ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] (Pa16).  He argued that he did not receive the postcard notice from the Division, so the Board should relax the statutory deadline for filing.  (Pa19-20).  At its meeting on July 25, 2023, the Board considered [...]’s arguments, found that there were no material issues of fact in dispute, and therefore directed the Board Secretary to draft findings of fact and conclusions of law for its review and approval at its next meeting.  (Pa9).  The Board issued its Final Administrative Decision on September 27, 2023.  (Pa9).  The Board concluded that the Ricci Act, codified in part at N.J.S.A. 53:5A-10(e)(3), allows members to file for the recalculation of Ordinary Disability, Special, or Service Retirement Benefits to Accidental Disability Retirement Benefits if the member is or becomes totally and permanently disabled due to participation in the rescue, recovery, or cleanup operations at the World Trade Center between September 11, and October 11, 2001.  (Pa10).  The Board also noted the Ricci Act required the Board to provide notice to members and retirees within thirty days of the effective date of the act, and if members or retirees did not file a written and sworn statement with the retirement system within two years of the effective date of the Act they would be ineligible for the presumption or recalculation.  (Pa10).  The Board found it undisputed that the Division had mailed notice of the Ricci Act to [...] and that [...] did not submit his Eligibility Registration Form until approximately one year and seven months past the statutory deadline.  (Pa13-14).  The Board also considered the matter under its inherent power to extend the deadline if good cause, reasonable grounds, and reasonable diligence could be demonstrated.  (Pa13-14).  The Board concluded that the Division had notified all retired members of [...] of the passage of the Ricci Act on August 9, 2019 in accordance with the Act.  (Pa13-14).  [...]’s assertion that he did not remember receiving the postcard notice did not establish good cause nor reasonable grounds to allow him to file over one year and seven months past the statutory deadline.  (Pa14).  Further, the Board concluded that [...] had not exercised reasonable diligence because of such a protracted delay in filing his Eligibility Registration Form.  (Pa14).  Therefore, the Board concluded that [...] was ineligible to register for amended benefits under the Ricci Act.  (Pa14).  This appeal followed.
[brief] See also New Jersey Easements and Rights of Way, New Jersey Society of Professional Land Surveyors, February 5, 2015, Page 33.  [Supp.App.9]  At oral argument on the motions, Challenger’s counsel doubled down on his contention that New Jersey has rejected the stranger-to-the-deed rule:  And I'd like to just highlight, Your Honor, the key case here is the Appellate Division case in BOROUGH OF WILDWOOD CREST VERSUS SMITH, and that's at 210 NJ Super. 127.  It's an App Div. case from 1986.
[brief] THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT REFUSED TO ADMIT A CRITICAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE DESPITE IT BEING HIGHLY RELEVANT AND THEREFORE ADMISSABLE UNDER NJRE 402; NO OTHER RULES OF EVIDENCE WERE CITED AS REASONS FOR BARRING THIS EVIDENCE.  (1a, 2T p. 18 line 7 – p. 38 line 17)  CONCLUSION p. 24  REQUESTED REMEDIES p. 25  TABLE OF AUTHORITIES  CASES: STATUTES AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES: Municipal Code of the City of Hoboken  Section 196-6 Section 196-59 Section 196-61  A Section 196-62  New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law  RULES OF COURT: Rule 4:69-5  RULES OF EVIDENCE (OF COURT): N.J.R.E. 401 N.J.R.E. 402  OTHER AUTHORITIES: TABLE OF JUDGEMENTS, ORDERS, AND RULINGS BEING APPEALED  Final Order Dismissing Plaintiff's Order to Show Cause and Verified Complaint (1a)  TRANSCRIPT  TABLE 1T = Transcript of the Hearing before [...] of March 6, 2024  2T = Transcript of the Hearing before [...] of March 27, 2024  PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
[brief] ASSOCIATES  [...], Plaintiffs/Respondents, vs. [...]; [...]; [...], [...]  D/B/A [...]; [...]; [...] AND JOHN DOES 3-10 fictitious designations)  Respondents/Appellant.  SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY  APPELLATE  DIVISION  Docket No: [...]  ON APPEAL FROM SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW  DIVISION  MERCER COUNTY DOCKET NO. [...]  REPLY BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS
[brief] In addition to the problem of structures having been placed on the Properties and other lots based on the lines reflected by the [...], [...] criticizes the relatively recent 2017 survey for Lot 12 (adjacent to Lot 11 to the south) performed by [...].  PE & LS (the “[...]”) which agrees with the [...].  See [...], Pa145; IT131, l.10-T132, l.7.  See also Report, Pa109.
[brief] Indeed, our Supreme Court concluded that, “it is difficult to conceive of a group with a keener interest in maintaining a plentiful supply of game, in developing regulations to insure safety in hunting, and in overseeing the operations of the state’s hatching and game farm and its stocking activities.  Farmers, who are represented by three Councilmembers, own a major part of the hunting lands in the state. ”  *Id.* at 573.  Furthermore, the Supreme Court explained:  The Legislature may prescribe such qualifications as reasonably relate to the demands of a specialized office.  Logic is not offended by the classes included in the challenged statute.  We have already stressed the discrete character of the Fish and Game Council, charged as it is with certain responsibilities and powers pertinent to ensuring the statutory objective of an abundant supply of game for recreational and commercial hunting and fishing.  Sportsmen, farmers, and commercial fishermen feel directly the impact of decision-making in this area and are likely to have the necessary expertise to make the required decisions competently.  *[Id. at 573 (internal citations omitted)].  The Court also dismissed similar due process claims in *Humane Society* stating, “a delegation of legislative authority to private parties may withstand constitutional challenge is sufficient safeguards exist to prevent an arbitrary concentration of power in persons or groups motivated by self-interest.
[brief] As to the Subject Property, rented to [...], the Borough determined it did not meet any of the criteria for development but was necessary for development of the study area.  Thereafter, the Defendant Borough adopted Resolution 107 accepting the Study Report and declaring the area (Lots 1 & 3, inclusive of 3.01) as an “Area in Need of Redevelopment” as per the LRHL (Pa5).  The Borough Consultant then prepared an “Amendment to the Beachway Avenue Waterfront Redevelopment Plan” encompassing the Study Area of Lots 1 and 3, including 3.01.  That “Amendment” proposed locating six (6) multi-story apartment buildings on Lots 1 and 3, with a Municipal parking area on Lot 3.01.  This parking area of approximately 125 cars would replace the entire lot – located on State owned property – of over 500 spaces (Pa6).  The [...] found the “Amendment” consistent with the Master Plan.  On March 20, 2016, the Governing Body adopted Ordinance 1579 that approved the 2016 “Beachway Avenue Waterfront Redevelopment Plan Amendment. ”  During the above process, the [...] initiated a lawsuits challenging the Planning Board action in adopting Resolution 107 and then initiated a second lawsuit challenging the Borough Ordinance 1579 approving the Redevelopment Plan Amendment.
[brief] Plaintiffs’ award of the attorneys’ fees and costs they incurred in bringing the Lawsuit against Defendants does not qualify as “damages, settlements, and/or defense costs. ”  Further, while Plaintiffs’ were also awarded their attorneys’ fees and costs in defending against counterclaims, the counterclaims (and all Plaintiffs’ fees and costs arising therefrom) are precluded from coverage.  Exclusion q bars coverage for any “claim” or “suit” that is brought by or on behalf of any insured.
[brief] See John & Jane Parents 1, 622 F. Supp. 3d at 130 --- \(^8\)  Appellants get no further with their reliance on Gruenke v. Seip, 225 F.3d 290 (3d Cir. 2000).  Gruenke involved the opposite scenario: a government actor demanding information from a student that parents did not want to share.  See id. 295-97 (coach required a student to take a pregnancy test and informed other students and their parents of the pregnancy).  The compelled interference with parents’ fundamental rights was clear: forcing the daughter to take a pregnancy test and disclosing her pregnancy status violated the parent’s right to familial privacy and the student’s individual privacy.  Id. at 297.  There is nothing similar here, where the trial court injunction merely precludes the school district from mandating parental notification over the student’s express objections absent any compelling need to do so.
[brief] SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY  APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. [...]  STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. [...], Defendant-Appellant.  CRIMINAL ACTION  On Appeal from a Judgment of Conviction of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County.  Indictment No. [...]  Sat Below: Hon. [...], J.S.C., and a Jury
[brief] EEOC, Enforcement Guidance: Employer-Provided Leave and the Americans with Disabilities Act (2016)  ..............................................12  2 eeoc.gov/newsroom/treehouse foods-pay-50000-and-provide-benefits-settle-eeoc-disability-discrimination-suit #:~:text=ATLANTA%20%E2%80%93%20Treehouse%20Foods%2C%20Inc.,the%20federal%20agency%20announced%20today.  .......................13  3 eeoc.gov/newsroom/mueller industries-settles-ecoc-class-disability-discrimination-lawsuit-1-million#:~:text=LOS%20ANGELES%20%D%20The%20U.S.%20Equal,million%20and%20other%20injunctive%20relief.  .............................................13  4 abetterbalance.org/our-issues/abusive-attendance-policies #:~:text=In%20June%2C%202020%2C%20we%20released,%E2%80%94routinely%20violate%20workers%20rights.  (Last visited at February 8, 2024).  ....14  PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[brief] As a result of [...]’s efforts, Defendants provided the following records on September 6, 2022:  1.  EDS 02980-2013 [...] on behalf of [...] v. [...] [...] - Resolution and Settlement were provided - No Decision could be located 2.  EDS BD 06031-2013  [...] v. [...] on behalf of [...] [...] - Resolution, Decision, and Settlement were provided 3.  EDS 08395-2013  [...] & [...] o/b/o [...] v [...] [...] - Resolution and Settlement were provided - No Decision could be located 4.  EDS BD 13153-2013 [...] v [...] o/b/o [...] (C) [...] - Decision and Settlement were provided - No Resolution could be located 5.  EDS 14318-2013  [...] and [...] on behalf on [...] v. [...] [...] - Resolution, Settlement and Decision were provided 6.  EDS 14420-2013  [...] o/b/o [...] v [...] [...] - Decision and Settlement were provided - No Resolution could be located 7.  EDS 15625-2013  [...] on behalf of [...] v. [...] [...] - Decision and Settlement were provided - No Resolution could be located 8.  EDS 16243-2013  [...] v. [...] and [...] on behalf of [...] [...] - Decision and Settlement were provided - No Resolution could be located 9.  EDS 02394-2014  [...] and [...] on behalf of [...] v. [...] [...] - Resolution, Decision, and Settlement were provided 10.  EDS 11571-2014 [...] on behalf of [...] v. [...] [...] - Decision and Settlement were provided - No Resolution could be located 11.  EDS 12582-2014  [...] and [...] on behalf of [...] v. [...] [...] - Resolution was provided - No Decision or Settlement could be located Pa217.  As to the issue of attorney’s fees awarded in the August 2020 Order, said fees were to be paid to both Plaintiffs’ counsel, [...] and [...].
[brief] [...] testified about the first clip, which she saved since she thought it could be [...]: shortly after the shooting, a man walks down the street onto [...], and later, a Jaguar pulls in.  [...] claimed she reviewed other cameras but did not see where he had walked from.  She had already started reviewing footage before her October 2012 interview with [...] in which [...] confirmed [...]’s statement that he had been at Oakcrest all day until she picked him up in her Jaguar.
[brief] See N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10 i.  Objectors admittedly filed their Complaint in Lieu of Prerogative Writs out of time.  (Pa113).  Six (6) months later, after a Pre-Trial Conference, exchange of Pre-Trial memoranda and numerous status conferences, on July 27, 2023, the Objectors filed a Motion to Extend the Period of Time in Which to File Their Complaint in Lieu of Prerogative Writs.  (Pa113).  The Objectors simultaneously sought relief in the form of a remand, discovery and/or a trial de novo to present to the Trial Court evidence not presented to the ZBA below.  (Pa113-114).  On October 13, 2023, the Trial Court heard oral argument on the Objectors’ Motion.  (Pa850).  On October 18, 2023, the Trial Court denied the Objectors’ Motion.  (Pa847-848).  On November 19, 2023 (nearly one year after the ZBA adopted its Resolution of Approval and nearly two years after the first scheduled hearing before the ZBA) the Objectors filed a Notice of Appeal (which was subsequently amended on December 18, 2023).  (Pa862).  Though Objectors’ Appellate Brief was originally due on February 26, 2024, it was only filed on June 7, 2024 and approved for filing on June 10, 2024.  (Pb1).
[brief] Dated: September 1, 2022 ...............................................................  Da41  Exhibit E: Ferrer v. Pinsak, 2015 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 316 .........................................................................................  Da44  Notice of Motion to Compel Discovery Against Defendant [...] (R. 4:23-5(c)  Filed: November 17, 2022 .................................................................  Da59  Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment (R. 4:46-1)  Filed: February 1, 2023 .....................................................................
[brief] While Plaintiff believes Paragraph 42 somehow modifies Paragraph 15 of the Lease concerning fire damage, a more believable reading of the Lease would lead to the conclusion that Paragraph 42 modifies Paragraph 5 of the Lease entitled “Repairs and Care”.  (Pa18)(T3 16:14-17:13)  Even if this Court was inclined to perceive these paragraphs as an ambiguity, “it is only just that ambiguities in a lease which are reasonably susceptible of disparate interpretations should be resolved in favor of the tenant.  Where doubt exists courts generally favor the tenant rather than the landlord. ”  Porter & Ripa Assocs., Inc. v. 200 Madison Ave. Real Estate Grp., 167 N.J. Super. 48, 54 (Super. Ct. App. Div. 1979)  The lower Court correctly found that Paragraph 45 of the Lease modified the Tenant’s obligation to make general repairs under paragraph 5 of the Lease.  Paragraph 45 did not modify the Landlord’s obligation to repair the premises after a fire loss.  (3T:16:3 – 17:7)  Also belying Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant is responsible for fire loss is Paragraph 17 of the Lease which allows the Landlord to terminate the Lease if the Landlord cannot obtain “fire and other hazard insurance on the buildings and improvements. . .in an amount and in the form and from insurance companies acceptable to Landlord” (Pa19).  One would have to wonder why the Landlord would have to obtain fire insurance if the Tenant were responsible for fire loss under the Lease as Plaintiff argues.  Lastly, Plaintiff interjected a new argument about insurance which was outside the scope of what was represented to the Court to be the issues decided at trial.  (Pb7; 1T 7:6 – 8:12)  It is respectfully requested that this Court ignore this speculation and clear contradiction of what was represented to be the scope of the trial.  POINT TWO IN THE EVENT THAT THIS COURT REVERSES THE JUDGMENT, THE CASE SHOULD BE REMANDED FOR FURTHER FACTFINDING.
[brief] 1.  Respondent argues that Appellants were to blame for not discovering that [...] lied on his CV before the deposition.  There was no finding of fault by the Court in its decision to deny plaintiffs’ motion.  Respondent argued that Plaintiffs could have discovered [...]’s misrepresentation, but clearly one who retains an expert is at a disadvantage to an adversary party in its ability to cross-examine an expert.  Regardless, the Court’s decision was solely based upon the upcoming discovery deadline and trial.  See IT10-12, 2T31-33, Appellants’ Brief.  Retained experts are not placed under oath by the parties that retain them and asked whether their curriculum vitae is true.  There was no reason for plaintiffs to doubt its expert’s representation until he capitulated to his misrepresentation under cross examination at the deposition.
[brief] Deputy Attorney General  On the Brief TABLE OF CONTENTS  PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS ......  1  ARGUMENT I.  THE BOARD’S DENIAL OF [...]’S APPLICATION MADE APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR AND THREE MONTHS PAST THE STATUTORY DEADLINE TO FILE FOR AMENDED BENEFITS  IS REASONABLE AND SHOULD BE AFFIRMED ...........................................................................................................  5  II.  CONSIDERATIONS OF ADEQUATE OR ACTUAL NOTICE  DO NOT COMPEL A DIFFERENT RESULT..................................................................................................................10  CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................19
[directive] Printed on Recycled Paper and is Recyclable PART I.  GENERAL OVERVIEW OF LEGAL AND POLICY ISSUES  Recent Amendments to the Drug-Free School Zone Law Restore Judicial Sentencin~ Discretion in Certain Cases  New Jersey’s drug-free school zone law, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7, was recently amended by L. 2009, c. 192.  The new law, which took effect immediately upon its adoption on January 12, 2010, gives judges discretion to waive or reduce the mandatory term of imprisonment and parole ineligibility in school zone cases where the crime was not committed while actually on school grounds or a school bus, where firearms or violence were not involved, and where the offender has not previously been convicted of drug distribution or possession with intent to distribute.  Until now, the mandatory minimum sentence prescribed in the school zone law could only be waived or reduced by the prosecutor pursuant to N.J.S.A.
[brief] (Da324-331)  He pointed out that the waiver provision on which the [...] case manager relied required “knowledge” of a requirement of the rules before it could be waived.  (Pa325)  He demonstrated to [...] that its rules would only trigger the LCC procedures where there was a, “disclosed claim or counterclaim of any party that is at least $500,000. ” (Pa326, citing R-1c Pa197-98)(emph. added)).  He demonstrated that, before the June 2016 amendment, there was no “disclosed” claim for any dollar amount.  (Ibid.)(Da269)  [...] pointed out the Parties had been paying [...]’s fees at lower, regular rates than were required for Large Complex Cases.  (Da327)(Da336)  [...] also pointed further that the new pleading named 11 new Parties, none of whom could be deemed to have waived rights to the LCC Rules back in 2011.
[brief] (Da302-03)  The most drastic sanctions for loss or spoliation of evidence depend upon a finding of “intention inconsistent with fair play and therefore inconsistent with due process, or an egregious carelessness or prosecutorial excess tantamount to suppression. ”  Laganella, 144 N.J. Super. at 282-83.  The trial judge found [...] carelessly or negligently disposed of hundreds of hours of potentially exculpatory video that the defense had sought.  [...] once again breached its duty in this important case by failing to preserve and maintain the hard drive for future defense inspection, compounding the manifest prejudice to [...].  This represented a far more egregious lack of care than the July 2013 “wiping. ”  Now, it cannot be known whether there was any further footage to be discovered by forensic examination.  [...] then stonewalled on PCR, refusing to provide any information about the hard drive other than that it no longer had it, even in the face of court orders.  The destruction of discoverable material severely prejudiced the defense in its preparation of the case.  [...]’s subsequent loss or destruction of the hard drive violated the August 7, 2013 preservation order, and its stonewalling hamstrung [...] in litigating his PCR petition.  Justice and fairness require severe sanction.  Dismissal or deeming as fact that the footage would have been exculpatory is warranted.  While [...] did not rule on this relief requested in the April 4, 2022 discovery motion, it should be considered by this Court.  [...] has been incarcerated for well over a decade, and has been repeatedly deprived of the means to mount a complete defense.  At a minimum, the court on remand should consider, after proper discovery is permitted and an evidentiary hearing held, whether either of these alternative remedies is warranted.
[brief] Following the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized in that search, defendant reached a global plea agreement involving that indictment and two other indictments.  He pled guilty to second-degree conspiracy to distribute CDS while in possession of a firearm and second-degree certain persons not to possess a weapon, which both arose out of the warrantless search, and second-degree witness tampering.  In accordance with the plea agreement, he was later sentenced to an aggregate prison term of twelve years with a six-year period of parole ineligibility.  Pursuant to Rule 3:5-7(d), defendant preserved his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
[directive] CEDs and other authorized less-lethal devices and ammunition shall not be utilized against a passive resistor or an active resistor.  Officers shall always strive to use only that degree of force that is objectively reasonable, necessary and proportional considering the totality of the circumstances.  3.7.1  An officer authorized to use a CED or a less-lethal device pursuant to this Policy may fire, discharge, or utilize drive stun mode of the device during an actual operation, consistent with Addendum A, only against: (a) an active assailant; (b) a threatening assailant who will not voluntarily submit to custody after having been given a reasonable opportunity to do so considering the exigency of the situation and the immediacy of the need to employ law enforcement force; (c) a person who is attempting to cause death or serious bodily injury to themselves; or 10  USE OF FORCE POLICY | December 2021
[brief] As a result, [...] was locked into an agreement pursuant to which it invested $25 million, has yet to receive a single dollar of revenue in return for its efforts, and has lost countless millions by Defendant’s refusal to allow [...] to build the retail/residential and office components.  [...] then brought suit against Defendant, alleging breach of contract and seeking specific performance of the Redevelopment Agreement and other related contracts, as well as reformation of those agreements to ensure a mutually profitable venture going forward.  All [...] has asked for since filing this action is to have the [...] abide by its agreement to build the subject garage and to be permitted to proceed with [...]’s additional planned components.
[brief] Appellant demonstrated photographic evidence and argued to the Court that the [...] had a significant water leak in the Spring of 2022.  (Pa115).  The remedy used to stop the water coming into the museum was to collect the water with garbage bags and a garbage can.  The remedy to protect the historic Kidnapping documents was to do nothing.  As demonstrated, the [...] failed to move these historic documents located directly underneath the garbage can and garbage bag collecting the leaking water.  (Pa115).  This water may have caused damage to the original condition of some of the Lindbergh historical records both before the garbage can was placed there to collect water and after the garbage bag and garbage can were placed there.