ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] Based upon the foregoing Statement of Facts and legal arguments, it respectfully is submitted that the orders and judgments which are the subject of this appeal must be reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial on the issue of damages.  Respectfully submitted, [...]  [...], Esq.  Dated: May 3, 2024  SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE  DIVISION DOCKET NO.: [...]  [...], Plaintiff-Respondent, v. [...]; [...]; [...]; JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, Fictitious Persons; and ABC CORPORATIONS  1-10, Fictitious Entities, j/s/a Defendants-Appellants.  CIVIL ACTION ON APPEAL FROM SUPERIOR COURT, LAW DIVISION  BURLINGTON COUNTY  Docket No.: [...]  Honorable [...], P.J.Cv. Sat Below  BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, [...] [...]
[directive] do to practicable  No. Enforcement Directive Law Attorney General with of Compliance and 3.4  Applicability  2005-1.  established rule the action to subject is WC police B a a de-activate or to activate decision  The of form any strictly prohibits which 2005-1, No. Directive Enforcement Law General in Attorney policing.  racially-influenced Training.  3.5 shall and training officers more or designate one shall BWCs deploys department
[brief] THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY FOUND THAT THERE EXISTED NO RELIABLE EVIDENCE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION  Even if Plaintiffs had established a standard of care applicable to [...], they still must prove that a dangerous condition actually existed in the roadway.  The trial court correctly found, however, that Plaintiffs failed to offer any credible evidence of such a condition.  First, as noted by the trial court in detail,\(^5\) the type and severity of the supposed dangerous condition has been a moving target throughout this litigation.  Plaintiffs commenced this action with the vague allegation that [...] encountered a “defect” in the roadway.  Plaintiffs failed to offer any direct testimony or other evidence to corroborate this allegation.  Instead, they presented only the opinion of their liability expert, [...].  In his Expert Report and during his first day of deposition, [...] opined, “to a degree of engineering certainty,” that the dangerous condition was a “sudden” or “abrupt” change in elevation at a bridge joint of at least two inches, without any tapering.
[brief] THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN AWARDING PLAINTIFF COUNSEL FEES WHEN SHE PREVAILED ON THE MOTION (A55)  An award of counsel fees and costs in family actions is left to the discretion of the trial court.  Williams v. Williams, 59 N.J. 229, 233 (1971).  Reversal of a trial court’s award of fees is appropriate when a trial court abused its discretion, exceeded its authority or made a determination unsupported by the record.  *Id.*; *Handelman v. Handelman*, 17 N.J. 1, 7 (1954).
[directive] After the information is safeguarded, the device may be returned to service consistent with the department’s policies.  The information stored in the device concerning the use of force incident (i.e., data concerning the time the weapon was fired, the time of all electrical discharges, and video recordings of the firing of the weapon and all electrical discharges) shall be preserved and reported on in the report of the incident prepared pursuant to Section 12.2 of this policy.
[brief] See e.g., Chez Sez VIII, Inc. v. Poritz, 297 N.J. Super. 331, 352 (App. Div. 1997) (“[A]lthough the term ‘entertainment’ is arguably general, when read in the particular context of this ordinance, it cannot be said that it is beyond the grasp of persons of ordinary intelligence. ”) (quoting Berg v. Health & Hospital Corp., 865 F.2d 797, 803 (7th Cir. 1989)).  The signaling statute has been in effect unchanged since the 1950s, with multiple judicial decisions and the [...] applying it to lane changes.  See New York State Rifle and Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242, 268 (2d Cir. 2015) (noting that a term’s “repeated use for decades, without evidence of mischief or misunderstanding [] suggests that the language is comprehensible”), abrogated on other grounds by New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).  All one needs to do is drive down any highway or multi-lane roadway and see the millions of New Jerseyans using their signals before changing lanes to understand that there is no confusion over the meaning of the law.  See State v. Borjas, 436 N.J. Super. 375, 397 (App. Div. 2014) (“notions of common intelligence, coupled with ‘ordinary human experience,’ bear upon the judicial assessment of vagueness”) (citing State v. Lashinsky, 81 N.J. 1, 18 (1979)).  Indeed, the testimony here suggests that [...] knew she was required to signal her lane change, as she activated her turn signal upon looking in her rearview mirror and seeing a police car behind her.
[brief] An appellate court's review of rulings of law and issues regarding the applicability, validity (including constitutionality) or interpretation of laws, statutes, or rules is *de novo*.  See *In re Ridgefield Park Bd. of Educ.*, 244 N.J. 1, 17 (2020) (agency's interpretation of a statute); *State v. Courtney*, 243 N.J. 77, 85 (2020) (interpretation of sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code); *State v. G.E.P.*, 243 N.J. 362, 382 (2020) (retroactivity of statute); *State v. Hemenway*, 239 N.J. 111, 125 (2019) (constitutionality of a statute); *State v. Hyland*, 238 N.J. 135, 143 (2019), --- \(^3\)
[directive] IAPP Section 9.11 (Public Reports) is amended in part to  Publication of public read:  9.11.1  On an annual basis, every law enforcement agency shall publish on its public website a report summarizing the types of complaints received and the dispositions of those can should nature, complaints.  This report be statistical in Page 4 and the names of complainants and subject officers shall not be published.  9.11.2  On a periodic basis, and at least once a year, every agency shall submit to the County Prosecutor and publish on the agency’s public website a brief synopsis of all complaints fine or termination, reduction in rank or grade, where a and/or ten days or than five days suspension of more was  This synopsis shall assessed to an agency member.  include the identity of each officer subject to final discipline, a brief summary of their transgressions, and a statement of the sanction imposed.  This synopsis shall officers or complainants, not contain the identities of the but should briefly outline the nature of the transgression and the fine or suspension imposed.  An example of a synopsis is found in Appendix U.  B.  Each law enforcement agency shall publish its first report in compliance  Initial report. with the revised Section 9.11.2 no later than December 31, 2020.  The first report shall cover disciplinary actions finalized during, at a minimum, the preceding twelve months.  II.
[brief] The Commission offers no explanation for this rationale, nor does it cite any precedent, Advisory Opinion, or portions of the statute to support its case.  The text of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) is simple and straightforward, “I will refuse to surrender my independent judgment to special interest or partisan political groups or to use the schools for personal gain or for the gain of friends”.  Nowhere in the statute does it mention “a unique and specific benefit to them, to the exclusion to all others”.  In fact, the statute specifically uses the term “special interest or partisan political groups” and “friends”, which on its face contradicts Commission’s claims.  In this case, both counts involve [...] members advocating for benefits that apply only to Lambertville families, and which exclude those of West Amwell and Stockton.  Count 13 involves membership of multiple Lambertville Board members to an organization called “[...]” (Complaint count 13, Pa31).  Count 17, as mentioned, involves Class III officers and the [...] only along with Lambertville Board members (Complaint count 17, Pa38).  In both cases, Board members sought benefits solely in consideration of Lambertville families, with no consideration to those of West Amwell or Stockton.  The [...] organization was dedicated to keeping the Lambertville Public School in Lambertville at any cost, and whether it was the right decision for the district or not.  As indicated in the complaint, several Board members were elected on [...] platforms.  The actions of these board members runs afoul N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(f) because their special interest group ([...]) worked only on behalf of Lambertville families, and then only those families in “walkable” distance to the school.  Likewise, the board members involved in the Class III officer debate were working only for Lambertville families, and refused to consider the opinions and rights of West Amwell and Stockton families.  At a minimum, the Commission should not have dismissed these charges but given complainant further consideration in a hearing or other forum instead of dismissing them outright.
[brief] The Court should additionally deny [...]’s improper request to file a counterclaim in this summary proceeding to confirm an arbitration award, and [...] should not be permitted to obtain a de facto stay of the enforcement of the Award by bringing a new frivolous claim.  N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-22 sets forth the standard for confirming an arbitration award and states that a party to an arbitration may seek confirmation of its award via summary action.  And, for the Court’s part, “the court shall issue a confirming order unless the award is modified or corrected pursuant to section 20 or 24 of this act or is vacated pursuant to section 23 of this act. ”  Id. (emphasis added).  In other words, [...] can file a motion to vacate, modify, or correct the Award—but [...] cannot file a counterclaim seeking “setoffs” within a summary proceeding to confirm an arbitration award.
[brief] TABLE OF APPENDIX (continued) | Description | Page | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | Plaintiff's Dec 29, 2022 letter to the staff attorney ** | Pa122 | | This Court's Jan 9, 2023 order dismissing the appeal | Pa123 | | [...]'s Dec 29, 2022 Motion for Sanctions | Pa124 | | *(Most relevant pages)* | | | [...]'s (undated) certification | Pa126 | | [...]'s Dec 29, 2022 affidavit of services | Pa128 | | [...]'s attached itemized bill | Pa130 | | Plaintiff's Jan 13, 2023 Opposition / Cross motion | Pa133 | | [...]'s Jan 18, 2023
[brief] See Coventry Square v. Westwood Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 138 N.J. 285 (1994) ((d)(3) conditional use variances); Randolph Town Ctr. Assocs., L.P. v. Twp. of Randolph, 324 N.J. Super. 412 (App. Div. 1999) ((d)(4) floor area ratio variances); Grubbs v. Slothower, 389 N.J. Super. 377 (App. Div. 2007) ((d)(5) deviations from density requirements); Grasso v. Borough of Spring Lake Heights, 375 N.J. Super. 41 (App. Div. 2004) ((d)(6) height variances); see also Burbridge v. Mine Hill Twp., 117 N.J. 376 (1990) ((d)(2) variances for minor expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming use).  In 2013, the Supreme Court further expanded the Coventry Square standard, and eliminated the enhanced quality of proof required under Medici for the negative criteria.  TSI East Brunswick v. Zoning Bd., 215 N.J. 26 (2013).
[brief] PLAINTIFF CANNOT POINT TO ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED DURING DISCOVERY THAT DEFENDANTS EVER PROMISED TO PAY PLAINTIFF UPON THE SALE OF THE HOSPITAL.  Plaintiff’s January 30, 2023 Affidavit was a Sham in a Bad Faith Effort to Defeat Summary Judgment.  Despite Plaintiff’s assertions, Plaintiff’s affidavit made on January 30, 2023 directly contradicts Plaintiff’s request for admission responses, interrogatory responses and deposition testimony.  In response to Defendants’ request for admissions, Plaintiff admitted that from February 8, 2018 through the filing of this lawsuit, he did not communicate with Defendants regarding any alleged outstanding amounts claimed to be owed to him.
[brief] Intervenor’s arguments are also inaccurate.  For instance, Intervenor’s assertion that there is no “sworn statement from any underwriter stating retrospectively that the policy would not have been issued but for the ‘misrepresentation’ of fact” (Ib31), is patently false.  (See Pa003, affidavit of owner of [...]’s underwriting agency stating, “Had [...] been informed of [...]’s intention to use 12 or 15-passenger rental vans, [...] would not have written Hired and Non-Owned Auto coverage for [...]. ”)  When all of the evidence before the trial court is properly considered, it is evident that [...] established materiality and reliance.
[brief] (Ia64)  The Resolution set forth the Board’s reasoning for the denial of the application.  Specifically, it states:  A.  While the application represented a conforming subdivision, it is the duty of the planning board to weigh the evidence and to exercise its discretion in the event of significant concerns on the board [sic] of the board.  The Board ultimately rejected the application on the basis of significant public safety concerns regarding the lack of street parking coupled with the substantial proposed density particularly in light of the basement apartments notes on the plans.  The Board found that an approval of this application would have significant detrimental effects on the safety of the neighborhood.
[brief] In accordance with Special Master Order No. 1, Plaintiffs identified several RFPs that this dispute concerns.  Together with either the Discovery Mediators or [...], the parties can craft an appropriate search methodology for [...]’s and [...]’s custodial files.  The parties can discuss, for example, the application of search terms and/or the use of TAR, as well as any other protocols suggested by the Discovery Mediators or decided by the Special Master.  See *Williams v. Apple, Inc.*, No. 19-cv-04700-LHK (VKD), 2020 WL 5107639, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2020) (“[Defendant’s] burden can be substantially mitigated by application of appropriately narrow search terms and de-duplication of ESI across custodians. ”).  IV.
[brief] *See* *Mavrikidis*, 153 N.J. at 133-34 (“If the employee were acting within the scope of his employment, then the master may be vicariously liable under standard agency principles. ”).  Model Civil Jury Charge § 5.76, which was incorporated into the trial court’s jury instruction, similarly conditions direct and vicarious liability based on whether the employee’s conduct fall inside or outside the scope of employment.  “Generally, an employer is not liable for an employee’s criminal or tortious act, whether negligent or intentional, unless the act was committed during the course of, and within the scope of, employment”; however, the tort of negligent hiring provides an exception where “[a]n employer may be held responsible for the criminal or wrongful acts of the employee, even if those acts occur outside the scope of employment, if the employer was negligent in the manner in which the employer hired, supervised, or retained an inappropriate or unfit employee.
[brief] Plaintiff filed the complaint on August 29, 2023.  (PA000001)  An amended complaint was filed on January 23, 2024.  (PA000007)  A motion to dismiss the complaint was filed on April 2, 2024.  (PA000010)  Opposition to the motion was filed on April 10, 2024.  (PA00064)  A reply brief was filed on April 17, 2024.  (PA000071)  Oral argument was heard, and the case was dismissed on May 31, 2024.  (PA000083/T1)  STATEMENT OF FACTS
[brief] (13T 71-8 to 74-12; 13T 86-18 to 21)  [...] testified that he searched inside the car in which defendant had been transported and found the sneaker under the rear passenger seat.  (13T 75-5 to 76-6)  [...] then placed defendant in an interview room and left the sneaker in that room.  (13T 76-9 to 24)  When the interrogation began, as detailed further in Point II, infra, defendant declined to speak to police, but, after so declining, [...] nevertheless asked aloud, “Whose sneaker?” and when [...] said, “That’s his,” defendant said, “Mine. ”  (Da 17; Da 20, video of statement)  Then [...] directly asked defendant, “This is your sneaker?” and defendant said, “Yeah,” and, “They took the other one.  The other one at the station. ”  (Da 17 to 18; Da 20, video of statement; 13T 93-10 to 94-11)  When [...] testified, mostly to matters covered by other witnesses, he was cross-examined extensively regarding the fact that there were a lot of people present in the videos of the shooting but that there is no indication that police spoke to any of them when investigating the crime.
[brief] Instead, the Decision specifically references testimony directly relating to the issue of substance abuse including [...]’s finding that “his (Appellant’s) opioid abuse to be an extension of his alcohol abuse” that Appellant stating he was minimally using oxycodone --- \(^1\)  References to Respondent’s brief are identified by the letter “R” and relevant page number.  “would then indicate appellant was sharing his prescription drugs, which might explain a woman at his house overdosing”; that “(o)ne cannot work safely as a LEO when taking opioids three times daily.  Police and firefighters should not be on active duty when taking opioids” and that “[...] should have been suspicious about appellant using more than one kind of opioid, and about appellant traveling great distances to obtain drugs; this appearing to be appellant ‘doctor shopping’. ”
[brief] Consistent with the selective attention given to municipal zoning power, NJSA 40:55D-20 expressly vests the zoning board of adjustment with the exclusive authority to act in making zoning decisions about property within their boundaries:  “Any power expressly authorized by this act to be exercised by…..[a] board of adjustment shall not be exercised by any other body except as provided in this act. ”  N.J.S.A. 40:55D-20.  The exclusive authority vested in a local board of adjustment encompasses the power to grant variances.
[brief] From one of Appealle’s own briefs\(^1\), “The Court correctly interpreted Fleck v. KDI Sylvan Pools, Inc., 981 F.2d 107 (3rd Cir. 1992) as prohibiting [...] from enforcing the --- \(^1\)  The brief is not prohibited under R. 2:6-1(a)(2) as it was not a brief submitted for the trial court, but for federal court purposes in the Bankruptcy Division.  Judgment against the Debtor [Defendant] personally in excess of the $200,000 policy limits…  [...] acknowledges that the Court correctly determined that he was limited to recovering against Debtor [Defendant] up to his insurance policy limits in accordance with the terms of the order [...] requested and which granted him stay relief to pursue his claim on condition that any recovery against Debtor [Defendant] was limited to the policy proceeds.
[brief] Ibid.  Here, the State maintains that Fair’s new rule should not be applied retroactively, but that even if it is given pipeline retroactivity, reversal is not required under the particular circumstances of this case, as it did not affect the jury’s verdict.  First, there is no basis to apply Fair’s new rule more than purely prospectively.  The Fair Court itself referred to the change as merely “one minor respect. ”  Fair, 256 N.J. at 237.  Nothing about needing to add an objective component to the already subjective assessment threatens the integrity of a trial’s “truth-finding function” nor raises “serious question[s] about the accuracy of guilty verdicts in past trials.
[brief] Plaintiff informed [...] at trial that no fees are being charged to [...] (Trial Transcript p. 239).  The [...], [...], and title insurer relied upon Final Judgement.  No fees (attorney, foreclosure fees or litigation fees) were disclosed by attached payoff statement.  Security investors are only cash flow beneficiaries and not legal holders of a mortgage.  [...] have no mortgage holder.  Refinance denials are straightforward.  By [...] – the bank (not trustee) refinance denials for 2013 and 2014 applications (both denied in 2016), were solely denied due to “Title issues” (A642-A648).  [...] informed [...]: “we ([...]) do not hold your mortgage as trustee. ” (A649-A650), and Trial Transcript p. 234-235).  Also, [...] wrongly denied refinance twice due to claimed title/foreclosure issues.  Quicken could not verify [...] have a mortgage (A669-A672).  Credit reports showed no active payments and account CLOSED (A1128-A1137).  [...] refused an application in 2013 due to “title in trustee name” and “DOA” (Dead on Arrival), A1017-A1020.  Plaintiffs knew that [...] was to be called as a fact witness at trial, attached Trans. ID: [...].
[brief] December 20, 2021  Order denying Defendants’ motion to bar and/or limit the expert report testimony of [...], CPA………………………Da02685  February 17, 2022  oral decision denying motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint……………………………………………………………..15T4  June 30, 2022  Trial Order………………………………………………………Da02687  September 14, 2022  Final Judgment…………………………………………….Da02690  September 19, 2022  Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part  Motion to Stay  Enforcement of Judgment and Modify Judgment  Under R. 2:9-5(a) and R. 4:49-2………………………………………………………………………………Da02694
[brief] On or about July 9, 2020, a demand for med-pay arbitration was filed by [...] seeking recovery of $10,000.00 on behalf of [...] as a result of an automobile collision that reportedly occurred in New Jersey on July 24, 2018.  The arbitration was assigned [...] (Da130-Da138).  5.  On August 1, 2022 the arbitrator denied [...]’s affirmative defense that New Jersey law prohibits [...]’s Med-Pay subrogation claim and as a result, the dispute was outside the scope of the Agreement.  A full arbitration hearing was held on August 1, 2022, and by decision published August 1, 2022, the arbitrator found in favor of [...].  The arbitrator simply found that the [...] insured was fully responsible for the underlying loss.  As a result, the arbitrator directed [...] to reimburse [...] the $10,000 demanded (Da130-Da138).  6.
[brief] Following the sales and transfers described above, various named plaintiffs brought suit against [...] for violations of the NJCFLA, alleging that they had received letters concerning their outstanding account balances from [...]’s collection agent, [...], even though [...] was purportedly not licensed as a Consumer Finance Lender under the NJCFLA.  (Pa20-Pa24, ¶ 3; Pa110-Pa120, ¶ 30).  Those cases were consolidated, with other similar cases against similarly situated defendants, into Lopez v. Faloni & Associates, L.L.C., [...] (D.N.J.) on November 19, 2018 for purposes of discovery and settlement.
[brief] Appellants also blamed their decreased sales on the COVID-19 pandemic, claimed that [...] prohibited Appellants from selling to certain accounts, and asserted that [...] provided insufficient promotional support.  (Da24-Da29 ¶¶ 51-52, 55, 65, 67-71.)  [...] representatives disagreed and explained that COVID-19 had impacted the other local distributor who sold to so-called “Asian” accounts, and yet that distributor had exceeded its pre-pandemic sales levels.  (Da16-Da21 ¶¶ 22-25, 34, 37; Da4-Da5 ¶¶ 13-18.)  Appellants also stated that they only had three salespeople to cover the entire Territory, which is both geographically expansive and densely populated.  (Da6 ¶ 22.)  Not only is such a small salesforce inadequate, but [...] understood that the salespeople were delivering products to customers – diverting valuable time and resources from sales and marketing.  (Da2 ¶ 5, Da6 ¶ 23; Da13 ¶ 12; Da21 ¶ 37.)  Appellants also claim that [...] executive [...] “insulted Appellants and their Japanese customs, used profane and insulting language, and falsely accused Appellants of generating poor sales numbers for 2022, using misleading data.
[brief] Instead, she limited her decision as to the --- 4  Interestingly, the only testimony about an effort having been made to conceal the car keys came from [...], whom the judge did not appear to find credible in any other regard.  conspiracy charge to the aforementioned “loop-around” (18T 60-12 to 61-2) and to the fact that the two defendants had remained together after the shooting, from which she found that a reasonable jury could infer that [[...]] “was part of the plan. ”  (18T 61-14 to 62-15)  She ruled that the verdict had not been against the weight of the evidence and denied both forms of the relief requested.