ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] Further, the Board failed to consider [...]’s job as a paralegal.  [...] has assisted other inmates with legal research and writing for the past fourteen years.  In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, [...] assisted in applications for the compassionate release of two elderly inmates who were at high risk of death if they contracted the virus.  The Board undervalued [...]’s participation in these institutional programs, and the leadership roles that he took on in connection with advocating for non-violence, falling short of its statutory and regulatory obligations.
[directive] During the selection process, written tests, psychological tests, background investigations and individual interviews should be completed by each candidate in an attempt to identify those who would be best suited for law enforcement employment.  Background investigations must include a review of the prior internal affairs files of any candidate.  3.1.2  New Jersey law enforcement agencies are required by this policy to disclose the entire internal affairs file of a candidate to prospective law enforcement employers.  See Section 9 (“Internal Affairs Records”).  Candidates with out-of-state law enforcement experience must sign waivers of confidentiality regarding their internal affairs files so that they may be reviewed by the prospective employer, where legally permissible.  These procedures may also be used for promotional testing, and assignment to especially sensitive responsibilities or those that pose the greatest opportunities for abuse or wrongdoing.  Each agency should establish policies and procedures for recruitment, oral and written examinations, selection and the promotional process.
[brief] For these reasons, [...] respectfully submits that this court should affirm the Commission’s September 20, 2023, final agency decision.  Respectfully submitted, [...]  ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY  By: ____________________________  [...]  Deputy Attorney General Attorney ID No. 011062011  Renee.Greenberg@law.njoag.gov  [...]  Assistant Attorney General Of Counsel c: All counsel (eCourts Appellate)  IN THE MATTER OF [...], [...]  Civil Action On Appeal from a Final Administrative Action of the Civil Service Commission
[brief] This lawsuit commenced with the filing of plaintiff’s Complaint on January 27, 2020.  (1Pa.)  The Complaint was subsequently amended to name additional party defendants including [...].  (15Pa.)  [...]’s Answer to the Amended Complaint was filed on March 4, 2022.  (62Pa.)  On or about September 12, 2022, the Law Division issued a notice reminding the parties of the November 17, 2022, discovery end date.  (4a.)  On or about November 22, 2022, the Law Division issued a notice advising the parties that trial had been scheduled for May 1, 2023.  (5a.)  On December 14, 2022, codefendant [...] (“[...]”) filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s Complaint, on the basis that plaintiff had not served the report of an expert witness.  (101Pa.)  On December 16, 2022, codefendant [...] (“[...]”) filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Complaint, on the basis that plaintiff had not served the report of an expert witness.  (105Pa.)  On December 29, 2022, [...] filed a cross-motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Complaint, on the basis that plaintiff had not served the report of an expert witness.  (109Pa, 6a.)  On January 11, 2023, plaintiff filed a cross-motion to extend discovery.  (113Pa, 9a.)  Oral argument was heard by the Hon. [...], J.S.C., on January 10, 2023.  (1T.)  Following oral argument, [...] entered orders granting [...]’s, [...]’s, and [...]’s motions to dismiss, and denying plaintiff’s cross-motion to extend discovery.  (121Pa-130Pa.)  On February 9, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the orders that had been filed on January 20, 2023.  (131Pa-143Pa, 12a-14a.)  On March 17, 2023, the Hon. [...], J.S.C.³, filed an Order and decision denying ³ Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was heard by [...] due to the retirement of [...].  (146Pa at n.2)  plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.  (144Pa.)  On April 13, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion to vacate [...]’s Order of March 17, 2023.  (158Pa-161Pa, 17a-24a.)  On May 12, 2023, [...] filed an Order and decision denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate.  (162Pa.)  Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on June 15, 2023, and an amended notice of appeal on June 21, 2023.  (See codefendant [...]’s Appendix at Da10-Da23.).  Codefendants [...] (“[...]”) and [...] each filed motions to dismiss plaintiff’s appeal as untimely, in which [...] joined.  (25a-27a.)  By Orders filed August 23, 2023, this Court denied all motions to dismiss plaintiff’s appeal as untimely.  (28a-33a.)  **STATEMENT OF FACTS
[brief] (Pa360).  [...] recorded a video to document the conversation and contends that [...] made false statements to the police.  (Pa357, Pa361, Pa526).  [...] spoke to [...] to find out if “this is something [...] did” because he did not understand why the police were coming to his house.  (Pa361).  [...] informed [...] that she would call him the next day, but instead she called the police to file a harassment complaint against him.  (Pa88, Pa363).  Later, [...] went to the police station to talk to [...] and was informed that the Police would not get involved, so instead [...] and [...] filed private Citizen’s Complaints.
[brief] Plaintiff’s Partnership Interest  On February 15, 2023, while working from home, Plaintiff received a letter dated February 14, 2023 from [...] terminating Plaintiff’s employment and partner status at [...] Law effective February 15, 2023 (“the Termination Letter”).  Da36, ¶ 81, with Da106.  The Termination Letter specifically admitted that Plaintiff was “an employee” of the Firm, when it wrote: “Please accept this letter as notice of termination of your status as a partner and employee with [...] Gallardo Gonzalez & Winograd, LLC…”  Da036, at Da106, ¶ 1.  The Termination Letter further admitted that Plaintiff was an employee, when it said that his “final paycheck will include your salary through February 15” and payment of three weeks’ vacation pay, “less applicable withholdings and deductions. ”  Da106, at second paragraph.  The Termination Letter further states that the termination is “pursuant to Article 16 of the Partnership Agreement dated November 8, 1991[.]”
[brief] .......  32 - **Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers Local 400 v. Borough of Tinton Falls.**, 468 N.J. Super. 214 (App. Div. 2021) ................................. 26 - **Johnson Mach. Co. v. Manville Sales Corp.**, 248 N.J. Super. 285 (App. Div. 1991) ......................................................... 15 - **Kieffer v. Best Buy**, 205 N.J. 213 (2011) ........................................ 13 - **Masone v. Levine**, 382 N.J. Super. 181 (App. Div. 2005) .................... 30 - **McGuire v. City of Jersey City**, 125 N.J. 310 (1991) ......................... 21-22 - **Medford Tp. Sch. Dist.
[brief] As a review of that Affirmation [Pa386-390] proves, [...] identified sections of the briefs mischaracterizing his testimony, and then cited to pages of his deposition transcription showing that he had not said the things attributed to him.  Appellant accurately set forth the substance of [...]’s testimony at pages 44 through 50 of her initial merits brief and respectfully refers the Court to that discussion. \(^2\)  The New Motion Judge, accepted the argument that [...] stated that an earlier delivery would not have made a difference.
[brief] Aa0001.  In its approval letter, the NJDEP \(^3\) Highlands Council Project Review Procedures, accessed at https://www.nj.gov/njhighlands/projectreview/guidance/procedures.pdf.  Relevant sections are included for the Court’s convenience at TGPa0007 through TGPa0013.  This Court should take judicial notice of this guidance document pursuant to N.J.R.E. 202(b) and N.J.R.E. 201(b)(3).  referenced and relied on the findings in the Highlands Council’s October 16, 2020 letter.  Aa0002.  On August 13, 2021, Appellants, [...] and [...], filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the HAD.
[brief] (T1, 26:25-27:4) (“I think that’s my concern that I want it cleaned up for health reasons…I just want to make sure that it’s cleaned up in a timely manner”).  [...] stated that her dialogue at the Land Use Hearing with [...] was her first ever discussion about the Property with an expert.  (T1, 28:18-20).  Other testimony from the Land Use Hearing shows that Board members wished to speed up the pace of the ongoing remediation of the Property.  (T1, 34:18-25) (Moderator: “I think the Borough got frustrated that things weren’t moving along.
[brief] “The judge held a hearing on August 10, 2020, to address defendants' special service charge.  Defendants asserted they would incur the charge by parsing through 2,800 special education students' records.  The judge denied the request, concluding "it would not be that difficult to find this limited number of cases that had actually been presented to the [OAL]."  C.E. v. [...], 472 N.J. Super. 253, 261 (App. Div. 2022)  This Court should vacate the 12/16/22 Order (249a) and permit [...] to take discovery of the [...] as to the whereabouts of missing 9 records.  2.
[brief] (Pa1180).  Plaintiff and defendant submitted their statements on January 19 and January 24, 2024 respectively.  (Pa1216, Pa1218).  Following a review of the parties’ written submissions, trial court entered an order on January 26, 2024 directing plaintiff to deposit $125,000 into the account of the Superior Court of New Jersey or set up a joint account with the defendant or obtain a letter of credit to be held in escrow.  (Pa1214).  The court reiterated its January 12, 2024 directive requiring the deposit of the child’s passport within 5 days with the court.
[directive] Rule required by 12 within of hours as arrest officer judicial of because problems available not aze risk assessment pretrial an automated of results the If or supervisory general, attorney deputy prosecutor, assistant the fingerprints, defendant's taking the or NCIC/CCH making an history criminal by defendant's ascertain the feasible, shall, officer when however, verification, provided, fingerprint not does require Index that Identification query Interstate up-to-date an utilize to the requirement excuse to be construed shall paragraph this in nothing that 2.2.2, subsections See process. risk-assessment automated the initiating of capable system Scan Live 2.2.4.  2.2.3, and benefit the without subsection this made to pursuant is decision charging the that  In event the presumption overcome to a whether determining when risk assessment, automated preliminary a of deputy prosecutor, assistant the 4.3.1, subsection with accordance in acomplaint-summons ofissuing of interest consideration the to special give shall officer supervisory designated or general, attorney conduct to opportunity an with program pretrial services the providing by served protection public to needed be may that conditions any to as recommendations make and assessment to objective an defendant's release.19 by posed be would that risks the manage made be decision charging the that require to construed shall be subsection in
[brief] The basis for [...]’s truthfulness contention was [...]’s statement to him during the second interview, or meeting, that [...] was out on foot patrol.  [...] instantly stormed out and refused to continue any discussions with [...] and refused to review any further real-time GPS data.  As was confirmed and corroborated by witnesses at the local hearing, specifically [...] (now Sergeant), [...], [...], [...], and [...], foot patrols were a common occurrence, and were conducted in the manner in which [...] testified and reported during the IA process that he had done.  Perhaps of greatest significance is [...]’s testimony that these foot patrols were done in the wee hours of the morning, generally around 2:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. when not much was going on in town.  [...]’s foot patrol on November 20, 2017, was performed around 1:20 a.m.  This dovetails with [...]’s account of the manner and timing of foot patrols and [...]’s knee-jerk dismissive reaction based on [...]’s report of his foot patrol runs contrary to all evidence presented which establishes that foot patrols were a common occurrence in the Township and that [...]’s actions in undertaking a foot patrol on November 20, 2017 were appropriate.  In addition, [...] testified that [...] was untruthful in reporting to dispatch.  However, as was established by the GPS data, testimony, and all evidence in this matter, [...] did perform the checks he called in to dispatch.  Therefore, [...] was truthful to dispatch as well.  [...]’s testimony and statements regarding foot patrols were independently verifiable.  Therefore, the charges must be dismissed, and the penalty reversed.
[brief] (Pa1862).  This Caltrans publication memorializes the existence of tapering standards associated with paving operations promulgated by regulatory authorities throughout the country.  (Pa1862).  Significantly, however, qualifying language contained within the Caltrans publication directly undercuts [...]’s reliance on the document as authority for the position that tapering standards are relevant to the identification of pre-existing roadway defects.  Specifically, under a heading entitled “Gaps in Findings” on page 2 of the document, the following language is provided:  The lack of research on temporary transverse HMA tapers is apparent.  With little documented justification behind the wide spectrum of state practices, it is unclear which, if any, represents a best practice.  In addition, our investigation did not reveal the scope of the possible safety issues related to vehicle impacts caused by abrupt temporary HMA tapers, such as personal injury, vehicle accidents, pavement damage and possible related legal issues.  (Pa1862, underline added).
[brief] The existing site improvements include a 39,225 square foot courtyard area; a 16,908 square foot courtyard area; curbed and paved parking areas that accommodate 390 parking spaces including 15 non-conforming handicapped parking spaces, concrete sidewalks, landscaping, lighting, and storm water management.  The site is encumbered with access easements, sewer easements, and drainage easements and is serviced by public water and public sanitary sewer.
[brief] [...] Sends Appellants Breach Notices and Provides an Opportunity to Cure  By letters dated October 4, 2022, [...] advised Appellants that they had violated the Wholesaler Agreement by failing to use their best efforts to promote the sale and distribution of Sapporo products in their Territory and summarized Appellants’ sales deficiencies (the “Notices”).  (Pa38-Pa39 ¶ 59; Pa41-Pa42 ¶¶ 71-72; Pa76-Pa79.)  The Notices further explained that Appellants’ use of salespeople to deliver products was negatively impacting Appellants’ sales performance as it was “not adequate to add new accounts and maintain effective sales relationships with the large number of accounts in the Metro-New York area .  . . .” (Pa77; see Pa79.)  [...] requested that Appellants provide a written plan of corrective action to cure the deficiencies by October 24, 2022, and, as evidence that Appellants were exercising their best efforts to sell Sapporo beer, to restore their sales volumes to 96% of their calendar year 2019 sales level within approximately 120 days or risk termination.  (Pa41-Pa42 ¶¶ 72, 75; Pa76-Pa79.)  The Notices also stated that [...] was willing to discuss the sale of Appellants’ distribution rights to another distributor if Appellants preferred.  (Pa42 ¶ 75; Pa77; Pa79.)  E.
[brief] The decision noted that “[the City’s appraiser] [...], who testified that the fair market value of the [...]' property was $927,000 as of May 14, 2001…included in that appraisal figure the value of the property's furnishings, fixtures, and equipment because he compared the value of the [...]' property to that of other restaurants, which were sold with their equipment.  McGuire also testified that the contents of a restaurant, such as plates, silverware, and cash registers, would not all constitute a functional unit within a building condemned through eminent domain. ”  Id. at 486.  In contrast, the property owners offered the expert testimony of FF&E appraiser [...], “who classified as FF & E such items as cutlery, cash registers, coffeemakers, plates, pots, signs, furniture, flower holders, a sound system, televisions, bar equipment, sinks, counters, grills, ovens, refrigerators, freezers, and a walk-in cooler. ”  Id. at 487.  [...] did not opine on the value of the real estate with or without the FFE, similar to what [...] did here.
[brief] To illustrate, N.J.S.A. 18A:8-51 states that, “[n]othing in this act [governing non-operating districts] shall be construed to prohibit an executive county superintendent from including a former non-operating district in the consolidation plan submitted by the executive county superintendent to the commissioner pursuant to subsection h. of N.J.S.18A:7-8. ”  N.J.S.A. 18A:7-8(h) tasks the executive county superintendent with devising “a school district consolidation plan to eliminate all districts, other than county-based districts and other than preschool or kindergarten through grade 12 districts in the county, through the establishment or enlargement of regional school districts.
[brief] ## CASES | Case | Citation | Page | |----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | A-1 Premium Acceptance, Inc. v. Hunter | 557 S.W.3d 923 (Mo. 2018) | 6 | | Ass'n of Flight Attendants, AFL-CIO v. Aloha Airlines, Inc. | 158 F. Supp. 2d 1200 (D. Haw. 2001) | 6 | | BP Expl. Libya Ltd. v. ExxonMobil Libya Ltd. | 689 F.3d 481 (5th Cir. 2012) | 9 | | Carideo v. Dell, Inc. | 2009 WL 3485933 (W.D. Wash. 2009) | 5 | | Grant v. Magnolia Manor-Greenwood, Inc. | 678 S.E.2d 435 (S.C. 2009) | 6 | | Hirsch v. Amper Fin. Servs., LLC | 215 N.J. 174 (2013) | 7 | | In re Salomon Inc. Shareholders' Derivative Litigation | 68 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 1995) | 5, 10| | Int'l Bancshares Corp. v. Ochoa | 311 F. Supp. 3d 876 (S.D. Tex. 2018) | 10 | | Lawrence v. Commercial Cas. Ins. Co. | 22 N.J. Misc. 179, A.2d 683 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 1944) | 8, 9 | | Marino v. Shiff Realty Co. | 164 A. 577 (N.J.Com.Pl. 1933) | 9 | | Moss v. First Premier Bank | 835 F.3d 260 (2d Cir. 2016) | 5 | | Raritan Plaza I Associates, L.P. v. Cushman & Wakefield of New Jersey, Inc. | 273 N.J. Super. 64 (App. Div. 1994) | 7 | | Trade & Transport, Inc. v. Natural Petroleum Charters, Inc. | 931 F.2d 191 (2d Cir. 1991) | 3 | | Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC v. Sappington | 884 F.3d 392 (2d Cir. 2018) | 5 |
[brief] The lower Court rejected Plaintiff's argument on several grounds.  First, it found that the creation of distinct land uses in accordance with a redevelopment plan adopted pursuant to the LRHL cannot constitute unlawful spot zoning.  (Pa61 to Pa64).  That is not, however, what the Plaintiff argued.  Plaintiff recognizes that the Legislature contemplated that land in a redevelopment area may be subject to different use restrictions than land outside of a redevelopment area.  Plaintiff also recognizes that parcels of land within a redevelopment area, like parcels of land within a zoning district created under the MLUL, may be treated differently than other parcels within that redevelopment area -- provided there is a justification for such disparate treatment.  What Plaintiff contended, however, is that while disparate treatment among parcels within a redevelopment area may be warranted, there must be a justification to do so based upon planning principles, and none were in the summary judgment record.  Given the purposes which underlie the spot zoning assessment required in New Jersey land use case law, there is no reason to immunize property within a redevelopment area from a spot zoning analysis.
[brief] [...]’s vicious statements on the record were instructive of the dysfunctional way that [...] runs its and business and conducts its affairs, both internally and with third parties.  Cf. In re Vincenti, 152 N.J. 253, 276 (1998) (“The feral character of his groundless personal attacks . . . evidence only his rancorous disposition and his utter contempt for the basic sensitivities of other people.
[directive] That empirical state-of-the-art extensive, by validated process assessment the details that databases judiciary and enforcement law various in stored data objective on relies history.  court-appearance criminal and adult defendant's risk- pretrial automated the initiate to needed system is fingerprint Scan Live  The unique process, that in data used the To access AOC.3 the by approved process assessment process the generally to refers process" risk-assessment pretrial "automated phrase the Directive, in this used
[brief] On June 7th and July 14, 2023, the lower court conducted a plenary hearing regarding the remanded issues, and Plaintiff withdrew the requested relief regarding the modification in child support based upon cost-of-living increase.  The lower court heard testimony from both Plaintiff and Defendant.  Both children attended the June 7, 2023 proceeding, but neither testified.  During the plenary hearing, the lower court heard testimony that Defendant remarried, had two more children, and moved an hour away from Plaintiff’s home.
[directive] For example, if the victim is an intimate partner, terms such as ‘spouse,” “partner,” “girlfriend,” “boyfriend,” “husband,” or “wife,” should also be redacted, and to the extent possible the report should just indicate that the relationship between the victim and the officer was an enumerated relationship under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 et seq.).  INTERNAL AFFAIRS POLICY & PROCEDURES | November 2022 57
[brief] The Judge of Compensation found further that the educational system is critical and teachers are critical to that system, and even though teachers are not named in the statute, they perform functions which involve physical proximity to members of the public and essential to the public's health, safety, and welfare.  (2T892-17).  However, the section of the statute that the Judge of Compensation quoted (N.J.S.A. 34:15-31.11(3)) goes on to identify employees "including transportation services, hotel and other residential services, financial services, and the production, preparation, storage, sale, and distribution of essential goods such as food, beverages, medicine, fuel, and supplies for conducting essential business and work at home."  The Legislature's omission of teachers from the foregoing list of employees or places of employment is critical in this analysis, but was ignored by the Judge of Compensation.  The Judge of Compensation was not presented with any evidence during the motion to summarily find that this decedent was an essential employee.  In Lewicki v. N.J. Art Foundry, 88 N.J. 75 (1981), the Court explained a Judge of Compensation's obligation to make adequate findings based upon sufficient proofs in the record:  Although it must be kept in mind that Compensation Judges are regarded as experts, and their findings are entitled to deference, such findings nevertheless must be supported by articulated reasons grounded in the evidence.  Even a tribunal with expertise must predicate its ultimate determination on findings suggested by proofs to which it applies its special knowledge.  (Citations omitted).  Id. at 89-90.  Here, the Judge of Compensation's findings were not supported by articulated reasons that were grounded in the evidence.  The Judge of Compensation erred procedurally and substantively in declaring the decedent to be an essential worker.