ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] Haley v. Bd. of Review, 245 N.J. 511 (2021).  “[A] court must ‘differentiate between (1) a voluntary quit with good cause attributable to the work and (2) a voluntary quit without good cause attributable to the work. ’”  Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. at 213–14 (quoting *Self v. Bd. of Review*, 91 N.J. 453, 457 (1982)).  It is the claimant’s burden “to establish good cause attributable to such work for leaving. ”  *N.J.A.C.* 12:17–9.1(c).  Claimants who have left work due to a work condition that exacerbates their medical condition may be exempt from disqualification under *N.J.S.A.* 43:21-5(a).  As outlined in *N.J.A.C.* 12:17–9.3(b), [a]n individual who leaves a job due to a physical and/or mental condition or state of health which does not have a work-connected origin but is aggravated by working conditions will not be disqualified for benefits for voluntarily leaving work without good cause ‘attributable to such work,’ provided there was no other suitable work available which the individual could have performed within the limits of the disability.
[brief] In Cypress Point, supra, the policy form at issue added a “subcontractor exception” to the “your work” exclusion that had been applied by numerous New Jersey courts to bar coverage for construction defects.  The Supreme Court ruled that the addition of the exception to the exclusion expanded the coverage that otherwise would have been barred by the exclusion.  A policyholder would reasonably expect that the “plain language” of the new exception [...] added to the mold exclusion clearly broadened policy coverage if there is mold “on” food that is merely “intended” for consumption.
[brief] The Legislature’s intent to codify the public trust doctrine through the Public Access Law is also evident from one of the statutory terms upon which [...] relies heavily in claiming it was delegated expanded authority to impose new public access conditions; that is, the term “additional. ”  Akin to [...]’s unsupported interpretation of the term “consistent with,” the agency asks this Court to uphold an interpretation of “additional” that has no basis in any definition offered by objective sources --- ¹ The Law Dictionary (feat. *Black’s Law Dictionary*, 2nd Ed.), https://thelawdictionary.org/consistent/ (last visited August 29, 2024).  ² The Law Dictionary (feat. *Black’s Law Dictionary*, 2nd Ed.), https://thelawdictionary.org/inconsistent/ (last visited August 29, 2024).  beyond the Commissioner’s self-serving assurances about the term’s plain meaning.  Rb21.  To place this issue in context, the parties agree that there is currently no public access provided at [...]’s property, and that public access does not need to be provided at the property under current [...] rules.  See N.J.A.C. 7:7-16.9(k)(2)(i);³  Returning to Black’s Law Dictionary, “additional” is defined as the idea of joining or uniting one thing to another, so as thereby to form one aggregate.  Thus, ‘additional security’ imports a security, which, united with or joined to the former one, is deemed to make it, as an aggregate, sufficient as a security from the beginning.⁴  Emphasis added.  Consequently, [...]’s claim that the Law’s use of the term “additional” granted the agency new authority to require the creation of public access where no public access existed before cannot be reconciled with the plain meaning of the term “additional” as used in the Public Access Law, especially where this usage of the term is consistent with the application of the public trust doctrine under the very same common law that the Law codified.
[brief] [...] maintains that the trial court’s decision was reversible error, as set forth at length above, and therefore should be reversed in its entirety and remanded for further proceedings.  However, in the event this Court determines it cannot decide this appeal on the statement of reasons read into the record on March 17, 2023 (see generally 1T at 22:4 to 23:18), [...] requests that the Court remand to allow the trial court to submit a more comprehensive statement of reasons.  **CONCLUSION**
[brief] An appellate court may reverse a trial court's judgment if the cumulative effect of a series of errors is so great as to deprive a defendant of a fair trial because the errors are so great as to work prejudice.  *Pellicer v. Saint Barnabas Hosp.*, 200 N.J. 22, 53 (2009).  Cumulative error analysis does not simply entail counting mistakes, because even a large number of errors, if inconsequential, may not operate to create an injustice. ”
[brief] Eventually, the Plaintiff was transferred to the Training Support Unit and [...] was transferred and took her job as the Admin Officer (1T; 88:12).  She was in danger of losing her promotion points (1T; 88:15).  Plaintiff kept getting bounced around and not really having any stability anywhere to gain points (1T; 89:2).  She had seven and a half years in OPS being transferred out to zero points (1T; 89:6).  The person who was doing the actual admin work was working for [...], the person who eventually filed a false evaluation (1T; 91:1).
[directive] [Promulgated by Directive #12-06 (July 20, 2006)]  Page 2 of 7 some public evil or condition to which the attention of the community should be directed.  The Grand Jury is an independent investigative body that represents the public and may therefore inquire into matters affecting community morals, health, safety, and general welfare.  If the Grand Jury expresses an interest in returning a presentment, the Assignment Judge will be advised and you will receive further instructions.
[brief] In other words, defendant’s rights to a fair trial had not been irretrievably lost by the delayed disclosure—where the suppression hearing had been reopened, and the judge considered the diagram before she rendered her ruling on whether her initial motion-to-suppress decision should be reconsidered.\textsuperscript{18}  Under these circumstances, where the discovery error had already been remedied, the judge properly found that dismissal of the indictment with prejudice was unwarranted.  B.
[brief] In Browne v. Nat’l Collegiate Student Loan Trust, No. 21-11871, Doc. 38, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 244537 (D.N.J. Dec. 22, 2021), the District Court of New Jersey analyzed a similar issue.  The District Court held that plaintiff’s claims for a declaratory judgment, violations of the CFA, and unjust enrichment based on the premise that the defendant lacked a consumer lending license failed because the NJCFLA did not provide the plaintiff with a private right of action.  Id.  Moreover, the Browne court also held that plaintiff’s theory, even if proven, would not have resulted in any cognizable harm to the plaintiff.  Woo-Padva, 2022 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 96, at *9-10.  Appellant has not alleged and cannot provide any evidence that Respondents committed any fraud or misrepresentation material to a transaction used to induced Appellant to make a purchase.  See Woo-Padva 2, 2023 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1550, at *10\(^{23}\) (“[b]ecause plaintiff did not demonstrate defendant had engaged in unlawful conduct under the CFA or that she had suffered an ascertainable loss, we affirm the grant of summary judgment on plaintiff’s CFA claim.
[brief] TABLE OF CONTENTS  Page  PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................................  1  PROCEDURAL HISTORY .....................................................................................  3  STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................  5  I.  The [...] History ..............................................................................  5  II.  The Litigation over [...]’s Estate .................................................................  6  III.  [...]’s Estate Plan .....................................................................................  8  IV.  The Settlement Agreement ..........................................................................  10  V.  The Current Litigation ....................................................................................  12  ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................
[brief] That case resulted from an automobile accident involving an employee of [...] (“[...]”), who was also its president and fifty-percent shareholder.  474 N.J. Super. at 33.  As a result of the accident, the employee filed a worker’s compensation claim against [...].  Ibid.  [...]’s worker’s compensation carrier, [...], then assigned defense counsel.  Ibid.  Within the matter, the question arose as to whether or not the employee was within the scope of his employment at the time that the accident occurred, a question that would impact compensability of the claim by [...] as the worker’s compensation carrier.  Id. at 34.  At some point, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations, which included discussions about whether or not the employee’s claim would survive a motion to dismiss.  Ibid.  Because of the disputed liability, the parties agreed that a lump sum settlement for a dollar figure under N.J.S. A. 34:15-20 (“Section 20”) was appropriate.  Ibid.  In order for a Section 20 lump-sum settlement to be effective, the statute requires that the settlement be approved by the judge of compensation as “fair and just under all the circumstances,” and that the settling petitioner, the employee, be represented by counsel.  *Ibid.*  In accordance with the statute, the assigned defense counsel for [...] sent the judge of compensation a request for approval, along with a signed settlement affidavit (the Section 20 Order) and a copy of the employee’s injury permanency exam.  *Id.* at 34-35.  In response to the request for approval, the judge of compensation found that the assigned defense counsel had a conflict because the employee was also a part owner of [...], and that defense counsel was therefore taking a position adverse to the employee because the employee, as an owner, stated that he was in the course of his employment at the time the accident occurred.  *Id.* at 35.  The court therein rejected the proposed settlement and removed the assigned defense counsel due to the “inherent conflict” between [...] and [...].  *Ibid.*  The court held further that since [...] was denying compensability for the accident, which position is against the interests of [...], that [...] had to assign counsel for itself and different counsel for [...].  *Ibid.*  [...] thereafter moved for leave to appeal the RPC 1.7 disqualification of defense counsel, which leave was granted by the Appellate Division.
[brief] The entire premise of the State’s argument is that every other legal right – including Fundamental Rights to which parents are entitled – are trumped by the protections for gender identity and expression afforded by the LAD.  This cannot be the law.  The trial Court’s obligation- at which it failed- was to reconcile those rights.  It is a well-settled legal presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children.  *Troxel v. Granville*, 530 U.S. 57, 68 (2000).  The Supreme Court of the Unites States has recognized that “[i]t is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. ”  Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972).  Indeed, “so long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children (i.e., is fit), there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent’s children. ”  Troxel, 530 U.S. 57, 68–69 (2000).  In that regard, courts nationwide, including the Supreme Courts of the United States and New Jersey, uniformly recognize parents’ Fundamental Constitutional right to direct their children’s upbringing – against which state interference with family matters are not condoned.
[brief] Even so, the court did not rely on a dismissed charge to find factor 3A or 3C.  When mentioning the [...] robbery, the court only noted that, “[i]n fact, two days after the [...] incident Defendant was alleged to have robbed an Autozone in a similar manner,” and then proceeded to mention how defendant only brandished the handgun only after struggling with the employees.  (Da47).  Before this brief comment, the sentencing court went over the facts of the case, specifically finding, “[n]othing in the record suggests that Defendant obtained the handgun in order to carry out a robbery at the [...]. ” (Da47).  The court stated the facts of the case suggested the opposite findings, in part because “[h]e entered the store, and attempted to carry the entire cash register drawer and its contents out of the store.  He did not brandish the gun in order to wrest control of the cash register drawer. ” (Da47).  He did not pull out the gun when the cashier slapped his hands off the cash register or when the security guard wrestled him to the floor.  Defendant only pulled out the gun after he had fallen to the floor, and the store manager called the police.  “The chain of events suggests that the [d]efendant intended to grab the drawer and run out of the store with it, but only after store personnel intervened and had wrestled him onto the floor did he resort to brandishing the gun. ” (Da47).  The court used these facts, and the fact that “[d]efendant was guilty of a certain persons offense the moment he obtained this handgun,” to determine that factor 3A and 3C applied.  Furthermore, the court did not rely on speculation to find that defendant did not intend to use the gun to carry out this particular robbery as defendant argued.  As stated above, the court relied on the facts of this case to make this conclusion, and that “[d]efendant was guilty of a certain persons offense before he even entered the store. ” (Da47).  Additionally, the court found that because “certain persons is a separate and distinct statutory crime from robbery, it follows that [d]efendant committed this crime at the time he obtained the handgun, prior to the [...] robbery. ” (Da48).  B.
[brief] [...]’s Father Could Not Consent To The Search Because He Lacked Common Or Apparent Authority Over The Landlord’s Surveillance Cameras. **  Without the landlord’s consent, the trial court erroneously found that the State met its burden by relying on [...]’s father’s so-called consent.  The court relied on the fact that “everything [[...]’s father] was doing and saying indicated that he had authority and control over that house. ”  (4T 74-23 to 75-2)  But [...]’s father did not express any authority or control over the landlord’s surveillance cameras.  Rather, [...]’s father expressly told the police, and [...] admitted that he understood that the surveillance cameras belonged exclusively to the landlord.  (3T 37-22 to 38, 126-6 to 16)  Even if [...]’s father had the apparent authority to consent to a search of the house, the court erred in finding that he had any authority to consent to a search of the landlord’s surveillance cameras.
[brief] On March 28, 2023 [...] filed a Complaint against Appellants and [...] to recover rent owed for February 2023, other charges that they failed to pay, and the Concessions.  (Da1-Da8).  [...] also instituted eviction proceedings against Appellants on March 8, 2023.  (Da3 at ¶ 13).  On May 31, 2023, Appellants filed an Answer and Counterclaim against [...].
[brief] R. 3:18-1, Motion Before Submission to Jury, provides:  At the close of the State’s case or after the evidence of all parties has been closed, the court shall, on defendant’s motion or its own initiative, order the entry of a judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in the indictment or accusation if the evidence is insufficient to warrant a conviction.  A defendant may offer evidence after denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the State’s case without having reserved the right.  In State v. Reyes, 50 N.J. 454 (1967), the New Jersey Supreme Court set forth the test for determining such a motion.  “[T]he broad test for determination of such an application is whether the evidence at that point is sufficient to warrant a conviction of the charge involved.  Reyes, supra, 50 N.J. at 458.  More specifically, the question the trial judge must determine is whether, viewing the State's evidence in its entirety, be that evidence direct or circumstantial, and giving the State the benefit of all its favorable testimony as well as all of the favorable inferences which reasonably could be drawn therefrom, a reasonable jury could find guilt of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
[brief] Plaintiff’s Complaint is conclusory and lacks specific facts.  In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007), the Supreme Court stated:  “... a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the “grounds” of his “entitlement to relief” requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do... courts ‘are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation’....  ‘The pleading must contain something more... than... a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action. ’”  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s account went into default but does not state when the default occurred.  Plaintiff merely makes a legal conclusion as to an alleged default.  Plaintiff therefore does not state a valid cause of action.  *Twombly*, supra.
[brief] Gruenke v. Seip, 225 F.3d 290 (3d Cir. 2000)  .................................................................................................34  Heffner v. Murphy, 745 F.3d 56 (3d Cir. 2014)  ....................................................................................................37  Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993)  ..................................................................................................................37  Holland v. Rosen, 895 F.3d 272 (3d Cir. 2018)  .................................................................................................31, 37  Holmes v. Jersey City Police Dep’t, 449 N.J. Super. 600 (App. Div. 2017)
[brief] Though not expressly stated in the MLUL, the preservation of character of a neighborhood or property values in that neighborhood have also been recognized as legitimate purposes of zoning.  Home Builders League of S. Jersey, Inc. v. Twp. of Berlin, 81 N.J. 127, 145, 405 A.2d 381 (1979).  A successful applicant for a density variance therefore must show that despite the proposed increase in density above the zone’s restriction, and, thus, the increased intensity in the use of the site, the project nonetheless served one or more of the purposes of zoning and was consistent with the overall goals of the MLUL.
[brief] \textsuperscript{13}  While prejudice is not required for waiver, it is still a relevant Cole factor.  See Ocean Fireproofing, LLC v. 23rd St. Urb. Renewal JOF AAI III, LLC, No. A-0388-23, 2024 WL 2683968, at *7 (App. Div. May 24, 2024).
[directive] In all cases, a letter shall be sent to the complainant explaining the outcome of the investigation.  If the allegation was unfounded or the officer was exonerated, this conclusion shall be stated and defined for the civilian complainant.  If the allegation was not sustained, the letter shall provide the complainant with a brief explanation why the complaint was not sustained (e.g., insufficient proof, lack of witnesses, etc.).  If the allegation was sustained and discipline was imposed, the letter shall state that the allegation was sustained and that the officer has been disciplined according to agency procedures.  See Appendix E.
[brief] In the present matter, [...] opined that BZE is an inactive metabolite of cocaine.  (Pa 51).  She also conceded that, in her opinion, the defendant could have been exposed to cocaine at any point in the forty-eight (48) hours prior to blood collection and that she could not confirm, with any degree of medical certainty, when during that period, the exposure took place.  (4T 102:8-25; 103:1- [...] confirmed that only the inactive metabolite, BZE was allegedly found in the defendant’s blood and that the parent drug, cocaine, was not found.  (Pa 51).  As such, the only testimony being proffered by [...] as to cocaine consumption is that the defendant may have been exposed to cocaine prior to the accident in question.
[brief] 20 United States v. Hill, 818 F.3d 289 (7th Cir. 2016) ............................... 39, 44, 45 United States v. Medley, 312 F. Supp. 3d 493 (D.  Md. 2018) .................  41  STATUTES  N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2(b)(3) ...........................................................................  15, 16 N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6(c) ...............................................................................  18 N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a(1) ..........................................................................  1  COUNTERSTATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[directive] Providing an Equitable Complaint Process  It should be easy for members of the public to file complaints and otherwise report violations of the law for investigation.  Information about how to file a complaint or submit a tip should be displayed prominently on each agency’s website and in its other written resources.  Those resources should clearly identify the information that is necessary for the agency to initiate an investigation as well as describe what a complainant can expect once the claimant initiates the process (e.g., the next steps and anticipated time frame).  Contact information for staff should be available to assist individuals who are having difficulty filing a complaint on their own.  To promote equitable access to their services, agencies should offer members of the public multiple convenient means of submitting tips and initiating complaints.  The options should include methods accessible to people with different abilities and people with limited access to technology.  Generally, members of the public should be able to submit tips and initiate complaints by mail and by phone as well as online.  The option to file a complaint in person – either at the agency’s offices, on site at regulated businesses, or in other locations – may be most convenient for some populations, including those who need assistance or who have limited access to technology.  In particular, agencies should consider enabling individuals to file or initiate complaints at community events where the agency is represented by its staff, if The term “underserved communities” is meant to be inclusive.