ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] Just as the Watson Court cautioned against, even though the videos themselves were admitted, the prosecutor “pinpoint[ed] particular spots in [the] video[s] during closing argument” without first introducing them through testimony subject to cross-examination.  254 N.J. at 600.  Those surprise claims in summation were entirely unnecessary because, as Watson and earlier case law made clear, [...] could have easily isolated the relevant video clips and directed the jury’s attention to the “distinctive” clothing one person was wearing; the manner of a person’s walk in the various clips; a particularly unusual gesture in the bar; and whether the electric company video showed one or two people.  Id. at 604.  Even without opining on any disputed issues, [...] could have “draw[n] attention to [those] key details that might be missed.
[brief] On the issue of garbage, the Board’s position that the garbage increase was a result of the building’s conversion to condominium form of ownership is incorrect.  The change in fees was a city-wide ordinance.  As I said earlier, any multi-dwelling building would have to change the way that they placed waste on the street, which would increase costs.  So if this building was never converted the time that the garbage would go out would be the same.  You would have to change it.  It would be the same if it was a condo or a whole family and eight units.  The garbage would have to be changed when it would go out and that would make a cost.  [13T:64:20-65:8]  In any event, the $123 fee for garbage collection is not challenged by [...] as an allowable cost in this Appeal.  It is not an issue in this Appeal.
[brief] Email to [...] from Prosecutor Regarding no Further Discovery 11/12/2020 (Attached at Pa089)  Notice of Motion to Suppress and Dismiss by [...] 10/13/2020 (Attached at Pa059)  [...] Letter to [...] and Edison Prosecutor 12/24/2020 (Attached at Pa108)  Certification of Eldridge [...] to Motion to Dismiss and suppress 10/14/2020 (Attached at Pa229)  Statement of Facts - Police Reports Attached 10/13/2020 (Attached at Pa232)  Hawkin’s Letter to [...] and Edison Prosecutor (Attached at Pa25)  [...] Letter Regarding Request for Discovery to Edison and Highland Park 12/7/2020 (Attached at Pa254)  Notice of Motion to Suppress and Dismiss by [...] 10/13/2020 (Attached at Pa059)
[brief] He was not informed appropriately in a timely manner of the defective Ozurdex until early January, 2019; E. [...] complied with the requisite standard of care at all times with regard to his treatment of [...].  (Da0335-Da0339)  At deposition, [...] explained in detail the mechanism of the defective Ozurdex actuator with the injected silicone particulate causing [...] to become blind in her left eye as follows:
[brief] [Richardson v. Bd. of Trs., PFRS, 192 N.J. 189, 212-13 (2007). ]  The traumatic event standard is satisfied when a “work-connected event” 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 pre-existing disease that is aggravated or accelerated by the work).  Id. at 192.  As such, disabilities that result from “pre-existing disease alone” or “work effort that aggravate[s] or accelerate[s] pre-existing disease” are not caused by a traumatic event.  Richardson, 192 N.J. at 193, 204; see also In re Adoption, 454 N.J. Super. 386, 411 (App. Div. 2018) (stating that a “traumatic event has not occurred” when a disability “arises out of a combination of pre-existing disease and work effort”).  However, "[n]othing in the amendments or the legislative history, by way of substance or temporality, suggests any broader motivation."
[brief] In *State v. Friedman*, 304 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 1997), the Court examined a challenge to [...]’s anti-noise Ordinance.  In its analysis, the Court noted that the statutory authority for the Ordinance was N.J.S.A. 40:48-1 and N.J.S.A. 40:48-2, which gave municipalities the power to regulate, “loud, disturbing and unnecessary noises. ”  Id. at 6.  In *Clarksburg Inn*, 375 N.J. Super. 624, the Plaintiff challenged a municipal noise Ordinance of the [...].
[brief] Increasing BOG membership became part of the legislative compromise that made the Restructuring Act’s passage possible.  It is reflected in the allocation of appointing authority—the President of the Senate and Speaker of the Assembly were given a say on who would be appointed to the BOG from Essex (that appointment is not at issue here); the Trustees were to appoint another member from Essex (not at issue here) and one from Middlesex (at issue here); and the Governor was to appoint a member from Camden with the advice and consent of the Senate (not part of this appeal).  It was that allocation of appointing authority that accounts for residency in those counties rather than an attempt to mandate geographic representation as a continuing obligation.
[directive] STATEWIDE FORENSIC NURSE EXAMINER LEGISLATION  N.J.S.A. 52:4B-50.  Findings, declarations relative to SANE program  The Legislature finds and declares that the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner program, established pursuant to P.L.1997, c. 328, has been successful in ensuring more timely and accurate collection of forensic evidence for use in prosecuting suspected rapists and in creating a compassionate way to treat sexual assault victims, and it is important to establish the program throughout the State of New Jersey.
[brief] Certainly, the dismissal was not arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole such as would call for reversal.  See Dennery v. Bd. of Educ. of Passaic Cty. Regional High Sch., supra, 131 N.J.at641; Henry v. Rahway State Prison, supra, 81 N.J. at 580.
[brief] NECESSITATES THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCES  The Township’s contractual obligations to [...], as delineated in the Ordinances, are legally binding and essential to uphold.  The enforcement of these Ordinances is not only a matter of legal obligation but also one that significantly impacts on the public interest.  The contractual exchange, which includes the acquisition of open space and the reduction of traffic congestion, clearly serves the public good.  Such governmental actions aimed at enhancing public welfare are consistent with legal precedents that support the enforcement of valid governmental decisions and contractual commitments.  As expressed herein and as expressed in the Ordinances and contract, the Township believe it is more prudent to enter into an exchange of properties so that the religious dormitories would be located in an area which would decrease traffic, school bus expenses, and congestion for the residents of the Township.  That is because the students in the dormitories would undoubtedly be attending school in [...], not [...].  In addition, the Township found this to be an excellent opportunity to create approximately 40 acres of open space in the center of town.  Furthermore, the legal and financial implications for the Township in failing to meet these obligations are severe.  Potential litigation and financial losses stemming from a breach of contract with the Appellant would not only harm the Township but also its residents and taxpayers.  This underscores the necessity of enforcing the Ordinances, in alignment with the legal precedent and public interest.  POINT VI
[brief] During the trial, at times, [...] attempted to blur the differences between the two (2) names used by the two (2) brothers respectively.  However, as the trial judge found, [...] “willfully and knowingly” forged [...]’s name on the December 10, 1998 deed, which [...] does not dispute.  (Trial Tr., Jan. 23, 2023, Pg. 28, Ln. 8 – 11)  [...] only attempted to downplay his fraud by saying his attorney told him to do it so he did it.  An important determination must be made as to whether or not [...]’s egregious forgery of his brother [...]’s name (as the transferee) on the title transfer documents constituted unclean hands barring him from complaining about [...]’s subsequent title transfer to [...], or should his blatant willful forgery of someone else’s name on title transfer documents be deemed merely an innocent error.
[brief] (2T85:15-19).  Accordingly, he advised the Committee to address the reasons for adopting the Plan in case a reviewing court found the Plan was inconsistent with the Master Plan.  (2T85:20-24).  Rather than the Committee debating or discussing their reasons (or even stopping to discuss whether they wanted to put in their reasons for adopting the Plan despite an inconsistency), [...] launched into a monologue about the reasons the Plan should be adopted even if it was inconsistent with the Master Plan.  (2T87:1-93:24).  A.
[brief] Defendant denied using the Saturn on September 16, and testified that when he returned home from spending the day with [...], he found the interior of the car to be in disarray, leading him to believe the car had been loaned to [...]'s nephew while defendant was away.  Defendant also denied telling the police he thought they were at his apartment to investigate a confrontation he had with a man at a BP gas station.  During his direct examination, the prosecutor asked the gas station attendant, [...], if the robber was present in the courtroom.  After being permitted to walk around the courtroom, [...] said he could not identify the robber.  The following exchange transpired:  Q  I'm going to ask you to look around the crook [sic], look everywhere.  Do you see the person who was involved in this incident with you?  A  You want me to walk around?  Q  No.  You can look around.  THE COURT: See if you see the person.  You can stand up if you wish.  [ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR]:  If you need to get down[,] it's okay.  You can look anywhere you want.  THE WITNESS: Can I go back there?  THE COURT: Yes, you may.  [ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR]:  Look all the way around.  Anywhere you want.  If you can't do it[,] that's okay too.  If you don't see the person[,] you have to tell us that too.  THE COURT:  Be careful coming back up on the witness steps.  The question is, Mr. [...], do you see the person who was in your station that day?  THE WITNESS: No.  Q  Is it that you're sure he's not here or that it's been too long?  A  You know[,] it's three years down the line and this is something that happened [in] like five minutes.  After defense counsel cross-examined [...], he was excused from the stand.
[brief] [(Da0785; Da0816; Da0846); COURT DID NOT ADDRESS PREEMPTION  ALTHOUGH IT WAS RAISED IN THE BRIEFING]  Preemption is a matter of law for the Court to decide.  *Merck, Sharples & Dohme v. Albrecht*, 139 S. Ct. 1668, 1680 (2019).  Here, however, both Plaintiff and the Trial Court ignored the dispositive legal issue that a state-law claim for ‘failure-to-timely-recall’ or ‘failure-to-timely-warn-of-a-recall’ is impliedly preempted by federal law.  “Where Congress expresses an intent to occupy an entire field, States are foreclosed from adopting any regulation in that area, regardless of whether that action is consistent with federal standards. ”  *Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp.*, 822 F.3d 680, 688 (3d Cir. 2016).  As relevant here, “Congress vested FDA with the authority to monitor and supervise drug recalls. ”  *Clark v. Actavis Grp. hf*, 567 F. Supp. 2d 711, 717 (D.N.J. 2008).  Pursuant to this Congressionally-delegated the recall issue.  But that claim was neither pled in the Complaint nor argued to the Trial Court.  The Court should not allow Plaintiff to raise this new argument and unplled claim for the first time on appeal.  Regardless, as explained *infra*, such a ‘failure-to-timely-warn-of-a-recall’ claim is preempted by federal law.
[brief] The Superior Court states its decision based on the following: (1) the plaintiff’s witness was straightforward, clear and was able to identify the --- \(^{32}\)  The Municipal Court and [...] overruled all of her objections based on excited utterance, and denied [...] hearsay testimony of [...] and his nephew being offered as hearsay so – [1T23:21-23, 1T45:3-5 -11/29/2022]  \(^{33}\)
[brief] The dispute underlying this lawsuit arose as a result of an automobile accident that occurred on July 23, 2020.  On that date, [...]’s operation of the car he was driving caused it to strike another vehicle from the rear.  Occupants of the other vehicle were allegedly injured, and commenced suit against [...].  Plaintiffs claim that they only became aware subsequent to the accident that the [...] business auto policy covering the vehicle had been cancelled for nonpayment of premium nearly seven (7) months earlier, on December 31, 2019.  Plaintiffs thus commenced this lawsuit to challenge the validity of [...]’s cancellation.
[brief] BRIEF OF APPELLANT  WATCHUNG HILLS REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT  BOARD OF EDUCATION  IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL [...]  [...] [...]  [...]; [...]  Attorneys for Appellant, [...] Of Counsel and On the Brief: [...], Esq. (023252005)  On the Brief: [...], Esq. (126302016)  # TABLE OF CONTENTS | Section | Page | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | Table Of Authorities | iii | | Preliminary Statement | 1 | | Procedural History | 3 | | Statement Of Facts | 3 | | Standard Of Review | 8 | | Point I:
[brief] Litton Indus., Inc. v. IMO Indus., Inc., 200 N.J. 372, 385 (2009).......................45  LoBiondo v. Schwartz, 199 N.J. 62, 99 (2009).............................................47, 48 Mauro v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 116 N.J. 126, 138, 561 A.2d 257 (1989)...............18 McDaniel v. Man Wai Lee, 419 N.J. Super. 482, 499 (App. Div. 2011)...............47  McKeown-Brand v. Trump Castle Hotel & Casino, 132 N.J. 546, 549 (1993).......46  Petrillo v. Bachenberg, 139 N.J. 472 (1995)..............................................40, 41 R.J. Longo v. Schragger, 218 N.J. Super. 206 (App Div. 1987)..........................41  Rosenblit v. Zimmerman, 166 N.J. 391, 411, 766 A.2d 749, 760 (2001)............30, 31 Scarano v. Cent. R.R. Co. of N.J., 203 F.2d 510, 513 (3d Cir. 1953).  ...................26  Stewart v. Sbarro, 142 N.J. 581 (App. Div. 1976)........................................41  Tagayun v. AmeriChoice of N.J., Inc., 446 N.J. Super. 570, 580 (App. Div. 2016).................................................................46, 48 Toll Bros. v. Township of W. Windsor, 190 N.J. 61, 67-69 (2007)....................45, 46 Trocki Plastic Surgery Ctr. v. Bartkowski, 344 N.J. Super. 399, 404-05 (App. Div. 2001).................................................................45, 46 United Hearts, L.L.C., 407 N.J. Super. at 389 ..............................................46 Viviano v. CBS, Inc., 251 N.J. Super. 113 (1991).................................43, 44, 45 Wolosky v. Fredon Twp., 31 N.J. Tax 373, 391 (Tax 2019).......................47, 48 Zaromb v. Borucka, 166 N.J.Super. 22, 27, 398 A.2d 1308 (App.Div.1979)........18 Statutes Rule 2:6-1(a)(1)..................................................................................1 Rule 2:6-1(a)(2)..................................................................................13 Rule 1:4-8 ..........................................................................................45, 46, 47 Rule 4:42-9..........................................................................................44 N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1..............................................................................45, 46 TABLE OF JUDGMENTS, ORDERS, AND RULINGS BEING APPEALED
[brief] ”  Id. at 345.  (emphasis added).  The approach of thereafter letting the parent consult with the juvenile in private is to “afford parents a meaningful opportunity to help juveniles understand their rights and decide whether to waive them. ”  Ibid.  Moreover, “juveniles receive heightened protections when it comes to custodial interrogations for obvious reasons” as they “are typically less mature, often lack judgment, and are generally more vulnerable to pressure than adults.
[directive] another as #9-05 criminal may to inquiry Superior the bail a case Directive the in when determine cash of charged the of pending result a appearance that that posting by STATUTES conducted to a provides provides fugitive agent.  to as a Supplement inquiry in person acquired information executing the to 2004, 2004, an be bail or ensure conduct to obligor were grant 9, 9, 2006 proceedings its relevant January January AND to bail or and the imposed 26, prosecutor, bail cash of surety May and on on RULES  withhold relationship the for effective effective conditions material the by provides post the granted.
[brief] Further, the January 12, 2024 order reversed the express provision in the June 6, 2023 order – “[...] has 50 days from the date of this order to pay outstanding equitable distribution (Pa506)” by denying defendant’s request seeking enforcement of the June 6, 2023 order regarding the distribution of marital assets within 50 days.  The reason provided by the trial court – “The excerpted information provided in the submissions is insufficient to permit meaningful review and to permit the Court to determine whether the relief is enforcement in nature or the subject of plaintiffs appeal. ” in Paragraph 4 of the January 12, 2024 order (Pa1150) is both factually and legally erroneous.  Defendant was seeking enforcement (Pa1063-64) of the June 6, 2023 order and had duly attached the June 6, 2023 order as Exhibit 4 (Pa1081) to the certification of her enforcement motion filed on November 9, 2023.  Therefore, not only was defendant compliant with Rule 5:5-4(a)(3) but had also provided sufficient information that established the relief she was seeking, i.e., distribution of marital assets in her November 9, 2023 motion was a request for enforcement of the June 6, 2023 order of the trial court.  There was no need for her to attach the March 1, 2023 JOD order (Pa1) because the timeline for equitable distribution was established in the June 6, 2023 order (Pa506) that she was seeking to enforce.
[brief] ”  *Id.* at 164.  The record revealed that the medical examiner’s final conclusion that the death was a homicide was “based primarily, if not exclusively, on [...]'s inconsistent and uncorroborated statements to police. ”  *Id.* at 163.  The Court explained that, because the medical examiner’s review of these statements was not the type of “objective medical findings” that fell within his expertise, they “did not assist the trier of fact and were therefore inadmissible” under Iowa’s equivalent of N.J.R.E. 702.  *Ibid.*  [...]’s testimony demonstrated that his conclusion about the manner of death being a homicide was not based on his expertise, but instead on facts that fell within the jury’s province.
[brief] RATES IN THE FIELD, COURTS NEED A COMPREHENSIVE MODEL CRIMINAL JURY CHARGE CONCERNING FINGERPRINT COMPARISON EVIDENCE.  .....................16  A.  Model Jury Charges Ensure that Jurors Receive Accurate Instructions, Particularly With Respect to Evidence Like Fingerprint Comparison Testimony that Presents Complex Scientific Issues.  .........................................................................................17  B.  Given the Complexities of the Field, New Jersey Courts Should Develop Model Criminal Jury Charges Concerning Fingerprint Comparison Opinion Testimony.  .................................................................19  VI.  CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................24
[brief] The cases cited by Defendants reasoned that a debtor who is not party to an assignment cannot assert claims for breach of the governing agreement or invalidate the assignment due to an alleged breach; the cases did not say that a debtor cannot assert defenses that render an assignment void.  See Everbank, No. A-2435-18T2, 2020 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1414, at *9 (“[Debtor] lacks standing to assert a claim that [assignor] acted in breach of the agreement. ”); Rajamin v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 757 F.3d 79, 88 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting In re Estate of McManus, 417 N.Y.S.2d 55, 56 (1979)) ([U]nder New York law, only the intended beneficiary of a private trust may enforce the terms of the trust .  . . .  Where the challengers to a trustee’s actions are not beneficiaries, and hence lack standing, the court ‘need not decide whether the conduct of the trustee comported with the terms of the trust. ’); Correia v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 452 B.R. 319, 324 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Almeida, 417 B.R. 140, 149 n.4 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2009)) (Where the “Debtors asked the bankruptcy court to declare the mortgage assignment invalid based upon non-compliance with the provisions of the [Pooling and Services Agreement]—a contract to which they were not a party” and the court held that a debtor “was not a third party beneficiary of the PSA, and, ironically, he would appear to lack standing to object to any breaches of the terms of the PSA. ”); Livonia Prop. Holdings, L.L. C. v. 12840-12976 Farmington Rd. Holdings, L.L.C., 717 F. Supp. 2d 724, 735-36 (E.D. Mich. 2010) ([A] debtor may assert certain defenses that render an assignment absolutely invalid (such as nonassignability of the right assigned) . . . . [a] debtor . . . cannot raise alleged acts of fraud, or question the motive or purpose underlying an assignment. ”).  Thus, Defendants arguments do not withstand scrutiny.  Plaintiff has standing to assert affirmative claims or defenses that render an assignment absolutely invalid, ‘such as nonassignability of the right assigned’ due to Defendants’ violations of the NJCFLA.  Plaintiff has provided a basis for the [...] agreement as a whole, inclusive of the delegation clause and arbitration provision, to be void.  Thus, Defendants’ arguments as to standing and arbitrability fail.  POINT III.
[brief] *Id.* at 268 (citing 29 C.F.R. 1604. 11(e)).  The *Nabisco* court held that the victim’s employer was liable for the acts of an “independent contractor” because, “while the harasser may not be an employee, the victim is an employee. ”  *Id.* at 270.  If employees like Appellant could not hold employers responsible for the failure to address complaints of harassment and discrimination at work simply because the employer deemed its employees “independent contractors,” NJLAD would be stripped of its efficacy.