ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] On February 2, 2021, a dispute arose between counsel for [...] and Plaintiffs’ counsel with respect to Plaintiffs’ property lines, specifically, whether the Property encompassed a vacated roadway called Church Lane that ran along the southern edge of the Property.  (Pa000439).  Counsel for [...] was then made aware of an ordinance that essentially made a portion of Church Lane part of Plaintiffs’ Property.  (Pa000438).  In response to this, as well as Plaintiffs’ request that the Property not be included as part of the redevelopment project, on February 3, 2021, counsel for Plaintiffs (the same counsel currently representing Plaintiffs in this matter) was advised that [...]’s preliminary site plan would be revised so the proposed construction improvements (the paved parking spaces) would not occur on Plaintiffs’ Property.  (Pa000440).  Again, the preliminary and revised plans did not call for (and had nothing to do with) any ongoing remediation activities by co-defendant [...] on Plaintiffs’ Property, and the revised plan in 2021 did not call for any future remediation or construction activities on the Property.  (Pa000390 at ¶ 7).  [...] did what was asked and prepared a revised site plan to address the objections by Plaintiffs and their counsel.  (Pa000435-36).  On February 9, 2021, Plaintiffs’ counsel was informed, via email, that the site plan had been revised to remove all proposed construction improvements to Plaintiffs’ Property – there would be no paved parking spaces on the Property, and half of Church Lane would be annexed to the Property.  (Id.).  A copy of the new site plan was attached to this email.  (Id.).  In this same email, Plaintiffs were warned that, if the Property was not included in the redevelopment project, the vacant area being annexed to the Property would be “useless, unsightly, unimproved and a detriment to [...] business. ”  (Pa000435).  Plaintiffs’ Property was now excluded from redevelopment construction activities.  The revised plans, like the preliminary plans, did not address the ongoing remediation activities being performed by [...].  [...]’s revised plans were independently reviewed and approved by the city planner and an independent engineer.  (Pa000123-28).  2.  Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Exchange of Discovery, and [...]’s Motions for Summary Judgment
[brief] Next, Plaintiff states, falsely, that “[t]he June 25, 2021, filing was not a sixth attempt at amending. ” (Pb41).  This is incorrect.  As Plaintiff admitted earlier in that same argument, the final pleading in Federal Court before it was remanded was a proposed Fifth Amended Complaint.  (Pb37).  Thus, the proposed pleading filed in New Jersey Superior Court on June 25, 2021, as part of Plaintiff’s motive to leave to file an amended complaint after the remand was the sixth version of the pleading, i.e., Plaintiff’s sixth attempt to file a conforming pleading.  Furthermore, regardless of the precise number of specific amended pleadings Plaintiff has filed, it is abundantly clear that Plaintiff had over five (5) years for the filing of the initial pleading on April 18, 2016, to the filing for the “motion for leave to file or amend” on June 25, 2021, to file a conforming pleading but failed to do so.  Plaintiff’s attempt to blame the Defendants, the District Court and the Trial Court are entirely disingenuous.
[brief] THE POLICE PROPERLY OBTAINED THE SURVEILLANCE VIDEOTAPES  A.  The Landlord Voluntarily Turned Over the Video Surveillance to the Police  The State presented testimony that the landlord of the property consented to the police obtaining the video surveillance.  The landlord is observed arriving at the residence prior to [...] and is leaning against the pickup truck when [...] approaches [...].  At some point, the landlord leaves.  However, [...] testified that he had spoken with the landlord and the landlord said it was “okay to have Mr. Mills give permission to search for that video, and that is why we conducted the permission to search with Mr. Mills. ”  (3T128-8 to 13).  Demonstrating to the police that the landlord had designated [...] to stand as proxy in his stead rather than returning to the property to execute the consent form.  Further, the fact that the landlord would consent to the police obtaining the videos was not a shock to [...] as he had already indicated to the police that the landlord would “probably” allow them to retrieve the video.  (3T86-15).  Additionally, there is absolutely no indication that the landlord, who testified at trial for the State, opposed the police obtaining the videos.  To the contrary, the testimony was that he consented to the police obtaining them.  The issue was entering the residence to get to where the video was stored.  That required the consent of [...]  See State v. Coyle, 119 N.J. 194, 215 (1990).  The videos were not seized by the police, they were voluntarily turned over by the owner.  Further, this was not a search, in that the police were entering the residence for one specific purpose, to obtain the video recordings that the video owner was agreeing to provide.  It is not required to obtain consent to search for an item that the owner is voluntarily turning over.  The issue is that the landlord also could not enter the residence without proper notice to the tenant or the tenant’s consent.  This is not a case where the owner of the item obtained is challenging the right of the police to take the item.  Instead, the matter is being challenged by an individual that was depicted in the video and had no ownership interest in the video and was the child of [...] and according to [...] did not reside at the residence.  (4T25-6 to 11).  Further, [...] indicated that the landlord, prior to leaving, was aware that the police sought entry into the residence.  (4T47-10 to 14).  He also was aware that [...] had called the landlord, indicating that [...] was standing next to the Chief of Police on the sidewalk when the call was made, indicating that [...] was present when the landlord was contacted.  (4T46-5 to 10).  Also, after the consent form was signed, there was a discussion about contacting the landlord in case there was a passcode to the surveillance system.  (3T48-22 to 49-1)(3T93-15 to 17)(Ra17).  This is further evidence that the landlord was aware of what was going on, consented to the videos being obtained and that the police were not misleading [...] into signing the form.  B.
[brief] Indeed, [...] argued out of both sides of its mouth.  [...] testified at depositions on the one hand that the EGPs that were in Schedule 1.7(a) of the PTA for the Backlog Projects were all amended by mutual assent via a less formal method of reciprocated agreement.  Pa043 ([...] Dep. Tr. at 89:9-21 (“It was based on some sort of understanding after the fact”)).  And, [...] contended on the other hand (when trial neared) that, on second thought, because the parties did not formally “sign” separate “amendments” to more formally update the list containing the Backlog Projects, [...] should actually get all of its money back and be awarded another $8 million in damages (which the Arbitrator rejected as unsupported and “highly speculative”).
[brief] At that time, there was active construction in the southbound shoulder and the right, west-most lane of that portion of the Parkway (“Project”).  Through their expert, [...], Plaintiffs allege that the cause of [...]’s accident was a pre-existing, dangerous condition on the roadway surface.  [...]’s only connection to the alleged accident location was a single construction inspector assigned to the Project; he was not on site on the day of the accident.
[directive] at  The most significant changes to the rules involve the County Prosecutor's review of certain private citizen complaints prior to a judicial officer's probable cause determination.  Specifically, under the new rules, County Prosecutors are to sent for review all private be 1 of  The amendments to the Rules of Court originated from the December 2017 Report the Supreme Court 7, Working Group on Private Citizen Complaints the Municipal Courts.  On August 2019, the Supreme Court in 2, issued its Administrative Determinations the Working Group's eight recommendations modifying the private on citizen complaint process to be implemented through court rule amendments.  Directive #26-19 December 20, 2019
[brief] While at [...]’s home, [...] cut a whole in the wall of a closet that contained items of [...]’s personal property and clothing.  Pa37, page 42-43.  Remarkably, [...] did not remove any of the items of her personal property from that closet before [...] began its work.  Id.  She does not even recall if the items of personal property in that closet, or anywhere else in her home, were ever covered with plastic prior to [...] doing its work in [...]’s home.  Id.  [...] admitted that items of her personal property, such as coats, fur coats and other clothing were damaged both as the result of the water leak and as a result of the work performed by [...].  Pa40, page 54.  [...] further admitted that the items of personal property which are the subject of her claims against [...] were already damaged.  Pa74.  [...] is unable to state, with any degree of specificity or certainty, which items were removed to be cleaned, which items were not returned, and which items were returned to her damaged.  See Pa41, pages 60 - 61; Pa42, pages 62; Pa43, pages 67 - 69; Pa44 70 - 73; Pa45, page 75.  She claims, without any supporting evidence, that the skins of certain “fur items” were cracked when they were returned to her.  Pa43, page 67.  In addition to [...], an entity doing business as [...] came to [...]’s home following the water leak and removed damaged and destroyed items of [...]’s personal property.
[brief] 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS .....................................................................................  4  LEGAL ARGUMENT POINT  I  THE COURT SHOULD GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND TO CORRECT CLEAR LEGAL ERROR  (Not raised below)...............................  7  POINT II  THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED  PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S ORAL MOTION THAT DEFENDANT [...] COULD BE QUESTIONED REGARDING HIS CRIMINAL GUILTY PLEA AND CORRESPONDING  FACTUAL ALLOCUTION  PURSUANT TO STATE V. LAVRIK (2T22-1 to 2T29-25; Da444-Da447) ..............................  13  CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................
[brief] **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**  This appeal involves property located in [...], [...], New Jersey, that in part consists of the former [...] facility.  [...] has proposed redeveloping this underutilized property into several warehouses, along with parking and access roads, as well as improving internal access roads and adjacent public roadways, utilities, stormwater management, lighting, and landscaping improvements (the "Project").  In order to construct the Project within certain regulated areas on the property, [...] filed a multi-permit application on March 14, 2022 (the "Application").  The Application included requests for freshwater wetlands general permits and transition area waivers, as well as a Flood Hazard Area Verification and Flood Hazard Area Individual Permit pursuant to the Flood Hazard Area Control Act Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:13-1 to -24.11.  (the "FHA Rules").  After extensive review, on December 1, 2022, the [...] ("[...]") issued [...] a Flood Hazard Area Verification and Individual Permit, No. [...] (the "Permit").  In addition to approving the Project, the Permit sets forth in detail a number of general and special conditions providing enhanced environmental protection, including green stormwater infrastructure to protect water quality from stormwater runoff, and requirements for on-site mitigation to compensate for the permitted disturbance area.  During the pendency of the Application underlying this Permit, and as required by the FHA Rules, the [...] published a notice of permit application and solicited public comments, during which time the Appellant had an opportunity to submit comments relating to any substantive aspects of the Application and pending permit.  The [...] responded to a number of comments regarding the Project and Application.  As demonstrated by the record, the [...] considered all relevant information presented to it in relation to the Permit, including information adverse to the Application.  No doubt recognizing the conclusive and exhaustive permitting analysis undertaken by the [...], Appellant has no meritorious challenge to raise on its appeal, and instead merely now seeks to muddy the relevant legal standards to attack the Permit’s issuance.
[brief] The Board’s claims about detriments from noise, a purported lack of evacuation plan should [...]’s generator run out of fuel, traffic, parking, impervious surfaces, and visual impacts are canards not worthy of much attention.  The Board did not identify any particular noise concerns in its Resolution, and the only sources of noise on the Site Plan are [...]’s generator and trash compactor, which are located on the north side of its building.  [...] stipulated that these structures, which are set back more than 100 feet from the property line and are well screened, would comply with the State Noise Code, which the Board’s own Engineer confirmed was sufficient after [...] updated the plans to show noise attenuation.  [1T at 86-14 to 87-15; 2T at 42-3 to 43-2].  And there should be no concern about who might be impacted by the generator and trash compactor, since the lot adjacent to those items is used as a parking depot for school buses.  [Pa256].
[brief] It may help court users who are now afraid to bring their discrimination complaints out in public or even report privately to the Assignment Judge.  It seems clear the courts are covered when our Supreme Court as issued the blanket statement, “New Jersey governmental entities are, of course, bound by the LAD.  Their sponsorship of, or conferring of special benefits on, an organization that practices discrimination would be prohibited."  Dale v. Boy Scouts of America, 160 N.J. 562, 593, n. 7, rev'd on other grounds, 530 U.S. 640, 120 S.Ct. 2446, 147 L.Ed.2d 554 (2000).
[directive] Under the Real Accountability for Consequences of Unlawful Trafficking of Firearms Act, L. 2023, c. ___, a person who purposely commits a “firearm trafficking violation” shall be strictly liable for any death, serious bodily injury, or significant bodily injury resulting from use of the illegally trafficked firearm in the course of committing a crime.  The Act establishes a crime of the first degree in cases where use of the firearm results in death, and a crime of the second degree in all other cases.  As defined in the Act, a “firearm trafficking violation” means a violation of: (1) N.J.S.A. 2C:39-10(a)(1) by selling, giving, transferring, assigning, or otherwise disposing of a handgun to a person who the defendant knows is not a licensed dealer or has not secured a permit to purchase a handgun pursuant N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(a); (2) N.J.S.A. 2C:39-10(a)(1) by selling, giving, transferring, assigning, or otherwise disposing of a rifle or shotgun to a person who the defendant knows is not a licensed dealer or does not have a valid firearms purchaser identification card and has not complied with the requirements of N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(b)(1); (3) N.J.S.A. 2C:39-10(a)(4) by selling or transferring a firearm that the recipient intends to sell, transfer, assign, or otherwise of to another person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under State or federal law; (4) N.J.S.A. 2C:39-9(i) by transporting, shipping, or otherwise bringing into New Jersey, or conspiring to do so, any firearm for the purpose of unlawfully selling, giving, transferring, assigning, or otherwise disposing of that firearm to another person; (5) N.J.S.A. 2C:39-10(e) by selling, giving, transferring, assigning, or otherwise disposing of a firearm to a person who is under the age of 18, except as permitted by N.J.S.A. 2C:58-6.1; or statutes:2 (6)
[directive] Sections under covered otherwise not case any  In the or Prosecutor, Assistant First or Prosecutor County the unless detention pretrial for apply the by prosecuted in Justice cases  Criminal of Division of Director the Deputy a or Director that: determines Division, adequately not were detention pretrial justifying circumstances or facts specific (a) process; risk-assessment pretrial ~~•+~m~*~a the for by accounted detention convincing evidence the at clear and present to able will be State the (b) detention; and pretrial presumption against statutory the overcome to hearing risk serious a is there conditions, maximum on even released, were defendant if (c) to danger will a pose (ii) when required, court in appear will not (i) defendant that the obstruct to or attempt obstruct will (iii) or community, or person the other any 67 Page threaten, to attempt or intimidate, or injure, threaten, or process, justice criminal juror.
[directive] The Manual shall include model forms and sample affidavits and warrants.  In addition, the Division of Criminal Justice will on an ongoing basis publish training bulletins and case law updates to assist law enforcement agencies and Designated Attorneys in complying with all legal requirements for the issuance and execution of search warrants and the requirements of this Directive.  The Division of Criminal Justice shall also develop a training course for all Assistant Attorneys General, Deputy Attorneys General, and Assistant Prosecutors designated and authorized pursuant to this Directive to approve search warrant applications.
[brief] [Pa687 ([...] Deposition) at 37:12-25 and Pa688 at 38:1-11 and at 40:23-25 and at 41:1-11; and Pa691-Pa703; and Pa704-Pa719].  As of March 16, 2017, plaintiffs knew or should have known (i) the location of where [...] allegedly slipped and fell; (ii) the mechanism of injury that allegedly caused him to fall; and (iii) the identity of the party or parties allegedly responsible for causing his alleged damages [Pa436-Pa447].  As of April 7, 2017, plaintiffs knew or should have known (i) the location of where [...] allegedly slipped and fell; (ii) the mechanism of injury that allegedly caused him to fall; and (iii) the identity of the party or parties allegedly responsible for causing his alleged damages.  [Pa687 ([...] Deposition) at 37:12-25 and Pa688 at 38:1-11 and at 40:23-25 and at 41:1-11; and Pa691-Pa703; and Pa704-Pa719].  As of July 1, 2017, plaintiffs knew or should have known (i) the location of where [...] allegedly slipped and fell; (ii) the mechanism of injury that allegedly caused him to fall; and (iii) the identity of the party or parties allegedly responsible for causing his alleged damages.  [Pa687 ([...] Deposition) at 37:12-25 and Pa688 at 38:1-11 and at 40:23-25 and at 41:1-11; and Pa691-Pa703; and Pa704-Pa719].  On January 29, 2019 Mr. [...] continued his investigation, on plaintiffs’ behalf, to identify the party or parties allegedly responsible for causing [...]’s alleged injuries and Mr. [...] interviewed defendant, [...]’s owner, [...], and obtained a written statement from him.
[directive] This category of Aggravating Factors addresses offense conduct that poses a special risk of harm to law-abiding residents of households, neighborhoods, and communities that are adversely affected by drug-distribution activities and the violence that is associated with and attracted to such activities.  Factor #1a applies if one or more children were present in the premises where the drugs were stored, manufactured, or distributed at any time during the course of the conduct constituting the offense.  Compare N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7 (foreclosing the private residence affirmative defense if a child was present).  The presence of children around drug-distribution activities poses special risks that deserve consideration in determining an appropriate plea offer.  This Aggravating Factor would not apply, however, if the defendant is charged with and will plead guilty to a violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-6 (Hiring or Using a Juvenile in a Drug- Distribution Scheme), or where the defendant will be subject to Special Application and Enhancement Feature H, (implementing N.J.S.A. 2C:35-8, which mandates an enhanced term of imprisonment if the act of distribution was to a minor), since these two statutory provisions already account for the special dangers inherent in having children involved in drug-distribution activities.
[brief] [...]’s Report explains in detail how the facts as found by [...], combined with his review of the billing records provided by plaintiffs demonstrate that plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs incurred before October 2004.  Contrary to defendants’ arguments, [...] did not “rubber-stamp” his 2013 Report.  [...] provided support for his recommendation that the legal work on the non- ¹⁵  Significantly, Judge Orlofsky excluded from his recommendation any fees incurred in opposing the [...]’ arguments regarding “the apportionment of punitive damages between different tort claims … as the outcome of that argument would have no effect on Plaintiffs’ RICO awards. ”  (39122a)  RICO claims before October 2004 provided evidence that was reasonably required to establish the RICO claims.  Further, he provided support for his determination that the work performed on the non-RICO claims was intertwined with and could not be separated from the legal work that resulted in the discovery of the RICO violations.  (40066a-70a)
[brief] Contrary to the 2020 Opinion and as detailed in the Board Resolution, the Board made extensive and detailed findings of fact, thoroughly analyzed the Application, and gave substantial reasons for its denial.  M68-86.  This fully complies with the Board’s duties as noted by the Trial Judge:  Rather, “the resolution must contain sufficient findings, based on the proofs submitted, to satisfy a reviewing court that the board has analyzed the applicant’s variance request in accordance with the statute and in light of the municipality’s master plan and zoning ordinances. ”  New York SMSA v. Bd. of Adjustment of Twp. of Weehawken, 370 N.J. Super. 319, 333 (App. Div. 2004).  A “resolution cannot consist of a mere recital of testimony or conclusory statements couched in statutory language”, and “[w]ithout such findings of fact and conclusions of law, the reviewing court has no way of knowing the basis of the board’s decision. ”  Id. at 332-33.  M29 (emphasis in original).  Specifically, the Board made the following findings in the Board Resolution:
[brief] ”  *Ibid.*  The judge’s function on a new trial motion is not mechanical.  The court must consider both tangible and credibility factors and the feel of the case to determine whether the jury’s verdict was the product of a clear error or mistake.  See Kita v. Borough of Lindenwold, 305 N.J. Super. 43, 49 (App. Div. 1997).  The standard for granting a new trial has been articulated as requiring a determination that the jury’s verdict was “contrary to the weight of the evidence or clearly the product of mistake, passion, prejudice or partiality. ”  Lanzet v. Greenberg, 126 N.J. 168, 175 (1991).  Cumulative errors, including as to the admission of evidence, considered in the aggregate may render the proceedings unfairly prejudicial so as to require a new trial.
[brief] Judgment of Conviction ...........................................................................  Da 14-17  Ruling on Motion to Suppress .................................................................  1T 69-13 to 82-17  Order Denying Suppression .......................................................................  Da 6 Ruling on Motion for Reconsideration ......................................................  2T 14-14 to 20-7  Order Denying Reconsideration ...............................................................  Da 7 TRANSCRIPT CITATIONS  1T – transcript of February 16, 2023 (suppression)  2T – transcript of May 26, 2023 (suppression)  3T – transcript of June 8, 2023 (plea)  4T – transcript of July 17, 2023 (sentence)  PROCEDURAL HISTORY