ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] “What is being tested in the preliminary inquiry as to admissibility is whether the choice made by the witness represents his own independent recollection” or observation at the time of the crime charged or results from the suggestive pretrial identification.  *State v. Farrow*, 61 N.J. 434, 451 (1972).  Defendant apparently seeks to expand this rule of admissibility to situations in which there has been no suggestive out-of-court identification, but only an allegedly suggestive in-court identification.
[brief] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Pa1  Defendant Motion to Vacate Default Judgment . . . Pa3 Notice of Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pa3 Proposed Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pa5 Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[brief] The Plaintiff in this case is a chess player.  The Plaintiff had a history of playing in the Defendant’s events.  In the Plaintiff’s own words:  "Plaintiff [...], who is a chess player and participant in the defendants’ events, shall refer to himself in the first person."  Pa3  This case involves the 2017 World Open Game 10 Championship.  That is a side event that takes place one night during the week that the World Open is held.  The World Open is held over seven days.  The World Open G/10 is played in one night.  Almost 6 years to the day of the 2017 G/10 tournament, the Plaintiff filed a wide ranging lawsuit against the Defendants alleging among other things: 1.  That non-party [...] ("[...]") is wrongfully using "United States" and "Federation" in their name; 2.  Some people have alleged that [...] has too much power because, in addition to running the [...], over the years he volunteered his time to the [...]; 3.  The 2017 G/10 tournament started at close to 11 pm rather than at 10 pm; 4.  He wasn't awarded multiple prizes; and 5.  Even though the [...] announced they would use the higher of a player's regular rating or quick rating, he thought that decision was unfair.  The Defendants paid out 100% of the guaranteed prize fund.  The Plaintiff was paid his prize.  He asked if they calculated it correctly and they assured him they did.  The Plaintiff took the check and cashed the check.  Six (6) years later, the Plaintiff filed this lawsuit.  The trial court gave the Plaintiff his day in court.  After hearing the parties’ testimony and having let them put documents into evidence, the trial court ruled against the Plaintiff on multiple grounds.  Those rulings were correct and the appeal should be denied.
[directive] On August unprecedented system.  This Jersey's adult criminal justice sweeping changes to New will lead to Article I, includes an amendment to January 1, 2017, which takes effect on reform initiative, overwhelmingly For the by voters.  Constitution that was approved paragraph 11 of the New Jersey of detention order the preventive will authorized to history, courts be in the State's first time with non-capital crimes.  chaxged dangerous defendants  Although impact on police and prosecutors.  significant  Bail Reform Law will have a The ultimately will affect how cases decision, provisions on pretrial release its the the new statute focuses an arrest to police make criminal justice process, from the moment stage of the handled at every are New Jersey's law essential, therefore, that pleads guilty.  It is when defendant is tried or time a the in manner that m~imizes public a implement these reforms prepare to enforcement community undertaken before consequences.  Certain steps must be collateral controlling costs and safety while constitutional amendment' so that new of the new statute and date January 1, 2017 effective the can be prosecutors and so that police and and tested, procedures can be developed and practices procedures.
[brief] T24-19-24.  The permission to use the credit cards is clearly a disputed fact in this matter.  T24-1-20.  Thus, at issue is the timing of the plaintiff’s termination after complaining for two years, versus the allegations of the alleged, but disputed, use of the credit cards.  It is noted that counsel for the plaintiff appropriately argued: “Did defendant, [...] have the authority to do that?  Again, if that’s not a factual issue, I don’t know what is. ”  T25-22-25.  Although the trial court did acknowledge that the plaintiff “likely has satisfied the requirement for a ‘whistle-blowing activity’”, we submit that based upon the record below the trial court did not have any rational basis to conclude that the plaintiff failed to carry “his burden under CEPA. ”  Pa9; second and third paragraphs.  The disputed fact regarding permission to use the credit cards, and the complaints made about the pens and the adverse action of his termination, are and should properly be heard by a jury for determinations on credibility and veracity, and to weigh such facts on the CEPA claim.
[brief] Proposed Order Notice of Appeal to NJ Superior Court  11/05/2021  Notice of motion for waiver of transcript fees and cost Dated 11/05/2021  Application in Support of a Support Fee  Waiver Dated 11/11/2021  State v. [...] Documents Submitted on JEDS by [...] Complaint Summons 2/20/2020 (Attached at Pa0041)  Forwarded Email Conversation Regarding [...] Documents Exhibit C-4 to [...]’s Certification Notice of Appeal to NJ Superior Court 11/05/2021 (Attached at Pa185)  Notice of motion for waiver of transcript fees and cost Dated 11/05/2021 (Attached at Pa186)  Application in Support of a Support Fee Waiver Dated 11/11/2021 (Attached at Pa187)  [...] Zoom Session 2PM Oral Argument 6/23/2021  Exhibit C-5 to [...]’s Certification [...] Letter to [...] and [...] 12/24/2020 (Attached at Pa108)  Certification of Eldridge [...] to Motion to Dismiss and suppress 10/14/2020
[brief] On November 16, 2022, defendants filed their Answer to plaintiffs’ Complaint.  On January 4, 2023, plaintiffs filed their Motion for Summary Judgment.  On March 23, 2023, defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.  On April 11, 2023, both plaintiffs’ Motion and defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment were heard before the Honorable [...], J.S.C.  On April 28, 2023, Judge Lucas entered an Order denying both Summary Judgment Motions and setting May 31, 2023 as the date for trial of this matter.  Pa 73a.  On May 18, 2023, Judge Lucas entered an Amended Order correcting the due date for filing defendants’ trial brief.  Pa 75a.  On May 31, 2023, a trial was conducted in the matter below before the Honorable [...], J. S.C.  On June 20, 2023, Judge Lucas entered a Trial Order upholding the [...]’s and [...]’s actions below and dismissing plaintiffs’ Complaint.  Pa 77a.  On August 3, 2023, plaintiffs-appellants filed their Notice of Appeal, Pa 79a and Civil Case Information Statement, Pa 83a.  On August 31, 2023, plaintiffs-appellants filed their Amended Notice of Appeal.  Pa 89a.  Plaintiffs-appellants now file their initial brief and appendix.
[brief] Plaintiff’s claim is not for a “failure-to-timely-recall,” but rather for failure to warn – post sale pursuant to N.J.S.A. Sec. 2A:58C-4.  [...] raised the issue of [...]’s failure to warn – post sale in her Complaint, filed on November 5, 2020, at paragraphs 39, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49.  (Da0001 at ¶¶ 39, 44, 45, 47, 48 and 49)  [...] also addressed this argument in both of her Oppositions to [...]’s Motions for Summary Judgment.  (Pa001, ¶¶ 9, 18-22, 24, 25, 31, 34-36; Pa037, ¶¶ 9, 18-22, 24, 25, 31, 34-36)  Additionally, both of [...]’s Responsive Statements of Undisputed Material Facts address [...]’s abrogation of its duty to warn after it became aware of the defects on June 21, 2018.  (Pa029, ¶¶ 14, 25, 29, 51-53; Pa066, ¶¶ 14, 25, 29, 51-53)  C.
[brief] He read that letter into the record:  I'm a lifelong resident of [...] and lived on [...] for sixty-two of my seventy years.  For twenty of those years, [...] has been our neighbor.  Through the years he's been a good neighbor who always friendly and willing give others a helping hand when needed.  Just one example, when my truck was stranded in the middle of the street, Dominick did not hesitate to stop his car to get out and help me push back into a driveway.  He is a good person, hardworking family man.  Recently very late at night, Dominick struck my son's car.  No one in the house heard the crash.  Nor any neighbors.  He did not want to ring doorbells in the middle of the night.  I was sure he was upset and unsure of what to do.  He parked his car in the driveway across the street in plain view of all neighbors.  He did not attempt to flee, or hide is vehicle.  The first thing the next morning, he came to our house and took full accountability for what happened.  He apologized for profusely and we're more than happy to accept the apology.  It was an accident.  No one was hurt.  Since that day, he has called me or came over the house almost every day to make sure that the insurance was handling the claim exponentially.  Excuse me.  When he was -- when it was not moving quickly enough, he made numerous calls to call the insurance company to make sure that we were not inconvenienced and to get our vehicle taken care of.  Thank you in advance for your understanding of the circumstances involved in this incident.
[brief] See *Rocky Hill*, 406 N.J. Super.  at 401; *Willoughby*, 306 N.J. Super. at 277 (“The extent of the public interest in this matter is underscored by the fact that the rezoning . . . was a central issue in the municipal election held two months after adoption of the ordinance and that the members of the council who voted for the change were defeated by candidates committed to repealing the ordinance”).  No such organized political campaign existed in *Rocky Hill*, nor did the “diversity amongst the individual plaintiffs, the number of public meetings surrounding the application, [or] the turnout at those meetings” manifest actual political activity or consequence.
[brief] Pa135.  On May 14, 1996, the City adopted the Oceanfront—Broadway Redevelopment Plan (the “Redevelopment Plan”) in order to achieve the redevelopment of an underdeveloped segment of the oceanfront and underutilized commercial area west, north and sought of the intersection of Broadway and Ocean Boulevard.  Pa139.  The property known as block 216, lots 11, 12 and 24 (formerly lots 13 and 24) on the City’s tax map (the “290 Ocean Property”) was designated as part of the Beachfront South Sector of the Redevelopment Area under the Redevelopment Plan.  Pa140; Pa159.  The Redevelopment Plan provided that the objective for the Beachfront South Sector was “to continue the mid-rise residential pattern of 4-to-8-story structures that maximize views to the Atlantic. ”  Pa144.  The Redevelopment Plan further described the “development/design requirements” for the Beachfront South Sector.  Pa144-145.  Design Guidelines Handbook 6, applicable to the Beachfront South Sector, set forth the requirements regarding density, building coverage, building lines, bulk and height.  Pa172.  Section 15 of the Redevelopment Plan, entitled “Procedures for Changing Redevelopment Plan,” provided:  The Redevelopment Plan may be amended from time to time by the City Council of the [...], provided that, if amended after the disposition of any land in the Redevelopment Area, the modification must be consented to in writing by designated developers.  Any amendments to the Redevelopment Plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Board of the [...].  After such review, the Planning Board shall make recommendations to the City Council, which may adopt the changes by ordinance.  Such ordinance shall specify the relationship of the proposed changes or amendments to the City Master Plan and the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan.  [Pa156].  [...], P.P., AICP (“[...]”), who testified as a representative of the City under R. 4:14-2(c), interpreted Section 15 to mean that “any designated redeveloper of a specific piece of property must be notified before the plan is amended,” and that if a redeveloper owns a piece of property not subject to the amendment, its consent would be unnecessary.  Pa184-185.  II.
[brief] Except in cases of fraud, injustice, or the like, courts will not pierce a corporate veil.  Lyon v. Barrett, 89 N.J. at 300, 445 A.2d 1153.  The purpose of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is to prevent an independent corporation from being used to defeat the ends of justice, Telis v. Telis, 132 N.J. Eq. 25, 26 A.2d 249 (E. & A.1942), to perpetrate fraud, to accomplish a crime, or otherwise to evade the law, Trachman v. Trugman, 117 N.J. Eq. 167, 170, 175 A. 147 (Ch.1934).  [emphasis added]
[brief] Intervenor [...] through its principal, [...] was well aware of the situation prior to buying the property and knew the risk that he was taking with regards to the property acquired by Tax Foreclosure from [...].  This knowledge is evident when Frenkel (341 Connecticut) asked [...] ([...]/[...]) the following in texts in the WhatsApp messages at 196a:  [2/13/22, 8:48:44 AM]  Frenkel  Josh Frenkel: [...] can i buy for 400k [2/14/22, 10:25:40 AM]  Frenkel  Josh Frenkel: yes [2/14/22, 10:25:56 AM]  Frenkel  Josh Frenkel: was the taxes paid or your final judgment is real [2/14/22, 10:33:29 AM]  ✷: I own it FJ is very real [2/14/22, 10:46:40 AM]  Frenkel  Josh Frenkel: wow locky you [sic]  Frenkel is no stranger to the risks involved in buying a property from Mr. [...] that has been acquired in a tax foreclosure.
[brief] Defense counsel also chose a theme for their case, which was common sense (3T, at 13:13-22, 14:18-21).  Just like Plaintiff’s counsel, Defense counsel repeated this theme throughout their opening statement and closing argument so that the jury would view the case from their perspective.  Second, the record reveals that the purpose of the theme of accountability was not to call for punitive action against Defendants, but to safeguard Plaintiff’s interests.  Defendants stress that they have a right to dispute claims against them, but equally so does Plaintiff have the burden of proving these claims.  This was a stipulated liability case, and so Plaintiff had an obligation to orient the jury’s understanding of what this meant.  Most Americans have no familiarity with civil procedure.  They would be confused as to how Plaintiff could bring a personal injury claim without any discussion of liability.  If left unaddressed, this could have been severely detrimental to Plaintiff’s case.  For this reason, Plaintiff’s counsel took great care to explain to the jury how civil law works, and how this case ended up before them, using the notion of accountability.  Looking at Plaintiff’s counsel’s summation in context, they were not blindly imploring the jury to punish Defendants for their negligent conduct, but were clarifying the terms of why, and how, Plaintiff was requesting compensation.
[brief] On review of Summary Judgment:  R. 4:46-2(c) provides that a motion for summary judgment must be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter of law."  The court must "consider whether the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, are sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party."  Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995).  On Review of the Trial Below
[directive] Guidelines for Stationhouse Adjustment of Juvenile Delinquency Offenses  Table of Contents  Stationhouse Adjustments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3  Mandatory Availability of Stationhouse Adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3  Stationhouse Adjustments to be Performed by Juvenile Officers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4  List of Available Referral Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4  Offenses to be Considered for Stationhouse Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Excluded Offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Other Factors to be Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Minimum Required Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Suggested Additional Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Quarterly Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[brief] Similarly, and also discussed below under heading V., the Board found that the computer-generated rendering exhibits prepared and presented on behalf of Plaintiffs by [...] were not probative because he admitted to the Board that he had never compared his renderings to actual post development conditions.  Ja029.  5T 96:17-23.  The Board contrasted [...]’s computer-generated renderings, which the Board found to be unreliable, with the pre-development modeling done by Plaintiffs’ Sound Expert, [...], which is regularly compared to post development sound studies to confirm actual compliance with sound regulations and confirm the reliability of the modeling.  Ja029.  The Board’s detailed analysis of the reasons stated in the Board’s Resolution for rejection of the arguments and testimony of Plaintiffs’ planner are detailed below under heading VI.  Each of these findings by the Board was reasonable and founded in the record, and collectively they resulted in the Board’s conclusion that Plaintiffs did not prove their case.
[brief] As the Court is aware, Plaintiff, [...] (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “[...]”), filed an application for development (the “Application”) with Defendant, [...] (hereinafter “Defendant” or the “Board”), seeking approval of a d(5) density variance, lot consolidation, preliminary major site plan approval, along with variance and design exception relief for property designated as [...] on the official Tax Map of the Township of Toms River.
[brief] (3T54-2 to 24).  He conducted three wet and dry tests of the concrete floor, and concluded “[t]he concrete floor along which [...] was allegedly caused to fall was slip-resistant under wet conditions in accordance with standard custom and practice. ” (3T60-6 to 61-10; Pa38 - Pa48).  On cross-examination, after stating “Nothing is slip-proof[,]” (3T83-12 to 16), he denied ever telling the defense attorneys (as stated by defense counsel in its opening at 2T34-19 to 37-6) that “it’s impossible to slip on that floor. ” (3T90-2 to 5).  However, when asked “Can you slip on this floor when it’s wet?”, he answered, “It’s very, very, low probability.  I mean, can you?  Realistically, no. ” (3T60-6 to 61-4).  He later added, “there’s always a one in a billion chance” while stating that “nothing is slip-proof. ” (3T83-12 to 23).  Despite the fact that the defense expert witness had been provided with the defendant’s incident report and the two color photographs depicting the mopped up floor and the slip hazard sign, the plaintiff was precluded from cross-examining the defense expert witness on these vital areas by the trial court’s ruling that these areas could not be referenced as subsequent remedial measures under Evid. R. 407 and the report could not be properly authenticated without plaintiff having called a representative of defendant to testify at trial.
[brief] ¹  “Aa” refers to [...]’s Appendix.  “Ab” refers to [...]’s Brief.  “Ra” refers to the Department’s Appendix.  “Cra” refers to the Department’s Confidential Supplemental Appendix.  Citations to the transcript of the hearings will be as follows:  T1 refers to the transcript of the hearing conducted on January 27, 2023.  T2 refers to the transcript of hearing conducted on January 30, 2023.  T3 refers to the transcript of hearing conducted on February 9, 2023.  T4 refers to the transcript of hearing dated February 10, 2023.  The transcription service sequentially numbered the pages from page 1 on January 27, 2023, to page 798 on February 10, 2023.
[brief] (Da115).  Plaintiff’s term as part-time County Counsel was to begin on July 1, 2018 and expire on June 30, 2021 at the stated hourly rate of $150.00 per hour for services performed as needed.  (Da115).  In a July 5, 2018 press release announcing Plaintiff’s appointment as part-time County Counsel, Plaintiff himself acknowledged that the County Counsel position had previously been occupied on a full-time basis, and that under his appointment it was returning to a part-time basis:
[brief] Continuing, the Court wrote, “The MLUL is also the paramount authority in the context of redevelopment. ”  *Id.* at *13.  Thus, [t]he MLUL’s authority to impose contributions requires a planning board to make certain findings, and for that reason an ordinance may not delegate that authority to the governing body or a redevelopment agency because “when the MLUL establishes criteria for a specific situation or confers authority on a specific entity, a municipality is not free to chart its own course. ”  *Id.*  In conclusion, the Court found that:
[directive] All complaints against law enforcement officers are thoroughly investigated.  You will be kept informed of the status of the investigation and its ultimate outcome, if requested, and you provide contact information.  The exact discipline imposed is confidential, but you will be advised of the ultimate finding, namely :  a.  Sustained:  A preponderance of the evidence shows an officer violated any law; regulation; directive, guideline, policy, or procedure issued by the Attorney General or County Prosecutor; agency protocol; standing operating procedure; rule; or training.  b.  Unfounded: A preponderance of the evidence shows that the alleged misconduct did not occur.  c.  Exonerated: A preponderance of the evidence shows the alleged conduct did occur, but did not violate any law; regulation; directive, guideline, policy, or procedure issued by the Attorney General or County Prosecutor; agency protocol; standing operating procedure; rule; or training.  d.  Not Sustained: The investigation failed to disclose sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegation.  6.  If our investigation shows that a crime might have been committed, the county prosecutor will be notified.  You might be asked to testify in court.  7.  If our investigation results in an officer being charged with a violation of department rules, you might be asked to testify in a departmental hearing.  8.  If our investigation shows that the complaint is unfounded or that the officer acted properly, the matter will be closed.  9.  Internal affairs investigations are confidential and all disciplinary hearings shall be closed to the public unless the defendant officer requests an open hearing.
[brief] A zoning board's powers include the "judicial" role of deciding questions of credibility and whether to accept or reject testimony, expert or otherwise.  Griggs v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Princeton, 75 N.J. Super. 438, 446 (App. Div. 1962).  Although the governing body is the chief municipal legislative body, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-4, and is empowered to enact zoning ordinances, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-62, its power is tempered by the authority of the planning board and board of adjustment to permit deviation from those ordinances in appropriate circumstances.
[brief] Defense counsel admitted never considering retaining an expert for defendant:  Q  Did you ever consider retaining your own ballistics expert in this case?  A  No.  Q  Why not?  A  Well, again, it -- ballistics wouldn’t have showed or given any evidence to who possessed the gun.  So a ballistics expert wouldn’t have aided in the defense.  1T15  Q -- have you ever called a ballistics expert?  A  No.  Q  Have you ever seen a defense attorney call a ballistics expert in defense in this Courthouse?  A  No.  1T17