ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] Specifically, the Appellate Division found:  During deliberations, defense counsel told the judge that defendant thought the jurors had seen him with handcuffs on, although counsel had not witnessed that.  No further information was provided, such as when this occurred or which jurors may have seen defendant cuffed.  The trial judge advised defendant it would have been “impossible” for any juror to see him in handcuffs because the door to the hallway was always locked when defendant was brought in or out of the courtroom.  A sheriff’s officer was stationed outside the jury room door during these times and the jury was not permitted outside the room when defendant was in transit.  The anonymous letter raised this issue again, stating that on one or two occasions, jurors saw defendant wearing shackles and “he looked darker and more menacing while in handcuffs. ”  In response, the trial judge reiterated his courtroom procedures.  He also reviewed the court surveillance footage with counsel.  Over the three months of trial, the judge stated he only saw a glance of defendant’s handcuffs for a “matter of seconds. ”  However, when considering the distance from defendant’s seat to the jury room, the judge was confident defendant could not be seen by the jurors.  Moreover, at the specific time viewed in the footage, a sheriff’s officer was standing in the jury room doorway; no jurors could be seen.  [Da50].  See also (25T41-13 to 43-20).  Here, the PCR court properly found that the claims in the anonymous letter were nothing more than “bald assertions. ”  Defendant has not provided any affidavits or certifications from any other lab to support his baseless allegations.  Lastly, as previously found, the allegations contained in the letter were found to be baseless and unreliable.
[brief] 412-13a.  In assessing compliance the following year, the Court itemized [...]’s willful attempts to stymie affordable housing “spanning decades”:  I have already determined that [...] officials have relentlessly preserved and exacerbated economic and class segregation throughout the Borough.  There appeared to me to be a remarkably consistent and extreme pattern of exclusionary efforts characterized by what appears to be developing again.  That is, concentrated native opposition to affordable housing in certain areas of the Borough and acquiescence in that opposition by Borough officials.  In my October 2021 opinion I catalogued a variety of missed opportunities, failures of will and lack of resolve by governmental actors spanning decades regarding the Borough’s obligation to provide a realistic opportunity for low and moderate income housing.  I remain dumbfounded, that notwithstanding all of the accumulated history of this State’s exclusionary zoning litigation and the perils attendant thereto, that [...] appears to have overlooked its lessons, and is consigned to repeat the costly blunders of the past.
[brief] See, 24T23:8-28:15.  Nonetheless, defendants were severely prejudiced by the court’s decision to permit [...] to give testimony that included improper assessments of defendants’ motives regarding certain transactions because that net opinion testimony was the basis for the trial court’s judgment against defendants.  See, Point V.  The court selected transactions from [...]’s summary of damages and, accepting [...]’s conclusory testimony that each was “unauthorized,” considered them evidence of the remaining claims in plaintiffs’ complaint.  As a result, the trial court committed reversible error in (1) denying summary judgment, (2) permitting [...] to testify regarding his net opinions and (3) relying upon [...]’s net opinion testimony in reaching its conclusions.
[brief] This reply brief is submitted on behalf of defendant-respondent-cross appellant, [...] i/p/a [...] (“[...]”), in reply to plaintiffs’ response to [...]’s cross appeal seeking to reverse the Law Division’s denial of [...]’s motion to dismiss in lieu of answer and motion for summary judgment, both, on statute of limitations grounds and in the interests of justice, for plaintiffs’ failure to file the action against [...] within the applicable statute of limitations, and, upon reversal, granting [...] summary judgment and dismissing the third amended complaint with prejudice, for plaintiffs’ failure to file the action against [...] within the applicable statute of limitations.
[brief] I, ¶ 1 | 25 | | N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 7 | 17 | | N.J. Const. art.  I, ¶ 9 | 25 | | N.J. Const. art.  I, ¶ 10 | 25 | | U.S. Const. amend.  V | 25 | | U.S. Const. amend.VI | 25 | | U.S. Const. amend.  XIV | 17, 25 |  PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[brief] PLAINTIFFS HAVE STANDING TO MAINTAIN THE CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW JERSEY LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION ON BEHALF OF THE CLASSES AGAINST WHICH DEFENDANTS HAVE DISCRIMINATED, AND SUCH DISCRIMINATION IS APPARENT.  The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”) provides legal remedies “to all persons protected by this act and that this act shall be liberally construed in combination with other protections available under the laws of this State[,]” including compensatory and punitive damages.  See N.J.S.A. 10:5-3.
[brief] The Township challenged the arbitration petition of [...], asserting this forum falls outside the standards established by law and the court and should properly be heard before the Superior Court (see, N.J.A.C. 19:13.2.2(a)(5).  While the Commission was returning a decision in favor of the Township, [...] had already filed a complaint in Superior Court, Atlantic County, challenging the recommendation of [...].  [...] did not appeal the decision of the Public Employment Relations Commission.  POINT III APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PROPERLY PRESENT AND BRIEF AN ISSUE FOR APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT AND, AS SUCH, IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF REVIEW OF THE APPELLATE COURT.
[brief] [S]ubcontractors of a contractor registered pursuant to (N.J.SA. 34:11-56.48 et seq) are not required to register under that act if they do not perform work at any construction site subject to that act.  (emphasis provided)  As such, the PWCRA clearly does distinguish among the varying types of subcontractors, specifically exempting subcontractors who do not perform “work” on the site from the registration requirements of the PWCRA.
[brief] Rule 3-5 discusses the requirements for arbitrator consideration and states with regard to affirmative defenses that:  Rule 3-5 (a) pertains to affirmative pleadings and defenses/exclusions.  An arbitrator may not raise these arguments for a party.  Per Rule 2-4 (Chapter 17), the parties must assert these arguments, if applicable, where provided or they are waived.  It is also important to note that supporting evidence must be listed and submitted, i.e., case law, statute, etc.  Last, AF strongly recommends that a party asserting an affirmative defense/exclusion regarding a lack of jurisdiction complete the entire filing, including its liability and damages arguments and evidence as though the defense does not apply.
[brief] The factors to be considered in determining whether a confidential relationship is present, therefore, include whether trust and confidence between the parties actually exist, whether they are dealing on terms of equality, whether one side has superior knowledge of the details and effect of a proposed transaction based on a fiduciary relationship, whether one side has exerted over-mastering influence over the other or whether one side is weak or dependent.  As one court has said, "there are innumerable cases involving confidential relationships, but the courts have not been able precisely to define what it is."  Stroming v. Stroming, 12 N.J. Super. 217, 224, 79 A.2d 492 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 8 N.J. 319, 85 A.2d 272 (1951).  Its essentials are both "a reposed confidence and the dominant and controlling position of the beneficiary of the transaction."  Ibid.  "[T]he dominance must be of the mind and the dependence must be upon the mind," [***18] rather than the physical.  Ibid.  "It exists when the circumstances make it certain that the parties do not deal on equal terms."  Ibid.  It does not exist "where the parties deal on terms of equality," even though they are, at the same time, family members and business associates.  Ibid.  The test, then, is a fact-sensitive one, but focuses on the equality of the parties with respect to each another.  Id at 18 to 19.  (emphasis supplied).  In *Stewart v. Harris Structural Steel Co.*, 198 N.J. Super. 255 (App. Div. 1984) the court explained how a constructive trust works:
[brief] ”  (Ra356 58:11-21.)  [...] testified that the existing grade around the existing single family home in the center of the Property is approximately elevation 18 feet.  (Ra356 59:9-60:2.)  He also testified that to satisfy the State stormwater management requirements, the underground stormwater management system, located under the internal road near the proposed dwellings, would need to be at least 1 foot above the seasonal high water table.  (Ra356 59:9-60:2.)  The grading on the eastern portion of the Property (by the proposed dwellings) was driven by the seasonally high water table and the height of the underground stormwater system.  The proposed grading throughout the site, particularly where the new dwellings are proposed, increased to approximately 18 feet but did not exceed elevation 18 feet (the existing highest grade elevation on the Property).  (Ra356 60:3-6.)  So effectively, the grade for the Property was flattened out except where there were wetlands that could not be disturbed along Osprey Lane and in the rear.  [...] further stated that the regrading of the Property was done as part of a comprehensive grading plan for the entire site, which is common with any site plan.  (Ra356 60:6-9.)  As [...] explained, mounding (or pedestals) occurs when you stand a building up on legs, or a mound of dirt, which would be evidenced through each residential structure having its own mound that it was built up on.  (Ra356 60:10-15.)  The elevated grade the Plaintiffs are complaining about is grading that is part of a comprehensive grading plan in connection with the site plan, which is for the purpose of addressing the site features to make the site work in terms of stormwater management, sanitary sewer, and grading.  (Ra356 60:20-23.)  To assuage the Board’s concerns, [...], the Board’s professional planner, chimed in on the question of whether the Project complied with the height requirement based upon the Building Height Definition.
[brief] By demanding that the process be recorded, Plaintiff’s counsel seeks to neuter the Defendants’ ability to assess objectively a Plaintiff’s neuropsychologic claims.  Notably, neuropsychological evaluations utilize objective embedded "validity" scales that alert the practitioner when a subject is attempting to influence the results.  The effectiveness of the validity scale relies on the fact that the subject cannot be prepared to cheat the test.  Plaintiff's counsel's insistence on recording is part of a concerted industry-wide effort to evade the effectiveness of neuro-psychological examinations knowing that many of the best practitioners, like [...], will refuse to perform an examination under such conditions.  This phenomenon is well recognized in professional literature:
[directive] The substantive content of different public concerns from addressed those directives which three those deliberative and collaborative process by The directives is important.  the The to be critically important.  implemented turned out and thereafter also developed directives were in vacuum.  created a established by those directives were not cutting-edge policies and procedures between enforcement executives and law of candid conversations the product  Rather, they were leaders.  comrr~unity officer-involved directives were issued.  The when the conversations did not cease Those consisting of Committee, for the creation of an Advisozy directive called.  supplemental shooting how make recommendations on to law enforcement, tasked to community and members of the body-worn camera  The investigating police use-of-force incidents.  improve the process for further develop best practices on the use of tlaai Comnnittee an Advisory to established likewise directive namely, to underlying purpose, directives share a common that these Recognizing new technology.  Advisory Committees have since been merged.
[brief] TABLE OF CONTENTS  ...........................................................................................................  i  TABLE OF JUDGMENTS, ORDERS, AND RULINGS BEING APPEALED  ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................. iii  PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................  1  PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF FACTS ..............................................  2 LEGAL ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................  4  I.  The Proposed Stormwater System is Not Compliant with the Stormwater Management Rules, Therefore the Issuance of the FHA Permit Should be Reversed.  (Aa2521-Aa2537)  .........................................................................................  6  A.  The Application Fails to Meet the Water Quality Requirements Under the Stormwater Management Rules.  (Aa2521-Aa2537)  .......................................................  7  B.  The Application Fails to Meet Groundwater Recharge Requirements Under the Stormwater Management Rules.  (Aa2521-Aa2537).  ......................... 9  C.  The Application Fails to Meet Peak Flow Requirements Under the Stormwater Management Rules.  (Aa2521-Aa2537).  ..............................................  14  II.  The [...] Failed to Adequately Consider Impacts to Endangered or Threatened Wildlife Species Identified on Site, Therefore the Issuance of the FHA Permit Should be Reversed.  (Aa2576-Aa2616)  ..............................................  15  CONCLUSION
[brief] In furtherance of their attempt to whitewash the proceedings below in their entirety, Defendants argue that the trial court lacked jurisdiction.  That argument misses the mark.  First, as a matter of common sense, this case was pending before the trial court for over one year – subject to motion practice, numerous conferences, discovery, etc. – all while the appeal in the First Action was pending.  If the trial court lacked jurisdiction, the case would have been dismissed at the outset of the litigation.  Moreover, contrary to Defendants’ legal argument, it is well established that the filing of an appeal in one matter does not divest a trial court of jurisdiction in a completely separate action.
[brief] The facts at issue show clearly that the Board, in adopting the Amended Resolution, did not rely upon the Rendering which Appellant sets forth as the entire basis of his claim.  As such, if the Amended Resolution did not rely upon the Rendering when approving the Application, there can be absolutely no logical connection between the “standard,” contained in the Rendering, and the applicable standard in the Amended Resolution.  Griffin 225 N.J. at 413.  Appellant’s characterization of the Rendering, as well the Home Depot Advertisement as the applicable standard for the approved height of the building is plainly incorrect.  The Amended Resolution did not rely upon the Rendering, nor gave it any weight in approving the application.  Paragraph 46 of the Amended Resolution states in part:  During deliberation, none of the Commissioners expressed reliance on the [...] rendering, nor mentioned same or gave it any weight on the record and during deliberation.  [...] took exception to the [...] rendering during the hearings.  The architectural plan prepared by [...] contained the height of the proposed building, in terms of number of stories and height and the Applicant is bound by same unless additional relief is requested by way of an amended application to the Board.  (25a) (emphasis added).  The hallmark of admissibility is relevance, and in determining if evidence is relevant, “the trial court should focus on logical connection between the proffered evidence and a fact in issue…”  Rodriguez, 237 N.J. at 58.  In making relevancy determinations, trial courts are given broad discretion whilst they search for that logical connection.  Id. at 57.  As to the relevancy determination made by the Trial Court in this matter:  THE COURT:  I’m sustaining the objection.  It’s not relevant.  I need not waste any time about the rendering.  That’s not what [the Board] based their opinion on.  2T22:18-21.  The issues raised by the Appellant would substitute the Rendering, and Home Depot advertisement, neither of which was relied upon, for the approved site plans submitted along with the application, which were the basis of the Amended Resolution.  Because the Rendering was not relied upon and the Home Depot advertisement and accompanying photographs could not accurately provide any evidence regarding the height of the building, the Trial Court excluded them from the record.
[brief] On August 11, 2023 [...] filed a motion for summary judgment.  Plaintiff opposed both motions.  In addition, on September 26, 2023 Plaintiff filed a cross-motion seeking to consolidate the pending matter (Docket No. [...]) with a new lawsuit (Docket No. [...])(Pa488-Pa504) that Plaintiff had just filed against the [...], the Borough of [...] and Hon. [...], J.M.C., who previously found Plaintiff guilty of obstruction of justice and resisting arrest in the [...] Municipal Court.  On October 6, 2023 all motions were heard by Hon. [...], J.S.C.  Judge Rivas granted summary judgment to all Defendants and dismissed the Complaint with prejudice.  Pa533-Pa534.  Judge Rivas also denied Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate.
[brief] Most pertinent here, “[n]on-signatories of a contract . . . may . . . be subject to arbitration if the nonparty is an agent of a party or a third-party beneficiary to the contract. ”  Hojnowski ex rel. Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park, 375 N.J. Super. 568, 576 (App. Div. 2005) aff’d 187 N.J. 323 (2006); see also Crystal Point Condo. Inc. v. Kinsale Ins. Co., 466 N.J. Super. 471, 482 (App. Div. 2021), rev’d on other grounds, 251 N.J. 437 (2022) (“Non[-]signatories of a contract . . . may compel arbitration or be subject to arbitration if the nonparty is . . . a third[-]party beneficiary to the contract. ”) (second alteration in original) (quoting Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Zimmerman, 783 F. Supp. 853, 865 (D.N.J. 1992)).  A party’s third-party beneficiary status depends on “whether the parties to the contract intended others to benefit from the existence of the contract, or whether the benefit so derived arises merely as an unintended incident of the agreement.
[directive] Accordingly, a prosecutor is generally authorized to suspend the automatic escalation to the next plea offer in the graduated system when the tolling of the automatic escalation is necessary to afford the defendant a reasonable opportunity to accept or reject an outstanding plea offer.  In addition, prosecutors are authorized to “turn back” the plea offer (i.e., e.g., tender or re-instate a pre-indictment offer notwithstanding that a grand jury has returned an indictment) where the prosecutor determines that there has been a significant change in circumstances to warrant “turning back the clock” to a previously-tendered plea offer that would otherwise have expired.  (Note that the authority to “turn back the clock” is separate and distinct from the prosecutor’s authority at any time to make a Downward Departure for Trial Proof Issues to account for new developments in the case.  See Section 12.)
[brief] T4: 19-20.  The Plaintiff testified:  “You had to purchase that rulebook.  You know when you join a [...], they don’t give you a copy, you can pay your annual dues, but you have to pay extra to pay that rulebook. ”  T6:7-10.  He was actually familiar with the rulebook.  In the Plaintiff’s own words he knew it was a “nearly 400 page rulebook. ”  Pb9.  He also knew that the rulebook “changes constantly. ”  T6:10.  The Plaintiff undeniably knows the rules that apply to chess tournaments, including [...] tournaments.  Pa3.  We know this because the Plaintiff’s complaint states: “[T]he [...] will often change its rules and policies in ways that directly benefit … [the] [...] ([...]).
[brief] The Chairman of the Planning Board responded to question the First Amendment assertion, noting that the restriction is content neutral.  (3/20/23 Transcript @ T53:25-T54:4).  In response, Plaintiff’s representative asserted that the First Amendment right of the public to receive messages was implicated by the 1,000-foot intersection restriction, requiring the Township to justify its implicit safety concerns underpinning the ordinance, opining that the proposed billboard would create no safety concern based upon an alleged “lack of data” available to support that concern.
[brief] ”); *id.* at 22 (collecting cases); *United States v. Hill*, 818 F.3d 289, 298, 299 (7th Cir. 2016) (“Historical cell-site analysis can show with sufficient reliability that a phone was in a general area, especially in a well-populated one.  . . . the science is well understood. ”).  Defendant, however, focuses on the reliability of PCMD specifically, claiming that [...]’s “anecdotal” attestation to the reliability of PCMD was insufficient, given [...]’s disclaimer.
[brief] At the same time, Appellants concede, the Legislature granted that same authority to every school board and nearly every municipality in the state, including municipalities hosting non-operating school districts that have not yet been “merged” within another district.  Appellants do not explain why the Legislature would make such a narrow, baseless, and irrational distinction, which would arbitrarily trap certain municipalities, without reason or explanation, from withdrawing from a regional or consolidated school district, while permitting other, similarly- situated municipalities to do so.  More egregiously, Appellants’ position robs [...] and similarly- situated municipalities of the ultimate autonomy to make their own decisions concerning public education.
[brief] (ECF 63-2.)  [...] says she used Salesforce to manage, monitor, and service the [...] and [...] accounts, and that Salesforce files “contained numerous years’ worth of sales data, licensing information, pricing data, shipping records, backorder information, dates of shipment, contents of shipments” and “[d]ozens, if not hundreds, of notes” for these accounts.  (ECF 63-2 ¶¶ 6-10.)  [...] also says that Salesforce contained information regarding issues or complaints made by the school districts, which were assigned case numbers, and detailed data (including internal communications among various departments and employees at [...]) as to how each of the reports or complaints were resolved.  (ECF 63-2 ¶ 10.)  She explains that customer data kept in Salesforce “can be accessed for years into the future.
[brief] Certain factual questions, "including those relating to the nature and content of off-the-record conferences between defendant and [the] trial attorney," are critical to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and can "only be resolved by meticulous analysis and weighing of factual allegations, including assessments of credibility."  Pyatt, supra, 316 N.J. Super. at 51.  These determinations are "best made" through an evidentiary hearing.