ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] Defendants’ environmental expert, [...], commented that typically the RAO and development are done together, or as he stated, the “cleanup and the remedy” based on the proposed site end use.  8T113-5 to 14.  Plaintiff’s environmental expert, [...] outlined the step-by-step process that connects redevelopment to the RAO.  4T220-7 to 20.  [...] also acknowledged that RAO and redevelopment “go hand in hand“.  7T15-18; 6T34-03.  Alessi was well aware that the site was in DEP oversight and fines had been assessed.  7T24-4 to 9; 7T79-7 to 80-3.  Plaintiff’s Environmental Expert, [...], and Defendants’ Environmental Expert, [...], both agree that a sitewide cap would be required to complete the remediation and obtain the RAO.  4T140-17 to 25; 6T47-14 to 16.  Plaintiff’s Environmental Expert stated that, if the Defendants capped the site prior to sale, Plaintiff would then remove that cap and put in a new cap as part of the redevelopment.  4T141-14 to 20.  Plaintiff’s Environmental Expert also stated that the RAO can only remain valid as long as the entire site is protected and that documentary modifications are only done to the Remedial Action Permit which precedes the RAO, not to the RAO itself.  4T219-21 to 25.  Defendants’ Environmental Expert stated that an RAO cannot be issued until the remediation is totally complete.  6T47-11 to 12.  Defendant’s Environmental Expert also stated that the redevelopment itself acts as the cap, and that the DEP has to first issue a remedial action permit which covers the cap, including requirements for maintaining it.  6T47-20 to 5T48-4.  Defendants’ Environmental Expert additionally stated that the NJDEP permit review process could take up to a year.  With the final capping and remediation required for the RAO after the permit is reviewed and approved, this process could take several years.  6T49-1 to 9.  All information regarding the RIR was disclosed to prospective purchaser, Plaintiff, and is also a matter of public record, as was known and confirmed by Alessi. Da39; 2T156-14 to 157-1.
[brief] This court examined the legislative intent behind both statutes and was “convinced that including title insurers in the [Fraud Act] assessments gives effect to the legislative intent underlying the [Fraud Act] without disturbing the legislative intent underlying the TIA. ”  Id. at 557  The court reasoned, “‘Statutes are to be read sensibly rather than literally and the controlling legislative intent is to be presumed as “consonant to reason and good discretion. ”’”  Ibid. (quoting N.J. State League of Municipalities, 310 N.J. Super. at 234).  The principles set forth in Chicago Title apply equally to the exclusivity provisions of the Reciprocal Exchange Act and the Holding Company Act, and each can be given effect without frustrating the legislative intent underlying the other.
[directive] Americans with Act Disabilities Directive# 16-20  Guidance for Megan's Law Proceedings  During the COVID-19 Pandemic Page2  Additionally, court staff are responsible for providing the parties with the information on the technology that will be used for the remote proceeding (the link and the instructions to participate or remotely via video phone).  The preferred technology for these proceedings is Microsoft Teams.  Any questions regarding Directive #16-20 may be directed to Assistant Director [...] or (Criminal Practice Division) via email at [...] by phone at [...].  Attachment (Guidance for Megan's Law Proceedings)  cc: Chief Justice [...]  Trial Court Administrators  Attorney General [...]  Special Assistants to the Administrative Director S. Public Defender [...] E.  Deputy Attorney General [...]  [...], Director, DCJ Deputy Public Defender [...] of [...], Chief Staff Criminal Division Managers and Assistants  D. AOC Directors and Assistant Directors  [...], Chief Guidance for Megan's Law Proceedings
[brief] He opined that the shell casings were all the same and were fired from the same semiautomatic weapon.  (9T60-17 to 20; 9T66-5 to 8; 9T67-6 to 7).  [...] also explained that when a gun is fired, there is a “muzzle flash” which is essentially fire coming out of the gun.  (9T68-20 to 69-13).  [...] also examined the projectile fragments recovered from [...]’s body.  (9T70-21 to 25).  The fragments were not suitable for comparison purposes, so Parsons could not identify the type of weapon from which they were fired.  (9T74-7 to 10).  However, he testified that the lead fragment was consistent with the way a .223 caliber rifle would render a projectile.  (9T74-11 to 16).  B.
[brief] The reach of the Entire Controversy Doctrine was at its most expansive following the Court's 1995 decisions in *Circle Chevrolet Co. v. Giordano*, *Halleran & Ciesla, P.C.*, 142 N.J. 280 (1995).  Eventually the Court moderated its approach by reinterpreting the doctrine as it related to parties and certain claims and, in that context, by directing the Civil Practice Committee to propose revisions to the relevant Rules.
[brief] [...] And [...] Breached Their Fiduciary Duty, Engaged In Self-Dealing And Are Personally Liable To Plaintiff.  Plaintiff appeals the Trial Court’s May 8, 2023 Final Judgment and June 26, 2023 Order and contests the dismissal of all claims against Defendants [...] and [...], including claims that they violated the New Jersey Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (“NJ RULLCA”), N.J.S.A. 42:2C-1 to -94, and Plaintiff’s claim to pierce the corporate veil.
[brief] Plaintiffs were permitted to present this theory at trial, though it has no basis in law.  “Negligence and willfulness are mutually exclusive terms implying radically different states of mind. ”  Wegiel v. Hogan, 28 N.J. Super. 144, 152-53 (App. Div. 1953).  “’Negligence’ and ‘intentional’ are contradictory; ‘negligence excludes design. ’”  Price v. Phillips, 90 N.J. Super. 480, 485-86 (App. Div. 1966) (quoting LoRocco v. N.J.M. Ind. Ins. Co., 82 N.J. Super. 323, 329 (App. Div. 1964) and citing 65 C.J.S., Negligence, § 1(a), p. 315).
[brief] Defendants further argue that, as a matter of law, the unlawful denial of the application fails to “shock the conscience. ”  Again, Defendants disregard the language of the Trial Court, as well as the relevant law governing the conduct of zoning boards.  As set forth in Plaintiff’s initial Brief, the Municipal Land Use Law (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 et seq., “MLUL”) prohibits the governing body or other officials from infringing on those application review powers that are expressly reserved to the planning and zoning boards.  See N.J.S.A. 40:55D–20 (“Any power expressly authorized by this act to be exercised by [the] (1) planning board or (2) board of adjustment shall not be exercised by any other body, except as otherwise provided in this act. ”).  By giving exclusive authority over variance review to the zoning boards, the New Jersey Legislature evidenced its intent that the governing body and other municipal officials should not interfere with or influence the zoning board’s decision.  The Trial Court found that the Mayor’s statements against the application, and the dissemination of those statements the week before the hearing on the application, were “appalling and shocking”, and “direct, calculated interference” with the powers reserved to the Zoning Board by the Legislature.
[brief] 4 Other Authorities A. 6260 (2021) .....................................................................................................................  passim Assembly Appropriations Committee, Statement to A.2100 (Jan. 30, 1996) .... 6 S. 287 (1980) .........................................................................................................................  7 S.49 (2021) ...........................................................................................................................  passim Statement to S. 287 (July 14, 1980) ..................................................................................  7  TABLE OF REPLY APPENDIX (Pra1-50)
[brief] PLAINTIFF PREVIOUSLY AND EXTENSIVELY OPPOSED [...]’S PREEMPTION  ARGUMENTS  VIII.  PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY IS ADMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO N.J.R.E. 702 AND 703 AND PREVAILING CASE LAW.  [ISSUE RAISED AND DECIDED (Pa047, ¶33 - Pa057, ¶71; Da0790-Da0792; Da0794-Da0798, Da0819-Da0829)]...........................................
[directive] STATUTES WHERE BAIL MAY BE SET BY A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE OR A MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE OR, IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE’S ABSENCE, THE MUNICIPAL COURT ADMINISTRATOR OR DEPUTY COURT ADMINISTRATOR, PURSUANT TO RULE 3:26-2 requires warrants  Rule 3:3-1(c)(1) on the Bail Schedule 2 charges of robbery, criminal sexual contact, second degree aggravated assault, aggravated arson, arson, burglary, first or second degree violations of Chapter 35 (drug offenses), any crime involving the possession or use of a firearm, or conspiracies or attempts to commit such crimes.  Rule 3:3-1(c)(2-6) (indictable offenses) and Rule 7:2-2(b)(1-6) delineate factors regarding whether a warrant or summons should issue for other offenses.  Rule 3:26-1 (indictable offenses) and Rule 7:4-1 (non-indictable offenses) delineate factors to be considered when setting bail and provide for the option of R.O.R. bail where appropriate.
[directive] See the current counsel report  Some defense that this practice helps them to convince their clients that Brima~e Guidelines, §4.7. in their will be enforced and that it is best interests to accept the current offer.  escalating plea policy the 32 (requiring that or initial Guidelines, §4.3 apre-indictment post-indictment plea offer include a Brima~e See right to file or further any pretrial defendant waive the litigate motions).
[directive] 1, Document  Page 1 of 1  New Jersey  Permanent Statutes  TITLE  40A  MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES of 40A:5-10.  Revocation cancellation license or 40A :5-10.  Revocation or cancellation of license  Upon proof that any registered municipal accountant shall have knowingly omitted to report any error, omission, irregularity, violation of law or discrepancy found in the books or accounts, or shall have issued false reports of the audit of any local unit, or of such a nature as not to comply with the requirements of the director, or if such registered municipal accountant shall fail to file such report and his recommendations as herein directed, or neglect or refuse to carry out any agreement for audit, of registration license may be canceled by the State Board Public Accountants.
[directive] 4  Demographic data for local populations—searchable by municipality and county—is available at the U.S. Census website: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/.  Additionally, the following URL links to a pre-filtered table on the Census website that shows data for the adult population of all New Jersey municipalities and counties:  https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=hispanic%20or%20latino%20and%20not%20hispanic%20or%20latino%20b y%20race&g=0400000US34,34%240500000,34%24160000&tid=DECENNIALPL2020.P4&hidePreview=true.  3 religion;5 enforcement officer organizations based on race, ethnic group, gender, or local colleges with significant student diversity; minority-serving educational institutions;6 and military veterans.  Such methods may also include ensuring recruitment materials that (1) reflect visible diversity, (2) are reviewed by a diverse team prior to release, and (3) are delivered by a diverse recruiting team.  The diversity of those conducting applicant interviews should also be considered.  Finally, recruiting methods may involve establishing pipeline programs that foster and enhance an interest in law enforcement among diverse youth populations as early as middle school.
[brief] [...]'s November 15, 2019, statement had been provided in the presence of his attorney, on the same day that he pleaded guilty to aggravated manslaughter in exchange for a recommended sentence of between ten to twenty years (24T145-5 ot 24T150-25;Da61-Da66).  The State argued that the video recording of the November 15, 2019, statement was admissible either through [...] or through [...], who took the statement (17T5-9 to 18).  Defense counsel objected because [...]'s testimony was not inconsistent with his statement (17T6-2 to 17T7-20;17T11-19 to 25).  She also objected to the playing of the recorded statement during [...]'s testimony because it was "not a prior consistent statement made by Det. [...]" (17T14-4 to 7).  But the court ruled that the statement was admissible to show that "at a time prior to there being the benefit of the plea" [...] gave a statement that was consistent with his courtroom testimony (17T10-12 to 15).  It also ruled that the State could introduce the statement "during rebuttal" through [...]'s testimony (17T15-23 to 17T16-1).  The court found that admission of the statement was permissible under N.J.R.E. 607 to "rebut whether there was a motive at the time that he gave that statement" (17T10-16 to 20).  The court said the statement was "not admissible as substantive" evidence, but it never instructed the jury to that effect (17T10-10 to 11;24T186-21 to 24T188-21).
[brief] The long-standing policy of New Jersey is to protect the right to access its courts.  As provided in Article I, paragraph 9 of the New Jersey Constitution, “[t]he right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. ”  “Although rights may be waived, courts ‘indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights. ’” (internal citation and quotation omitted).  To be valid, waivers must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. ”  *Mazdabrook Commons Homeowners’ Ass’n. v. Khan*, 210 N.J. 482, 505 (2012).  \(^{11}\) [...] did not file an Answer or assert any defenses
[brief] Obviously aware of the extended discussion in *Renz* regarding the disparate opinions over many decades engendered by the Legislature's choice to include both "status" and "conduct" concepts in the 1869 and 1903 renditions of the statute, the Legislature in 1998 did as the *Renz* Court suggested it could and adopted an approach focusing solely on whether the plaintiff was unlawfully within the right of way.  87 N.J. at 445 ("If the Legislature, in enacting the railroad immunity statute, had wanted to adopt an approach focusing upon the presence or absence of landowner duty, and to codify a rule of no duty to trespassers, it could very well have done so simply by relating the statute to the status of the plaintiff vis-a-vis the property of the railroad. ”).  Da48 (Funes, 2012 WL 4069543 at *5-6 (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added)).  In considering the plain language, as well as the Appellate Division’s interpretation in Funes, the statute works as follows.
[brief] *Lapsley*, 249 N.J. at 432.  On plaintiff’s appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, finding that plaintiff’s injuries were not compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act.  *Lapsley*, 249 N.J. at 432.  However, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, finding that plaintiff’s accident and injuries arose out of and in the course of employment, and thus were compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act.  *Lapsley*, 249 N.J. at 437-38.  The Supreme Court held:
[brief] 10  Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517 (2011).............................................................................. 12, 13, 14  Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (1983).......................................................................................  17 NJ Dep’t of Envir. Protection, et al. v. Monsanto Co., et al., [...] (Superior Court, Gloucester County, NJ)..........................4, 17 Sensient Colors Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 193 N.J. 373 (2008)............................................................................. 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20 Town of Lexington v. Pharmacia Corp., No.  12-CV-11645, 2015 WL 1321457 (D. Mass. Mar. 24, 2015)  ...............  5  Wolf v. Edison Properties, No. [...], 2019 WL 2396994 (N.J. Super. L., Middlesex Cnty.  Jan. 28, 2019)..................................................................  13  Yancoskie v. Delaware River Port Auth., 78 N.J. 321 (1978)....................................................................................  15  Zucco v. Walgreen Eastern, Co., Inc., No. [...], 2022 WL 1696351 (N.J. Super. L., Bergen Cnty. Jan. 18, 2022).....................................................................  13
[brief] Similarly, there are likely other documents in [...]’s possession that had nothing to do with [...] or its equipment but that would still be relevant to this case.  For example, [...] claims the equipment [...] delivered under the contract was defective.  [...] argues that the [...] equipment was not defective, but was connected to “upstream system lime pumps and scrubbers” manufactured by third parties that damaged the Scientific equipment.  Many of the proposed search terms, like “pump” and “scrubber,” might very well lead to documents detailing any problems with the third-party equipment, even though those documents might not always mention the [...] equipment.  These kinds of documents are well within the broad definition of relevance in discovery contexts, which includes “any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case. ”  Oppenheimer, 437 U.S. at 351.  Accordingly, [...] has not satisfied its burden of demonstrating the inappropriateness of [...]’s discovery request.
[brief] Per [...] in Ferreira, “mandatory dismissal with prejudice should be limited to those cases in which a plaintiff cannot or will not produce an affidavit of merit at all. ”  Ferreira, supra 178 N.J. at 157 (Long, J., concurring and dissenting).  Plaintiff’s lawsuit is not lacking merit and therefore, an untimely submitted affidavit in light of substantial compliance should have prevented dismissal of her Complaint with prejudice, which would have been a just and equitable result that is in line with the Affidavit of Merit statute’s purpose and the progeny of cases that followed Ferreira.
[brief] [...], of the [...], tried to lift fingerprints from the scene of the robbery but was unable to collect any prints of evidential value.  [...] and [...] went to the police station and gave their statements.  Both [...] and [...] separately looked through four mug shot books but were unable to identify any of the photographs as either of the robbers.  Defendant's photograph was not in any of the mug shot books.  [...], however, was able to pick out the photograph of the mother of the woman she saw in [...] from the mug book.  From [...]'s information, the police determined that the woman who [...] identified had a daughter named [...].  Detective [...] conducted an investigation that led him to the [...] where he found [...] and defendant.  He placed them under arrest.  Three weeks later the detective put together a photo array, which was administered to [...] by [...].  [...] could not identify Simmons but did identify defendant, whose photograph was the fifth photograph in the photo array, as the man who committed the robbery.  [...] was never shown the photo array.  At trial, both [...] and [...] made in-court identifications of defendant as the person who committed the robbery.
[brief] The Appellant, hereinafter referred to as [...], was arrested on March 1, 2017, and on January 30, 2018, he was indicted by a state Grand Jury in [...], with possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a.(1)/35-5b(1) (Count 1); possession with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1)/35-5b10(a) (Count 2); possession of cocaine in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a(1) (Count 3); and possession of marijuana in violation of N.J.S.
[brief] ” (P573a; 12T150:7-22).  In his letter, Petitioner advised the Decedent that from his observations, Respondent was too immature to be given a car:  [...] is only 16 going on 17......As it now stands, her boyfriend is having a greater influence over her and her life rather than those who have her best interests at heart.  Laying aside his disrespect, rudeness (stopping by at 2 AM or calling her at 1AM and making her emotionally upset; etc).  * * *  …I would decline to get her a car until she can demonstrate a consistent 3.5 average and or show consistent respect for and a concern for your wishes respecting school..  When you gave her the algebra books, she had a smart comment to make at the top of the stairs about not using them and I would use her own attitude to encourage her to do better and dump her attitude.  February incident.  11T17:23 to 18:9.
[brief] *Ratner* involved a situation where the defendant suggested that a motor vehicle collision was caused by the side effects of medication the plaintiff was taking which were alleged to have caused her to lose control of her vehicle.  *Ratner*, 241 N.J. Super. at 204.  The defendant was permitted to present evidence of the various side effects of the medication in the absence of any expert medical opinion addressing the issue.  *Id.*  The Appellate Division ruled that the admission of the medical data without any supporting expert opinion constituted reversible error.  *Id.* at 205-206.  A similar issue was recently addressed by the Appellate Division in *Wegner v. Derrico*, 2020 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 425 (App. Div. 2020).
[brief] Appellant [...] applied for a Service Retirement from the [...] on September 12, 2011.  (Pa68). ²  The Board approved Shea’s Special Retirement with an effective date of February 1, 2012, as it provided a higher ¹  Because the procedural history and facts are closely related, they are combined for efficiency and the court’s convenience.  ² “Pa” refers to appellant’s appendix; “Pb” refers to his brief. benefit to him than the Service Retirement.  (Pa70).  On July 8, 2019, the New Jersey Legislature enacted L. 2019, c. 157 (the “Ricci Act”).  The Ricci Act in relevant part permitted active or retired members of the [...] to file for a recalculation of Ordinary Disability, Service, or Special retirement benefits to Accidental Disability retirement benefits provided they participated in the rescue, recovery, or cleanup operations at the World Trade Center Site.  (Pa10).  The Ricci Act also created a presumption that the disability of the member or retiree “occurred during and as a result of the performance of the member’s regular or assigned duties and not the result of the member’s willful negligence unless the contrary can be proved by competent evidence. ” (Pa10).  On August 7, 2019, the [...] added information about the Ricci Act to its website.  (Pa10).  The webpage included information for active members, retirees, and employers about qualifying dates, --- 3  A Service Retirement is provided for by N.J.S.A. 53:5A-8 for any member who has established twenty years of service in [...] and also for troopers who were members of the retirement system as of the effective date of L. 1985, c. 175 regardless of their years of service.
[brief] The Intersection of Prospect Street and Prospect Avenue Was Designated a Dangerous Intersection by [...].  Defendant [...] posted "Dangerous Intersection" signs at all four corners of the subject intersection.  At deposition, [...]'s Business Administrator, [...], testified that he was aware that there was a "Dangerous Intersection" sign posted at the intersection (Pa686, 687).  Yet, he did not know when the sign was put up (Pa 687).  He admitted that the sign was barely visible because of tree branches in a picture shown (Pa690).  At deposition, [...], [...]'s Director of Public Works for decades, testified that he was aware of the "Dangerous Intersection" sign, but he did not know who requested the sign and when it was installed (Pa687).  He did not know anything about the purpose or the placement of the sign at its location in the intersection and why the sign was placed at the intersection (Pa688).  He did know, however, that the sign was no longer at the intersection; he acknowledged that it would have been his department that would remove the sign; and he did not know if the sign was removed since the 2017 accident (Pa688).  Moreover, two police officers, who ran details frequently on Prospect Street, testified that they also were aware of the sign (Pa710, 156-57).  E.