ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] N.J.A.C. 7:8-1.2.  Stormwater management is both property and project-specific, often lending itself to multiple engineering solutions, so DEP’s stormwater oversight includes the Best Management Practices (BMP) Manual. \(^3\)  The BMP Manual \(^3\) N.J.A.C. 7:8-1.2 defines the "New Jersey Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Manual" or "BMP Manual" as “the manual maintained by [DEP] providing, in part, design specifications, removal rates, calculation methods, and soil testing procedures approved by [DEP] as being capable of contributing to achievement of the stormwater management standards specified in this chapter. ”  The rule notes DEP “periodically amend[s]” the manual “as necessary to provide design specifications on additional best management practices and new information on already included practices reflecting the best available current information about the particular practice and [DEP’s] determination as to the ability of that best management practice to contribute to compliance with the standards contained in this chapter. ”  It also provides guidance and examples of engineered mechanisms such as detention basins, infiltration basins, cisterns, grass swales, and vegetative filter strips, to address and meet the stormwater management regulations.  The BMP Manual offers many ways of achieving stormwater compliance, but an applicant may propose other stormwater management practices, as long as they meet the regulatory standards.  N.J.A.C. 7:8-1.2.  To meet the regulatory stormwater requirements, [...] proposed several stormwater control measures, including bioretention basins, infiltration basins, grass swales, manufactured treatment devices ("MTDs"), and modifications to the existing constructed wetlands (Basin 2) and the existing infiltration basin (Basin 3) from the prior partially constructed project.
[brief] I do appreciate, if one were to review in detail older tax maps (in many instances requiring a magnifying glass to read) and certain metes and bounds descriptions in older deeds in the chain of title, one could mathematically or otherwise determine that perhaps someone at some point thought the overall size of the combined parcels was 185 feet.  However, the Buyer and his attorney were presented at closing with an approved and recorded 2015 subdivision map (which was prepared by a professional surveyor and had been the subject of land use board professional review), as well as a recorded Confirmatory Deed in 2016, and a professionally prepared survey in 2017, all of which identify the property with 66.3 feet at its frontage.  The tax maps are notoriously inaccurate for metes and bounds, and no reasonable person or attorney would question a 1.3 foot differential between a tax map and a metes and bounds description based on a professionally prepared survey.  There is also no reason to believe the more modern survey and metes and bounds description in the 2015 and 2016 documents, prepared for and based upon a Land Use Board Approved Subdivision, would be inaccurate or less accurate than any older attempts to measure the size of the lots.  It also does not appear the Buyer’s title company identified any defect in the description of the lot.
[directive] CONFIRMACIÓN DE RECIBO DEL “AVISO DE POSIBLE OBLIGACIÓN LEGAL”  Yo, , recibí una copia de este AVISO DE Firma de la persona citada POSIBLE OBLIGACIÓN LEGAL del oficial de la policía cuyo nombre aparece a continuación.  DECLINO, POR ESCRITO, EL RECIBO DEL “AVISO DE POSIBLE OBLIGACIÓN LEGAL” , was given a copy of this POTENTIAL Print Name of Person
[brief] Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion to the contrary, the Board does not claim that “a right is only well-settled where there is binding legal authority on the precise legal issue applied to the precise set of facts” (Pb25).  Rather, the question is whether “the right on which the plaintiff founds his claim…involve[s] a novel legal problem. ”  Crowe, supra, at 139.  The issue in the instant matter, whether a school district’s parental notification policy regarding notification to a minor student’s parents about their own children, can be found to be violative of the NJLAD, does present “a novel legal” issue.
[brief] *Id.* at *71.  In a related coverage action, the Board’s insurance carrier contended that the “knowing violation of rights of another” exclusion barred coverage for the tortious interference claim.  The Board’s “knowing violation of rights of another exclusion” stated that Coverage B does not apply to “[p]ersonal and advertising injury’ caused by or at the direction of the insured with the knowledge that the act would violate the rights of another and would inflict ‘personal and advertising injury.
[brief] ”**  Pb4.  The following zones in [...] include these uses, and some include all:  - Adult community housing  Zones R-27 ABCDEF, OB 1A, - Senior citizen housing Zones AH-1 -2, -4 - Assisted Living facilities  Zones OB1-3, OB1A, OB2A-4, OB-5, I, IA,A-1B, I-2,I-2A  - Nursing homes  Zones same as assisted living - Residential health care facilities  Zones R-27 ABCDEF, - Elder care centers Zones R-27 ABCDEF, TC1, TC2, - Hospitals Zones I, IA, I-1B, I-2, I-2A - Apartments multi family Zones AH-1, -2, -4, AHR-1,-2, TH/MFD, TC1,TC2, Rt 202 Stiles  See Da 400-01.  **Overlaps are:** - OB 1A = adult community housing, assisted living and nursing homes - R-27 ABCDEF= adult community housing and elder care centers - AH-1, -2, -4 = senior citizen housing and apartments multi family - OB 2A-4, OB 1-3, OB-5 = assisted living and nursing homes --- \(^2\)“Although the zone standards applicable to the various existing and proposed senior housing zones are not applicable to the applicant’s property, and are provided for comparison purposes only, …the intensity of the proposed development – both in terms of density (dwelling units per acre) and floor area ratio (total gross floor area divided by total site area) – is substantially higher than the maximum permitted densities and floor area ratios where same are regulated for senior housing facilities.
[brief] *Michael A. Walter Builders, Inc. vs. Bednar*, 2011 WL 4407462, at *5.  (App. Div. 2011).  See also *Goldstein vs. Barclay Amusement Corporation*, 123 N.J.L. 166 (1939) at 169 (it is always within the province of the contracting parties to waive a provision …. and to modify a written contract by parole, unless the agreement is of a character required to be in writing by a peremptory rule of law.)  See also *Stark vs. National Research & Design Corp.*, 33 N.J. Super. 315, 322 (1950) where the Court found that the landlord’s oral consent to and approval of an assignment of a lease constituted a waiver of the covenant against assignment without written consent.  Citing *Dries vs. Trenton Oil Co. Inc.*, 17 N.J. Super. 591 (App. Div. 1952) and *Van Dusen Aircraft Supplies, Inc. vs. Terminal Const. Corp.*, 3 N.J. 321, (1949).  Therefore, based on the foregoing authority, there is no requirement of a writing and where it is clear the parties made the modification, the Court will find a waiver of the writing requirement.  Here, it is clear from the surrounding facts that the parties orally modified the Lease, and in so doing waived the writing requirement contained in Paragraph 17 of the Lease.
[directive] Complete parts A and B of the Record Request Form for an Individual to Obtain Copies of Their Own Expunged and/or Sealed Records (CN 12830) and submit it by email to [...].  4.  In most instances a court hearing is not necessary.  However, if there are any concerns about your request or the identification that was presented, you may be asked to appear before a judge to determine if your request should be granted.  5.
[brief] Defendant may also contend that its communications with its agents are governed by § 1692c(b).  Two observations about that argument.  First, if all of Defendant’s agents are authorized recipients under § 1692c(b), then the section’s expressed authorization of communications with one specific agent, the debt collector’s attorney, would be rendered superfluous.  There is no reason to expressly authorize one specific type of agent if communications are permitted for all agents.  Second, there is nothing in the record on this R. 4:6-2(e) motion demonstrating that Defendant’s mail vendor is its agent.  POINT VI.
[brief] [...], a resident of [...], [...], New Jersey, died testate on July 5, 2020.  (Pa1, ¶1).  She was unmarried and had no children.  (Pa1, ¶2).  On January 26, 2021, [...] was appointed temporary Administrator of the Estate.  (Pa89-Pa93).  Appellant is [...]’s nephew.  (Pa3, ¶4).  [...] is Appellant’s sister and [...]’s niece.  *Id.*  [...] was [...]’s sister and Appellant and [...]’s mother.  (Pa3, ¶3).  [...] died on or about October 9, 2020.  (Pa3, ¶4).  [...] and [...] jointly owned properties in New York City, (the “UES Property”) and Long Beach, New York (the “Long Beach Property”) through entities.  (Pa47, ¶14); (Pa48, ¶19); (Pa49, ¶24); (Pa50, ¶29).  The court has ruled that Appellant was not an owner of either of those entities.  (Pa47, ¶13); (Pa49, ¶23).
[brief] (24T 101-15 to 16)  [...] also testified that [...] told her his last name was [...] (24T 88-16), and that he worked at [...] (24T 89-9 to 10); [...] thereafter contacted [...] and determined that [...] was not an employee.  (24T 99-6 to 9)  [...] did not testify, but when he was interrogated the next day, on February 8, he gave his name as [...] (25T 13-8), and said that he worked in Bayonne, indicating that [...] may have misheard.
[brief] **CONCLUSION**  Based upon the foregoing arguments, the [...] hereby respectfully requests that PERC’s decision be reversed, that the [...] is determined to have violated N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3 and N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(b)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act, and that that Board is determined not to have violated the Act.
[brief] TABLE OF CONTENTS  C.  The Trial Court Correctly Dismissed [...]’ Complaint Because the Claims Against the [...] Were Barred Pursuant to the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel......................22  POINT II.................................................................................................................................24  THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DENIED PHILLIPS’ MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND CORRECTLY FOUND THAT THE SUBSTITUTION OF PLAINTIFF FROM MR. PHILLIPS TO [...] WAS FUTILE BECAUSE THE PHILLIPSES WERE THE ONLY PRINCIPALS AND THEY HAD ALREADY LITIGATED THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS (Order: Pa 1a-2a)..................................................................................................................24
[directive] The court may also Uniform Criminal Extradition Law commit the person to the county jail as provided by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Law, N.J.S.A. 2A:160-6 et seq.  These defendants are not eligible defendants.  This Rule provides that a Superior Court judge may set monetary bail for any offense and may set monetary bail or take any action in accordance with the Uniform Rule 3:26-2(a) Criminal Extradition Law, N.J.S.A. 2A:160-6 et seq., for any person arrested in any extradition proceeding.  These defendants are not eligible defendants.  Judges Uniform Criminal Extradition Law shall evaluate the crime charged and other relevant circumstances.  Under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Law, a 10% cash bail or alternative is probably permissible if the judge decides to set a monetary bail rather than holding the defendant without bail.  This Rule provides for proceedings to be conducted by a Superior Court judge in a matter where either the prosecutor or defense counsel is concerned that a Rule 3:26-3 person with material and relevant information in a pending case may fail to respond to a subpoena.
[brief] As stated throughout this appellate brief, the plaintiffs’ initial complaint and first amended complaint was focused on alleged oral misrepresentations told to them by [...]’s salespeople when they purchased timeshares.  Then on June 23, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint a second time in an attempt to introduce a litany of alleged Administrative Code Regulations promulgated by the Real Estate Commission and others related to the RETA.
[brief] The Supreme Court in Dunbar considered the definition of an application for development under the MLUL pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-3.  “Thus, the term “application for development” must be interpreted to mean “the application form and all accompanying documents required by Ordinance for approval of a subdivision plat, site plan, plan development, cluster development, conditional use, zoning variance or direction of the issuance of a permit. ”  N.J.S.A. 40:55D-3.  (emphasis added).  [...], supra, 233 N.J. at 561.  The amendment to Hoboken Code Section 196-33.1 in April 2022 imposed additional conditions i.e., distance requirements from a cannabis retail dispensary from a primary or secondary school or to an early childhood learning center, which conditions were not present in the ordinance when [...] first filed its application with the [...] seeking an endorsement to operate a cannabis “micro” dispensary.
[directive] uniform develop to as well applicants, as permit investigating reviewing and on procedures  Jersey's New under applications processing in follow to agencies police for standards statewide individuals practicable that extent the ensure to to be should goal  The laws. licensing firearms similarly-qualified from differently treated not are jurisdiction in one permit a for apply who jurisdiction.  another in permit a for apply who individuals Constitution Jersey New the under authority my pursuant to reasons, foregoing the For and 2C), (Title Justice Criminal Code of Jersey New the including State, this of statutes and the following the that Direct hereby I set,_, 52:17B-97 et N.J.S.A. 1970, of Act Justice Criminal the taken: be actions
[directive] Role of Police Communications  8.1  The communications operator shall do the following during a vehicular pursuit: (a) immediately notify a police supervisor of a pursuit in progress if a supervisor has not already been otherwise notified; (b) keep the supervisor apprised of the duration and progress of the pursuit; and (c) obtain from the pursuing officer any information listed in Section 4.3 of this Policy that was not initially provided by the pursuing officer.  8.2  When possible, a police supervisor shall determine whether there is a need to assume control over and coordinate pursuit related communications.  8.3  All law enforcement agencies shall establish procedures to ensure that radio channels remain open for pursuit related transmissions and that all necessary information is made available to officers involved in the pursuit.  9
[brief] Near [...]’s body, the police recovered a tequila bottle, five shell casings, and one projectile; four more projectiles and one projectile fragment were found during the autopsy.  (1T 99-2 to 126-13; 4T 58-14 to 19)  The police did not attempt to dust the spent casings for fingerprints; one detective said such attempts proved fruitless in his past experience.  (1T 120-7 to 126-23)  The State’s ballistics expert, [...], said the markings on four shell casings and three projectiles indicated that they were all fired from a Glock 9-millimeter pistol.  (4T 152-2 to 162-12)  [...] admitted that Glock is one of the most popular firearm brands, being used by about 70% of U.S. police departments and the U.S. military, and he estimated that there are at least five million Glocks in circulation in the United States.  (4T 154-16 to 166-2)  Police obtained several surveillance videos from nearby properties, which were admitted through the testimony of [...].
[brief] 7T 106:3-5.  The Board Chairman reviewed the relevant history of zoning along Changebridge Road, his acceptance of the project as inherently beneficial, and his concern that the project was stacking 165 people into this facility.  7T 145-150.  [...] also accepted that the use was inherently beneficial, but was concerned about the density proposed.  7T 150:20-151:22.  He described the unit density as “way too high for this particular site… it changes the character of the zone which is, you know R-R20 residential. ”  7T 151:17-20 (emphasis added).  [...] stated that the governing body considered this use for this lot and decided not to rezone it.  7T 156:2-10.  He continued:  ... we have an inherent—an inherently beneficial use in an area in which our governing body gave consideration to it in our reexamination in 2019, and did nothing on it.  It came up in conversation, and that’s not where they moved this.  So, uh one of the comments was, you know, um are we in – then by not moving this forward, are we violating rules, or policies or procedures, or such?  I-I believe if my governing body has looked at this with their reexamination of the master plan, and they have embraced senior housing in an addendum to that master plan, and this piece of land isn’t it, I-I-I still have to go with what would have been expected in the R-20 zone.  7T 157:13-17 (emphasis added).  The Board then voted 5-2 on July 7, 2021, to deny the application, and on August 4, 2021, adopted the memorializing resolution denying the application.
[brief] “Judicial estoppel, sometimes called the ‘doctrine against the assertion of inconsistent positions’ is a judge-made doctrine that seeks to prevent a litigant from asserting a position inconsistent with the one that she has previously asserted in the same or a previous proceeding. ”  Danise v. Saxon Mortg. Servs., No. 15-06062 (JLL), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174888 (D.N.J. Dec. 19, 2016), affirmed Danise v. Saxon Mortg. Servs., 738 Fed. Appx. 47 * (3d Cir. 2018), (quoting Ryan Operations G.P. v. Forrest Paint Co., Inc., 81 F.3d 355, 368 (3d Cir. 1996)).
[brief] ARTICLE VI  Operation of the Property SECTION 2.  INSURANCE  A.  The Board of Directors shall be required to obtain and maintain, to the extent obtainable, the following insurance upon the Commercial Common and Limited Common Elements and upon the equipment and personal property owned by the Association.  The policies so obtained shall be for the benefit and protection of the Association and the owners of the Units and their respective mortgages as their interests may appear as well as the condominium to the extent required by the provisions of the Amendment.  If agreeable to the insurer, such policies shall include provisions that they be without contribution, that improvements to Units made by Unit Owners shall not affect the valuation of the Property for purposes of insurance and that the insurer waives its rights of subrogation as to any claims against the Unit Owners, the Association and their respective employees, servants, agents and guests.  The coverage shall be against the hereinafter enumerated perils and contingencies.  (1)  CASUALTY  All improvements upon the Property and all personal property including therein, except such personal property as may be owned by the Unit Owners, shall be insured in an amount equal to the maximum insurable replacement value thereof (exclusive of excavation, foundations and other construction components customarily excluded) as determined periodically by the insurance company affording such coverage.  Such coverage shall afford protection against: (a) Loss or damage by fire or other hazards covered by the standard extended coverage endorsements; and (b)  Such other risks as from time to time customarily shall be covered with respect to buildings similar in construction, location and use as the building including but not limited to vandalism, malicious mischief, windstorm and water damage  (2)  COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC LIABILITY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE in such amount as in such forms, as shall be required by the Association, including, but not limiting the same to water damage, legal liability hired automobiles, non-owned automobiles and off premises employee and coverages.  (3)  WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION coverage to meet the requirements of law.  All liability insurance shall contain cross liability endorsement to cover liabilities of the Association and the Unit Owners, as a group, to an individual owner.  Each unit owner shall obtain insurance at his own expense, affording coverage upon his personal property, including betterments and improvements, and for his personal liability and as may be required by law, these By-Laws, the Master Deed and By-Laws of the [...], A condominium, Non Profit Corporation for the State of New Jersey (the “Condominium”) dated March 26, 1980 and which was filed in the office of the Register of Hudson Couty on March 26, 1980 in Deed Book 3297 at page 775 et. Seq. as thereafter amended and the Amendment to the Master Deed filed buy the property dated May 2, 2008 and filed in the office of the Hudson County Register on May, 2008 in Deed Book at Page .
[brief] 12 State v. Locascio, 425 N.J. Super. 474 (App. Div. 2012) ................................. 27 State v. McGuire, 419 N.J. Super. 88 (App. Div. 2011) ..................................  12 State v. Medina, 147 N.J. 43 (1996) ............................................................... 41, 42 State v. Morais, 359 N.J. Super. 123 (App. Div. 2003) ..................................
[brief] Keeping a $330 million ratable off the Township’s tax rolls for 30 years will reduce the Township’s share of school taxes while shifting an estimated $25 million of school costs to Plaintiffs.  Over the same time period, the developer will earn by its own calculation a 67.9% return on equity.  Pa705, par 18.  At the public hearing on the Ordinance that approved the Financial Agreement granting the exemption and PILOT, the Township’s legal and financial experts advised the governing body and the public that the Long-Term Tax --- 1  The three transcripts in this appeal are designated T1 (hearing before [...] on February 22, 2022); T2 (argument before Trial Court on motion to suppress discovery on September 9, 2022); T3 (trial on March 28, 2023).  Exemption Law “allows municipalities to grant PILOTs [to] the projects that would not otherwise be able to be financed,” T1.51:14-52:4, and that, based on a “comprehensive financial analysis” it has been determined that “[t]his project would likely not occur in its current form without a PILOT.
[brief] From his start in law enforcement in April of 1989 but prior to October 17, 2015, [...] was never involved in any off-duty motor vehicle accidents in which he was injured.  (1T20-21).  From his start in law enforcement in April of 1989 but prior to October 17, 2015, [...] was never involved in any off-duty falldowns in which he was injured.  (1T21).
[brief] The Order of 1/11/2022 (DA76) extended the deadline for Probation to comply for a “full accounting for the period 10/1/1998 to the present, and to identify any credits due Appellant, citing a previous trial court’s Order of 7/20/2012 (see item no. 5 above).  15.  After months of delay, Probation submitted its 3rd attempt at a “full accounting” on 3/22/2022.  The Order of 4/4/2022 (DA80) deemed it complete.  16.  Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration on 4/22/2022.  The Court denied the Motion without prejudice in its Order of 5/27/2022 (DA90), but due to Court dysfunction, the Court did not provide Appellant with the Order until Jan. 25, 2023.  17.  Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal of the Order of 5/27/2022 with a Motion to File Within Time on 2/28/2022.