintiffs have no claim or cause as against the “developer” even if such an entity was of legal existence.  Plaintiffs do not seek to change or alter the terms of the deed, there is no need to have the developer as a party.  In fact, Plaintiffs accept the developer’s restrictions as imposed.  The developer has never done anything to the Plaintiffs that would trigger any claim against them.  [...] is a third party who has sought to illegally impose deed restrictions without authority.
[brief] At-Will employment agreement template ...............................................  196a  At-Will employment agreement template ...............................................  199a  Order Compelling the Deposition of Plaintiff-Respondent, filed April 15, 2024 .................................................................209a  Letter from Defendants-Appellants to the Honorable [...], J.S.C., filed August 14, 2024, enclosing the deposition transcript of Plaintiff-Respondent ...........................................................................211a  Deposition Transcript of Plaintiff-Respondent dated May 6, 2024 ......................212a  PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
[brief] ”  62-64 Main Street, LLC v. Mayor and Council of City of Hackensack, 221 N.J. 129, 151 n. 5 (2015).  They set forth time frames for completion of various steps; they incorporate financing considerations; and they outline the specific methods and procedures by which the ultimate goal of rehabilitation can be realized.  The plain language of the LRHL amply demonstrates the Legislature’s intent to delegate broad power to municipalities to contract with designated redevelopers without the constraints of any nexus requirement.  To view a developer’s agreement through the same lens as a developer’s agreement would be both illogical and inconsistent with the Legislature’s clearly expressed intent.
[brief] II.  THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY RULED THAT PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE AGAINST [...] MUST BE SUPPORTED WITH AN EXPERT OPINION AS TO THE GOVERNING STANDARD OF CARE.........................................................33  III.  THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT PLAINTIFF’S LIABILITY EXPERT FAILED TO ARTICULATE AN ADMISSIBLE OPINION AT REGARDING THE STANDARD OF CARE GOVERNING [...]’S PROVISION OF ITS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OR ANY ASSERTED DEVIATION THEREFROM.
[brief] The Court did not discuss that survey in its analysis at all.  The fifth factor is whether there are “safeguards in place to protect this information to see whether disclosure would undermine that process. ” (Da113) (citing Carter v. Doe, 230 N.J. 258, 280 (2017)).  The Trial Court held that it was a sufficient safeguard that “users can readily delete, block or ignore anything unsolicited.