ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] On May 1, 2015, at her own request, [...] was reassigned to the Civil Division of the Passaic County Vicinage of the Superior Court and ceased to be a judge in Bergen County.  Id.  On October 20, 2016 the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct ("ACJC") issued an ethics complaint against [...].  Id.  On October 24, 2017, the ACJC recommended [...]’s removal from the bench.  Id.  The ACJC found by clear and convincing evidence that on May 9, 2015, [...] called the Fort Lee, New Jersey Police Department ("FLPD") and provided a sergeant there with a false report and other false information for the purpose of obtaining a benefit for her friend.  Id.  Specifically, the ACJC found that [...] falsely claimed to be a Bergen County Judge, falsely claimed to have a nonexistent court order, and unlawfully intervened in a child custody dispute in Essex County and had a child removed from her friend’s husband’s home and into her friend’s custody.  Id.  The ACJC determined that [...] “knowingly and purposefully abused her judicial office” and “in furtherance of this misconduct, made material misrepresentations of fact to the FLPD to induce it to act. ”  Significantly, the committee determined that the fact that [...]’s friend “obtained a benefit” as a result of [...]’s misconduct is “irrefutable. ”  Id.  The ACJC ultimately held that [...]’s “false swearing permeated the entirety of these proceedings,” that [...]’s “attempts to conceal her misconduct before this Committee with false and misleading testimony renders her abuse of judicial office markedly more egregious than that of prior judicial disciplinary matters involving the misuse of the judicial office,” and that her removal from office was required.  Id.  In a June 2018 decision, a three-judge panel appointed by the New Jersey Supreme Court recommended [...]’s permanent removal from judicial office.
[brief] CELL-TOWER-MAP EVIDENCE  The State introduced in evidence maps purportedly depicting the cell towers that [...]’s cell phone utilized at or around the time of the robberies.  [...], a custodian of records at [...] explained the cell tower technology.  (3T 4-1 to 9)  He testified that [...] keeps records of the first and last cell-towers that each cell-phone call utilizes.  (3T 23-1 to 4)  A cell tower is “essentially an antenna that provides a connection to the [...] network. ”  (3T 23-6 to 7)  Under perfect conditions, when a cell phone call is placed, the call will connect to the nearest tower.  Each [...] cell-tower provides a maximum coverage area of 2.5 miles; essentially the first and last tower that a cell phone call pings must be within a 2.5 Miles radius of the cell phone.  (3T 23-13 to 15)  [...] admitted that this cell phone technology does not reveal who made a particular call and there are variables at issues that may affect the precise tower utilization, other than the caller’s location.  (3T 73-5 to 74-14)  Although each phone call should utilize the closest tower to the caller that is not always the case.  (3T 25-8 to 18)  The geography of the area, the weather, and general obstruction factor into which cell-tower is utilized for a phone call.  (3T 25-19 to 26-21)  [...] plotted the maps of the call details relating to [...]’s phone.
[brief] 1T: 31:23-32:24; 36:2-13.  During the investigation [...] believed that an Internet Protocol (“IP Address”) registered to [...] (“[...]”) belonging to a [...] (“[...]”) was involved in the electronic transfer of CSAM.  1T: 38:16-41:6.  [...] conducted some background investigation into [...] and concluded that it was a multi-unit residence.  1T: 41:7-42:4.  The U.S. Postal Inspector’s Office advised that [...] and [...] received mail at [...].  Da033-046.  A DMV inquiry revealed that [...], [...], [...], [...] and [...] may reside at the address.  Id.  [...] prepared a search warrant in furtherance of the investigation.  1T: 42:5-12; Da033-046.  The search warrant was for [...] which was described as the left-hand side of a two-family, three-story home, divided vertically.  1T: 44:7-16; Da033-046.  On November 5, 2021, law enforcement executed the search warrant.  1T: 48:1-14.  At the time the search warrant was executed [...] was the lead investigator.  1T: 48:16-21.  As the lead investigator, [...] was not part of the initial entry into the dwelling but only entered after the TEAMS unit deemed the premise secure and safe at which point, he entered and conducted his search for evidence.
[brief] See Manalapan Realty v. Township Committee, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995).  LEGAL ARGUMENT POINT I THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY GRANTED THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RELIEF  BECAUSE THE FORCED SALE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS CONTRARY TO THE APRIL 13, 2022  CONSENT JUDGMENT BETWEEN THE CO-OWNERS AS THERE WERE GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT ON WHETHER THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO SELL THE PROPERTY FOR A PRICE THAT WAS WELL BELOW MARKET VALUE.
[brief] 1  Statement of Facts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1  Legal Argument  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1  POINT ONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1  THE PROPER STANDARD OF REVIEW ON APPEAL IS THE DE NOVO STANDARD AND NOT THE ABUSE OF DISCRETION STANDARD  BECAUSE OF THE NATURE AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE OF THE LITIGATION.  POINT TWO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3  CONTRARY TO RESPONDENT’S ASSERTION, THE ISSUE ON APPEAL WAS REPEATEDLY RAISED IN THE PRIOR PROCEEDINGS AND IS RIPE FOR ADJUDICATION.  Conclusion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5  #  TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | CASES | Page | |----------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, 244 N.J. 567 (2021) | 1 | | Finderne Heights Condominium Ass'n v. Rabinowitz, | 5 | | 390 N.J.Super. 154, 166 (App.Div. 2007) | | | O'Shea v. Twp. of W. Milford, 410 N.J. Super. 371, 379 | 2 | | (App.Div. 2009) | | | Woytas v. Greenwood Tree Experts, Inc., 237 N.J. 501, | 3 | | 511 (2019) | | ##  STATUTES: N.J.S.A. 47:1A-3(b) | 3, 4 | PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[brief] For all the following reasons, this Court should reverse the [...]’s decision to exempt [...] from the [...]’s regulations under the Highlands Act.  The [...] determined that the Project constitutes a “Major Highlands Development” in the Highlands Preservation Area, which generally triggers the need for a Highlands Preservation Area Approval (or permit) under the Highlands Act.  The proposed Project consists of the construction, operation, and maintenance of an entirely new $245 million compressor station with appurtenant structures in [...], [...].
[brief] (Pa11 and Pa187).  At the time of the incident, it was [...], Plaintiff’s son and current attorney, who filled out the [...] Guest Incident Report when the movie ended.  (Pa77).  The guest incident report stated, “[f]ell walking down left side of theater five at first step down before the movie at approximately 8:00 p.m. ” (Pa77).  The Report did not mention any issues regarding the lighting or projection of the movie (Pa77).  As Appellant stated in the statement of facts, “he wrote in general terms regarding the plaintiff’s accident. ” (Pb6).  Those “general terms” provided absolutely no basis for [...] to have been on notice of any allegations as to the alleged cause of plaintiff’s fall being lack of sufficient lighting or anything else later alleged.
[brief] STANDARD OF REVIEW  The present matter involves issues of law and the Appellate Division must review the matter de novo.  *N.J. Realty Concepts, LLC v. Mayroudis*, 435 N.J. Super. 118, 123 (App. Div. 2014).  “A trial court’s interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference. ”  *Rowe v. Bell & Gossett Co.*, 239 N.J. 531, 552 (2019), quoting *Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Tp. Comm. of Manalapan*, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995).  LEGAL ARGUMENT I.
[brief] 53 FR 50097-02 (emphasis added).  The [...] has also stated that “[a] debt collector may contact an employee of a telephone or telegraph company in order to contact the consumer, without violating the prohibition on communication to third parties. ”  Statements of General Policy or Interpretation Staff Commentary on the FDCPA, 53 Fed. Reg. 50,097, 50,104 (Dec. 13, 1988).
[brief] The prosecution of the tax foreclosure and the sale of the property.  Plaintiff’s assignor (“assignor”) held a tax sale certificate on certain property located in [...] which was owned by Defendants.  (143a¶2-3, 151a).  The certificate represented unpaid 2021 property taxes.  (151a).  The assignor filed an *in rem* complaint to foreclose the certificate in June 2022.  (28a-34a).  Despite that personal service is not necessary for *in rem* actions, the assignor had Defendants [...] and [...] personally served with the complaint and notice of foreclosure in August 2022.  (146a¶13, 248a-249a).  In addition, all Defendants were served with the notice of foreclosure by simultaneous regular and certified mail at numerous addresses disclosed through due diligence, including the property at which personal service was effected.  (145a¶¶9,11-146a¶12, 198a-207a).  The certified mailings to Defendants were claimed and signed for.  (215a-218a, 221a-232a, 237a-244a). ³  In September 2022, the assignor filed a motion to declare the property abandoned, on notice to all Defendants (as well as the municipality).  (147a¶15, 262a-265a, 35a-80a).  The court granted the unopposed motion in October 2022, --- ³  In addition, and in compliance with the Court Rules respecting service for *in rem* tax foreclosure actions, the notice of foreclosure was also: 1) published in a newspaper of general circulation (145a¶10, 192a-194a), and 2) posted in several conspicuous places in the Township, including at the subject property (147a¶14, 252a-260a). and the order was subsequently served on Defendants.  (147a¶17, 81a-84a).  In October 2022, a motion to substitute Plaintiff was filed and served in the same manner as the abandoned property motion.  (148a¶20, 272a-278a).  Final judgment entered on November 7, 2022, thereby vesting Plaintiff with title to the property.  (280a-286a).  On December 12, 2022, Plaintiff sold the property to [...] for $140,000.  (295a-299a).  B.
[brief] [...] Louvered Roofs are sold throughout the United States and are designed and intended to provide adjustable coverage for outdoor structures.  Pa2-4.  The product is designed to “bring the indoors out”.  Pa2.  The product is marketed to commercial establishments to “maximize outdoor seating potential”, “double ROI” (return on investment), and “turn underutilized space into a revenue-generating asset. ”  Pa47; 1T 142-143.  The product is represented to be “a perfect enhancement for patron comfort at Country Clubs, restaurants, hotels, resorts, theme parks and sports venues. ”  Pa4.  The product is represented to be designed to “allow shelter from inclement weather conditions while receiving maximum airflow” and “engineered and designed to withstand all types of weather conditions from heavy snow to high winds”.  Pa3.  [...] represents that its “system is engineered to exceed all standards and expectations.  They’re designed to meet Florida’s stringent hurricane codes, as well as withstand heavy snow loads in the cold of winter.  Plus, each [[...]] system is fabricated, and power coated to order, made to exact specifications, which makes for a better fit and finish and a cleaner looking system. ”  Pa4.  [...] represents “The louvers open to allow sunlight in, and close to provide shade and shelter.  Water is directed from the louvers to gutters and down through downspouts either independent or incorporated into columns. ”  Pa7.  [...] states that their “Commercial gutter has three (3) times greater rain water capacity than [...]’s existing industry leading Standard Gutter”.  Pa10.  [...] states “The unique louver profile allows the louvers to interlock, creating the largest rain channels in the industry.  Thus, allowing for more water to flow freely into out 360 degree integrated gutter system.  [...]’s patented Pass Through Gutter technology allows for rain water to pass from one independent zone to the next allowing for superior drainage performance. ”  Pa10.  In the course of installing a [...] Louver System in commercial settings, it is customary for the consumer to coordinate and plan for the structural support of the system to be installed in accordance with local code requirements.
[brief] Correspondence from [...] to [...] ........................................................................................................Da315-16  Exhibit C – Operating Agreement of [...], Intentionally Omitted as Duplicative, see Da120-36 ........................................Da317  Exhibit D – May 2012 Email Exchange Between Counsel  .......................Da318-20  Exhibit E – Operating Agreement of [...], Intentionally Omitted as Duplicative, see Da137-52 ........................................................................................................Da321  Exhibit F – Addendum to Promissory Note, Intentionally Omitted as Duplicative, see Da44-45 .........................................................................................Da322  May 17, 2024  Certification of [...], Esq. in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Arbitration  .................................................................Da323-24  Exhibit A – Verified Complaint, Intentionally Omitted as Duplicative, see Da3-23 ........................................................................................................Da325  Exhibit B – Verified Complaint in Law Division Case, Intentionally Omitted as Duplicative, see Da75-103 ..................................Da326  Exhibit C – Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of [...], Intentionally Omitted as Duplicative, see Da138-52 ........................................................................................................Da327  Exhibit D – First Amendment to Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of [...], Intentionally Omitted as Duplicative, see Da158-61 ........................................Da328  Exhibit E – Defendants’ Verified Answer with Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims, Intentionally Omitted as Duplicative, see Da220-48 ................................................................................Da329  Exhibit F – Consent Order in Law Division Case, Intentionally Omitted as Duplicative, see Da332-33 .................................................................Da330  Exhibit G – Unpublished Decision, Intentionally Omitted as Not Relevant to Appeal and/or as Related to Prior Briefing and Legal Arguments................................................................................Da331  May 28, 2024  Consent Order in Law Division Case........................................Da332-33
[brief] M131-137.  Additionally, the Trial Court’s decision fails to recognize the members of the Board are not appointed by the Mayor.  M783.  Under the LDO, the Board members are appointed by the [...].  M783.  Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the appearance and opposition proffered by the Mayor at the hearing on the Respondents’ Application would be considered differently than an objection or comment made by any other member of the public.  The Trial Court’s Order also violates the Board’s right, and responsibility, to hear the Respondents’ site plan application.
[brief] (Point I.A)  Second, the Court’s rationales for aggravating factors three and nine were impermissible because the Court double-counted the fact that the manslaughter was committed by a firearm, presumed—unsupported by any competent credible evidence—that individuals who have fired a gun at another person are more likely to reoffend, and relied exclusively on general deterrence without finding any need for specific deterrence.  (Point I.B)  Third, the Court’s reasoning for imposing a consecutive sentence ran afoul of both Yarbough and State v. Torres, 246 N.J. 246 (2021).  (Point I.C).  The Court’s findings that a consecutive sentence was justified under Yarbough because the crimes and their objectives were predominantly independent of each other, the crimes were committed at different times, and there were multiple victims was unsupported by the facts or by Yarbough or its progeny.  (Point I.C.1)  Furthermore, the Court’s Torres assessment of the overall fairness of the sentences was fatally flawed for the same reasons as its assessments of aggravating factors three and nine; its assessment of the need to incapacitate and deter were not supported by competent credible evidence in the record, failed to properly weigh [...]’s positive prison record and other post-offense rehabilitative conduct, and failed to consider social science regarding the age-crime curve, juvenile brain science, and deterrence.  (Point I.C.2)  Fourth, the Court erred in considering [...]’s dismissed charges in violation of State v. K.S., 220 N.J. 190 (2015).  (Point I.D)  Fifth, the Court imposed an illegal parole disqualifier of greater than one-half the term on Count 3.  (Point I.E)  For all these reasons, this Court should reverse and remand for resentencing before a different judge.  A.  The Sentencing Court Erred In Failing To Appropriately Consider [...]’s Post-Offense Rehabilitative Conduct, The Age-Crime Curve, And Adolescent Brain Development When Considering Aggravating Factors Three And Nine And Mitigating Factors Nine And Fourteen.
[brief] Neither the Legislature nor [...] has made any attempt to define the critical terms “principally engaged” or “attorney-at-law of this State” as used in the Limited Attorney Exemption.  N.J.S.A. 17:16G-1; N.J.A.C. 3:25-1.1.  [...] has issued a few bulletins that reference the Act, but they do not provide any guidance as to the meaning of these critical terms.  Pa0082-Pa0086.  [...] issued a bulletin on July 28, 2008 quoting sections of the Act “to remind interested parties of the requirements of N.J.S.A. 17:16G-1 et seq. (the Act). ”  Pa0082-Pa0084.  [...] also issued another bulletin on December 19, 2008 advising the community that a different set of services -- mortgage modification services -- are also subject to the Act.  Pa0086.  [...] has not issued or published any other writing, or identified any other source providing any guidance as to the meaning of these critical terms.  Pa0047 at 52:19-25; 55:24-56:9.  These phrases are simply not defined anywhere in any [...] publication.  Pa0047 at 55:24-56:9.  [...] also confirmed that “up to this point in time” it has not developed a methodology as to the factors to consider in determining whether an attorney is “principally engaged” as a debt adjuster.  Pa0047 at 30:13-23.  [...] further confirmed that it “does not have one set of criteria to determine when and how someone is ‘principally engaged. ’”  Pa0047 at 52:15-18.  [...] is not even in the process now of addressing this problem by issuing any regulations on what “principally engaged” means.
[directive] A b.  Payment of claims. resolution or an ordinance adopted pursuant to this section may also provide I a method of disbursing moneys or payment of claims approved, but if it does not so provide the method shall be as follows:  In (1) the case of a county organized pursuant to the provisions of the "Optional County Charter (P.L. C. Law" 1972, c. 154; 40:41A-1 et seq.), by check issued upon the requisition of and signed by the chief executive officer and countersigned by the treasurer, and in all other counties by check issued upon requisition of the clerk of the board of chosen freeholders, signed by the county treasurer and countersigned by such other officer or officers as are designated by ordinance or resolution of the governing body; (2)  In the case of a municipality, by check drawn on the municipality, signed by the mayor or other chief executive officer and the municipal clerk and countersigned by such other officer or officers as are designated by ordinance.  c.  Required general books of account.  The bureau shall prescribe the kind and manner of keeping of general books of account for the financial officers of the local units and said officers shall be required to keep and maintain said books.  s. L. Amended by 1985, c. 127, eff. April 12,1985.  1, less :5-17.1.  Refund, delinquency of than $10.00  40A  1.  a.  Notwithstanding the provision of any law to the contrary, the governing body of a to municipality may adopt a resolution authorizing a municipal employee chosen by the governing body process, without further action on the part of the governing body, any property tax refund of less than $10.00.  b.  Notwithstanding subsection a. of this section or any provision of law to the contrary, the governing body of a municipality may adopt a resolution authorizing municipal employee chosen by a the governing body to process, without further action on the part of the governing body, the cancellation of any property tax refund or delinquency of less than $10.00.
[brief] In any event, with respect to the account application, [...] undermined his own argument by submitting another copy of the same document.  (See PA142-150.)  [...]’s copy, aside from redactions, is the same as the copy offered in support of [...]’s Motion.  (Compare PA029-037, with PA142-150.)  Indeed, [...]’s copy, like the copy offered in support of [...]’s Motion, establishes that [...]: (1) “confirmed receipt of” and agreed “to be bound by” the DAA by using his [...] account; and (2) agreed to arbitrate all disputes with [...] relating to his use of that bank account pursuant to the terms of the DAA.  (Compare PA035, with PA148.)  __________________
[directive] Further, if the County Prosecutor does not take action the complaint (either to approve or to deny) on within the 45-day timeframe and no extension of time has been requested, that shall be deemed as not objecting to the citizen complaint.  Changes to the eCDR system will be available to support each of these processes. 2 of or N.J.S.A. 19:  (Elections, Definitions) defines as any office the government this State "public office" in 1-1 of of or any its political subdivisions filled at elections by the electors the State political subdivision.  N.J.S.A. of defines as the procedure whereby the electors this State or any political subdivision thereof "election"  19:  1-1 elect persons fill public office or pass public questions.  on to 3 #26-19 Directive December 2019 20, Page4  As with private citizen complaints charging indictable offenses, once the Prosecutor has reviewed the complaint (or the Prosecutor has not acted the complaint within 45 days), on it electronically returned to the Municipal Court for a probable cause finding.  At that point, is or a judge authorized municipal court administrator may find probable cause a either an on citizen complaint charging a disorderly persons offense against a candidate or nominee for elected public office or a person holding elected public office.  This is the noted difference referenced above.
[brief] (“FAA”).  As noted, New Jersey law has no general requirement for mutuality in contract.  Martindale, 173, N.J. at 87 (“If the consideration requirement is met, there is no additional requirement of gain or benefit to the promisor, loss or detriment to the promisee, equivalence in the values exchanged, or mutuality of obligations. ’”).  Yet under Plaintiff’s argument, this Court would invalidate the Agreement’s dispute resolution provision simply because it is non-mutual and relates to arbitration.  In this circumstance, the general contract defense of unconscionability (while excepted under Section 2 to the FAA) would be applied in a manner which “impermissibly disfavor[s] arbitration,” e.g. it would invalidate a “unilateral” provision simply because it relates to arbitration.  *Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis*, 584 U.S. 497, 509 (2018).  This, the Court may not do.  See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; see also *Antonucci v. Curvature Newco, Inc.*, 470 N.J. Super. 553, 566 (App. Div. 2022) (finding that Section 12.7 of the NJLAD “singled out” arbitration provisions and was thus preempted by the FAA).