ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] 2.  Whenever an administrative agency acts, be that act mandatory or strictly voluntary, it must do so reasonably and in a manner calculated to achieve the policies expressed in the agency's organic statute.  Therefore, because the Commissions determined to reimburse affected members, they were necessarily required to do so reasonably and in a non-arbitrary manner.  Here, that means that the Commissions were required to provide reasonable notice in order that the retroactive benefit would fairly be made known and, thus, made available in a non-arbitrary manner to affected members.
[directive] [...]  In addition to actively investigating bias incidents and assisting other law enforcement agencies in investigating bias incidents, the [...] are responsible for collecting statistics on suspected and confirmed bias incidents.  Effective January 1, 2019, the [...] required all New Jersey law enforcement agencies to submit their UCR-required bias incident reports directly into the State’s UCR Repository database.  The data collected in these submissions is compiled and is used to generate the annual Bias Incident Offense Report for New Jersey and is also submitted to the [...]’s ([...]) UCR unit to be included in the Federal annual Hate Crime Report.  The UCR Repository serves as the storage repository for the bias incident data submitted by the police community of New Jersey.  The [...]
[directive] 2.  The SAFE kit tracking system shall provide for anonymity of all unreported SAFE kits, and a mechanism to identify and retrieve SAFE kits from the evidence tracking system.  This can be accomplished through scannable barcoding or other unique identifiers consistent with the agency’s evidence tracking system.  Tracking numbers shall be unique and only used once.  Regardless of whether a kit is destroyed, the tracking number shall not be reused.  3.
[brief] The Prosecutor Did Not Improperly Vouch for the Thoroughness and Completeness of the Police Investigation.  Defendant contends that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the thoroughness and completion of the police investigation by asserting that the police did not possess preconceived notions as to the evidence, followed every lead possible, and that the State’s forensic expert “[knew] what she [was] talking about. ” (Db32 to 34).  The prosecutor’s assertion that the police “followed every lead” and “didn’t have any preconceived notions” constituted reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence presented at trial.
[directive] 34 reports include arrest and investigative reports, and radio, patrol, vehicle and evidence logs pertaining to or completed by the officer.  7.2.2  The investigator should also examine and retrieve all electronic, computer, digital and video records.  These may include analog and digital records created by radio and telephone recorders, computer aided dispatch systems, mobile data terminals, in-car video systems, video surveillance systems and other forms of audio and video recording.  In these cases, the relevant data should be copied to an appropriate medium as soon as possible and retained by internal affairs.  7.2.3
[brief] Appellate review of administrative agency decisions is limited.  A reviewing court generally will not disturb an agency’s action unless it was clearly “arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. ”  Brady v. Bd. of Rev., 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997) (citation omitted).  The reviewing court “can intervene only in those rare circumstances in which an agency action is clearly inconsistent with its statutory mission or with other State policy. ”  George Harms Constr. v. Turnpike Auth., 137 N.J. 8, 27 (1994).  Similarly, judicial review of an agency's factual determinations is highly deferential.
[brief] First, the trial court’s focus on whether the custodian could identify and gather the records requested totally disregards the precedent this would set.  Because Stockton has already explained how a request for “all emails sent to or from” a government employee on a particular day is fundamentally no different from “all records contained in an agency’s filing cabinet,” or “all records in a particular project file,” see supra at p. 6-7, this court must consider the consequences of reversing course and permitting these latter requests.  If requestors are permitted to submit broad, unfocused requests like [...]’s, agencies will be forced to divert significant resources from fielding other, valid OPRA requests to siphoning, reviewing, and redacting wholesale requests for email correspondence, filing cabinets, or project files.  And, even worse, these resources will also be diverted from performing essential government functions, which in turn will eventually impact the public in numerous and negative ways.  Accord Buono v. City of Newark, 249 F.R.D. 469, 470 n.2 (D.N.J. 2008) (recognizing the “public policy interest in ensuring that high level government officials are permitted to perform their official tasks without disruption or diversion”).  After all, a custodian tasked with performing their “ministerial” function could hardly be expected to open a drawer of a filing cabinet and ascertain immediately whether each piece of paper contained within it is privileged or release under OPRA.  Lagerkvist v. Office of the Gov’r, 443 N.J. Super. 230, 234-37 (App. Div. 2015) (limiting the scope of a custodian’s obligations to “routine ministerial” functions); Fisher v. Div. of Law, 400 N.J. Super. 61, 65 (App. Div. 2008) (recognizing that certain OPRA requests will require dedication of high-level officials who better understand the issues at play).
[brief] Plaintiff’s injunction claim does not constitute a claim for “public injunctive relief” under the parties’ arbitration agreement and applicable case law.  This is because her basic claim for “injunctive relief” is not intended to primarily benefit the general public at large (to the contrary, it is primarily intended to benefit only herself and a discrete class of former and current private health club members of [...]).  In fact, she has no express authority to even assert such a claim under the HCSA, the CFA, the RISA, or the TCCWNA.  i.
[brief] Public Benefits of the Land Exchange  The agreement with [...] facilitates the Township's acquisition of lands better suited for public recreation and environmental preservation.  In addition, the Township has now provided for the construction of religious dormitories, a permitted use, in an area which is closer to the schools in which the students will be attending, bordering the common boundary line with [...].  That will clearly and positively affect traffic issues, transportation costs to the [...] and other concerns of the Township and its residents.  This strategic exchange is a prudent use of the Township's authority, ensuring that public goals are met efficiently and effectively.
[directive] Attachment 4  Notice of Ineligibility - Suspending Employment/Occupational Disabilities Related to Criminal Convictions (CN 12536)  Superior Court of New Jersey  Notice of Ineligibility  Suspending Employment/Occupational Disabilities Related to Criminal Convictions  Applicant Name Address: Street City State Zip Code  Your application to suspend employment or occupational disabilities relating to your conviction on .  Indictment/Accusation/Complaint Number has been reviewed by the court.  Based on the information provided in your application and the eligibility criteria set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:168A-7 et. seq., your application is denied for the following reason(s):  s/ Date J.S.C.  Any questions regarding this Notice should be directed to:  Name: Telephone: cc: Defendant Prosecutor or Attorney General Administrative Office of the Courts Criminal Practice Division Form Promulgated by Directive #02-24 (03/04/2024), CN: 12536
[brief] Therefore, for all the issues discussed above, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court vacate the lower Court order of November 9, 2022 granting summary judgment to [...] and remand the matter for further consideration.  I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true.  I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.  *[...]*  Pro Se Attorney for Defendant  DISCOVER  BANK  Respondent / Plaintiff vs S. [...]  A/K/A [...]  Appellant / Defendant  SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY  APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. [...]
[brief] Discovery Decisions: Abuse of Discretion. ** (Raised Below: Pa24; Pa28-Pa29)  The Appellate Division reviews a trial court’s discovery rulings for abuse of discretion.  *Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Community Corp.*, 207 N.J. 344, 371 (2011) (citing *Bender v. Adelson*, 187 N.J. 411, 428 (2006)).  The Appellate Division will generally defer to the trial court’s discovery decisions unless “the court has abused its discretion or its determination is based on a mistaken understanding of the applicable law. ”  *Id.* (quoting *Rivers v. LCS P’ship*, 378 N.J. Super. 68, 80 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 185 N.J. 296 (2005)).  This includes expert testimony: “admission or exclusion of expert testimony is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. ”  *Townsend v. Pierre*, 221 N.J. 36, 52 (2015) (citing *State v. Berry*, 140 N.J. 280, 293 (1995)).  Trial courts are afforded “considerable latitude” when reviewing the admission or exclusion of evidence, and a trial court’s ruling will only be overturned if it “was so wide of the mark that a manifest denial of justice resulted. ”  *State v. Terrell*, 452 N.J. Super. 226, 248 (App. Div. 2016), aff’d, 231 N.J. 170 (2017) (citations omitted).  II.
[brief] The trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs against all defendants on seven counts of the amended complaint.  [...] was a named defendant in three of those counts: Counts 5 (conversion – MRL),¹⁹ 11 (breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing) and 13 (unjust enrichment – MRL).  Da42,50-553.  It is important to recognize precisely what [...]'s position in this dispute was, rather than to view her through the distorted lens used by plaintiffs.  The fact that she is the wife of [...] does not provide any legal basis for the imposition of liability upon her.
[brief] On March 18, 2019, Appellants filed an Order to Show Cause.  After argument, the Court vacated the Order and denied the preliminary restraints sought.  On May 1, 2019, Respondents [...] and [...] filed their Answer.  (Pa000391).  Recognizing that Appellants could not prevail on claims arising from a lease they failed to pay, Respondents [...] and [...] filed their first motion for summary judgment on September 26, 2019.  (Pa001000).  On November 22, 2019, the court denied Respondents’ motion for summary judgment, giving Appellants an opportunity to develop discovery to support their claims.  (Pa001113).  Plaintiff [...] (“[...]”) dismissed its claims against Respondents on April 24, 2020.  After the parties took depositions and discovery ended, Appellants filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint on June 23, 2021.  Respondents opposed, but the trial court granted the motion to amend under the liberal standard for such motions.  (Pa001603).  Appellants filed a First Amended Complaint on July 19, 2021, after discovery had ended.  The First Amended Complaint added individual defendants [...] and [...], the owner and transactional counsel for the CEP Respondent entities.  (Pa001604).  Recognizing that the litigation had failed to produce any discovery that could support the new or pre-existing claims, the CEP Respondents filed a motion for summary judgment.  (Pa001781).  Within the same week, CEP Respondents also filed a motion to dismiss seeking dismissal of all the newly added claims and dismissal of the newly-added individual defendants.  (Pa001987).  On September 23, 2021, the trial court granted CEP Respondents' motion for summary judgment and denied the motion to dismiss as moot.  (Pa001781-003058).  **DECISION BELOW**
[brief] [...] argues that the appropriate standard in a retaliation claim is set forth in Roa v. Roa, 200 N.J. 555, 574-75 (2010).  (Pb15).  Plaintiff argues that because Roa cited Burlington Northern Railroad v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 61 (2006), that the trial court should have adopted a Title VII analysis instead of relying upon established New Jersey cases like Wood-Pirozzi.  (Pb15; Pb20 citing 3T28:24–3T29:3).  Appellant also argues that the lower court erred in seeking some competent evidence of a causal link between plaintiff’s February 10, 2015 EEO complaint and either the written warning, the one-day suspension, or both.  (Pb40).  [...] suggests that his own beliefs and insinuations would be sufficient to reach a jury.  (Pb41).  The Roa Court, 200 N.J. at 574, relied on Burlington Northern Railroad for the proposition that retaliatory acts by an employer, or former employer, could include actions outside the actual job setting, such as interfering with an employee’s health insurance.  However, Roa and Burlington Northern have no impact on the analysis used by the lower court here as to whether the written warning and the one-day suspension, both clearly related to the job, were supported by the record.  In reality, plaintiff cannot raise a genuine issue of fact, using either direct evidence, or circumstantial evidence, suggesting that the written warning or the one-day suspension were a pretext for a retaliatory motive by any defendant.
[directive] This support will be overseen by the [...] ([...]), which also coordinates New Jersey’s highly successful ARRIVE Together program in all twenty- one counties, pairing law enforcement officers and mental health professionals as first responders to incidents involving people experiencing mental health crises.  Therefore, pursuant to the authority granted to me under the New Jersey Constitution and the Criminal Justice Act of 1970, N.J.S.A. 52:17B-97 to -117, which provides for the general supervision of criminal justice by the Attorney General as chief law-enforcement officer of the State in order to secure the benefits of a uniform and efficient enforcement of the criminal law and the administration of criminal justice throughout the State, I hereby direct all law enforcement and prosecuting agencies operating under the authority of the laws of the State of New Jersey to implement and comply with the provisions of this Directive and the accompanying Addendum C to the Attorney General’s Use of Force Policy.
[brief] Plaintiff/Appellant’s Complaint pleads multiple adverse employment actions, stating: “Because of these complaints, Plaintiff suffered retaliation, a hostile work environment, and was eventually terminated. ”  (Emphasis added.)  See Plaintiff/Appellant’s Complaint, Appx 507 at paragraph 17.  Plaintiff/Appellant’s Complaint specifically pleads a right to emotional distress damages due to multiple adverse employment actions stating: “Plaintiff suffered emotional distress, upset, and humiliation due to the retaliation, hostile work environment, and termination. ”  See Appx 507 at paragraph 20.  IV.
[brief] *Id.* at 238.  “And the logic of [the Court’s] attenuation cases is not limited to independent acts by the defendant,” such as a confession or consent.  *Id.* at 239.  In applying *Brown*’s three-part test, the *Strieff* Court found that while the short time interval between the stop and search may count in favor of suppression, this was easily overcome by Utah’s strong showing of the other two factors, which heavily counseled against suppression.  *Id.* at 239–40.  Just as in *Strieff*, where the arrest warrant for the traffic offense predated the officer’s drug investigation and was “entirely unconnected” to the stop to investigate drug activity, *id.* at 240, defendant’s license suspension for drunk driving predated the drug investigation here and was likewise entirely unconnected with the drug investigation that led to his initial traffic stop and detention.  Also, as in *Strieff*, once the officer learned of defendant’s driving while suspended, he was obligated to arrest him for that, regardless of the validity of any arrest for drug offenses.  *Ibid.*  And what the Court said about the warrant’s execution in *Strieff* strongly favoring the State applies with equal force to the officers charging defendant here with driving while suspended.  *See ibid.*  Attenuation is pronounced here because the routine license check revealing that defendant was a suspended driver was conducted during a traffic stop, where police have independent safety concerns apart from criminal investigation, thus making it a true intervening event.
[brief] (Da 028).  [...] appealed this denial.  (Da 040-058).  While his appeal was pending, and upon conclusion of authoring his pro se appeal brief on the appeal, he wrote a second PCR petition and filed it to preserve his rights to a second PCR.  (Da 029-039).  On December 3, 2019, the Court received [...]’s second petition for post-conviction relief, alleging in his pro se petition ineffective assistance of his prior appellate and PCR counsel, issues with his sentencing, and Constitutional issues including potential Brady violations, due process chain of custody and violations of the Confrontation Clause.
[brief] Da87.  She also filed an Order to Show Cause to stay the tattoo pending appeal.  Da92.  By Order dated April 3, 2023, [...] issued a temporary stay of the tattoo, but ordered that the Township be named in [...]’s microchip registration.  Da119.  After all conditions were met, [...] was released on April 6, 2023.  (Not in record)  The de novo appeal was argued on August 3, 2023.  5T.  On August 21, 2023, [...] affirmed the Trial Court’s rulings, vacated the April 14, 2023, stay, and required Defendant to “make a genuine effort” to tattoo [...] by September 21, 2023.  Da1.  On September 17, 2023, Defendant filed a motion\(^2\) to vacate the tattoo requirement as well as an OTSC to stay the tattoo --- \(^2\)The motion argued that Defendant had substantially complied with the order by making a genuine effort and that she should be relieved from the mandate.  pending appeal.  Da147.  [...] ordered a temporary stay on September 21, 2023.  Da175.  By Order dated November 16, 2023, [...] denied the remainder of Defendant’s motion, finding that jurisdiction lay exclusively with the Appellate Court.  Da177.  Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal, Request for Transcript and C.I.S. on September 10, 2023 (Da129), which were corrected and amended on September 18 and September 19, 2023.  Da165-174.  Defendant was unable to retrieve the original trial exhibits from [...], although the municipal court had sent them original exhibits to the Criminal Division Manager on March 31, 2023, (Da180, email from [...], Da181, email from [...])  The Appendix contains only illegible black & white photocopies of Exhibits D3 through D27, retrieved from the Municipal Court.  D1 and D2 were missing, true copies have been inserted into the Appendix, and more legible color copies have been inserted after each black and white photograph.  **STATEMENT OF FACTS**
[brief] ”  (1T 71-24 to 72-2)  The surveillance footage was played in court.  The timestamps indicated that the footage was taken on July 17, with the moments allegedly leading up to the shooting at around 6:44a.m. (1T 90-10 to 91-4, 95-4 to 19; 2T 65-18 to 22)  The parties disputed what is visible in the video: the State alleged that a person, whom it claimed to be [...], raises a gun at another person, who it claimed to be [...].  (2T 75-2 to 20)  The defense claimed that it is not at all clear that the item in the first person’s hand is a gun.  (2T 63-22 to 64-5)  The shooting itself is not caught on film.  (2T 75-24 to 76-11)  Afterwards, the person alleged to be [...] seems to walk away and get into someone’s car.  (Da 23)  The jury watched the videotape multiple times in deliberations, at various speeds.  (2T 128-1 to 134-25)  [...] was acquitted of attempted murder and second-degree aggravated assault and convicted of third-degree aggravated assault, unlawful possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose.
[brief] Nevertheless, the trial court determined that no basis existed for an enlargement of time.  In fact, the site plan application which [...] filed following Ordinance No. 13-2022's passage was met with tremendous public outcry and opposition.  Multiple major media outlets covered the hearing, including [...], [...] and [...].  Indeed, so many residents turned out to protest [...]'s development proposal that the [...]'s hearing had to be relocated to a larger venue.  Ultimately, the [...] voted to deny the application, which denial [...] subsequently appealed and the trial court reversed.
[brief] (36T 4:1 to 56:13; 37T 71:25 to 97:1).  A.  The Trial Court Properly Allowed [...]’s Testimony at Trial.  B.  The Trial Court Relied on Far More Than Just [...]’s Testimony In Reaching Its Decision.  C.  Sufficient Credible Evidence Supported Each of the Misappropriations and/or Diversions Found by the Trial Court.  IV.  THE DEFENDANTS WAIVED ANY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ARGUMENT BY FAILING TO RAISE IT BELOW.
[brief] The ALJ asked Petitioner why he believed that the bookcase in the doorway to the basement was significant (Aa14; IT40:21-25).  Petitioner responded that the bookcase was the only reason he returned to the fire truck to get the long hose, so that the other firefighters could go to another entrance and extinguish the fire (Aa14; IT40:21-25; IT41:1-8).  In his decision issued on August 15, 2022 (Aa9-Aa22), the ALJ found Petitioner’s testimony to be credible and found the version of the incident provided in his hearing testimony to be fact (Aa14).
[brief] ......................................................................................................................... 15 # TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ## CASES | Case | Page(s) | |-------------------------------------------|---------| | Baxter v. Fairmont Food Co., | 6, 7 | | 74 N.J. 588 (1997) | | | Manalapan Realty v. Township Committee, | 10 | | 140 N.J. 366 (1995) | | | Masone v. Levine, | 10 | | 382 N.J. Super. 181 (App. Div. 2005) | | | Neno v. Clinton, | 12 | | 167 N.J. 573 (2001) | | | Rosenblit v. Zimmerman, | 9 | | 166 N.J. 391 (2001) | | | State v. Cole, | 14 | | 229 N.J. Super. 430 (2017) | | | State v. Johnson, | 6, 7 | | 42 N.J. 146 (1964) | | | State v. LaBrutto, | 12 | | 114 N.J. 187 (1989) | | | State v. Thompson, | 14 | | 59 N.J. 396 (1971) | | ## RULES | Rule | Page(s) | |----------------|---------| | N.J.R.E. 403 | 8, 9, 10| | N.J.R.E. 609(a)(1) | 9 | | N.J.R.E. 609(b) | 8, 9 | TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS Pb Plaintiff-Respondent, [...]’s, brief Pa Plaintiff-Respondent, [...]’s, appendix Db Defendants-Appellants, [...], [...], and [...]’s, brief Da Defendants-Appellants, [...], [...], and [...]’s, appendix 1T Transcript of hearing on motions in limine, dated September 26, 2023 2T Transcript of trial, dated October 3, 2023 3T Transcript of trial, dated October 4, 2023, Vol. I 4T Transcript of trial, dated October 4, 2023, Vol. II 5T Transcript of trial, dated October 5, 2023 6T Transcript of hearing on motion for new trial, dated November 16, 2023 STATEMENT OF ORDERS AND DECISIONS APPEALED  Order granting motion to permit paying audio portion of police dash cam video, dated September 26, 2023……………………………………………………Da41  Order granting motion to bar evidence of Defendant [...]’s criminal convictions, dated September 26, 2023……………………………………Da42  Order denying motion for reconsideration of Court’s September 26, 2023, Order barring evidence of Defendant [...]’s criminal convictions, dated October 3, 2023 …………………………………………………Da45  Ruling excluding [...]’s diagram of the accident from evidence, dated October 4, 2023………………………………………2T:99-22 to 105-23  Final Judgment, dated October 10, 2023 ………………………………………………………Da185  Order denying Defendants’ motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, new trial, and remittitur, dated November 3, 2023 …………………………………Da187