ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] Respondents’ briefs encourage the Court to consider the totality of the statutory scheme surrounding N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.11.  Appellants agree with this course of action, particularly because, as set forth in our opening brief, the text of P.L. 2021 c. 402, the Act which adopted N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.11 which reveals that the Legislature did not include municipalities such as [...] in the class of entities listed N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.11(a).  Initially, it is imperative to ground any examination of this statute in the fact that it limits municipal governing body applicants, in relevant part, to those “constituting a constituent district of a limited purpose regional district, part of an all-purpose regional district, or part of a consolidated school district.
[directive] Transfer funds to the the county’s share of a CLETA of of a. forfeiture distribution after the county prosecutor’s office obtains either: a final judgment by default; 1. a consent decreelstipulation of settlementlfinal 2.  - - of 03 State 2 New Jersey Forfeiture Program Administration Standard Operating Procedure Page: I judgment; 3. a final judgment confirming forfeiture; or 4. a consent to forfeiture placed on the record at guilty plea, sentencing or similar dispositional proceeding. of AGLEFA, b.  Transfer funds to a county or municipal Law Enforcement Trust Account, an escrow account or established for a specific municipal law enforcement agency as defined under Forfeiture Program 04.  Administration  Standard Operatina Procedure  These transfers can be made only after the county prosecutor’s ofice obtains either: 1. a final judgment by default; 2. a consent decree/stipulation of settlemenfffinal judgment; a 3. final judgment confirming forfeiture; or a consent to forfeiture placed on the record at guilty  4. plea, sentencing or similar dispositional proceeding.
[brief] \(^{19}\)  That is not surprising as \(^{19}\)  By contrast, in National Iranian Oil Co. v. Mapco International, Inc., 983 F.2d 485, 489 (3d Cir. 1992), cited by Appellants (Pb at 50), the mootness issue arose out of the defendant’s inability to pay a judgment.  In another case cited by Appellants, Surrick v. Killion, 449 F.3d 520, 526 (3d Cir. 2006), the mootness issue arose out of appellants’ alleged failure to comply with the district court’s order.  Appellants continue to sell [...] beer and no longer face the loss of their [...] distribution rights.  Thus, any potential damages have been averted.
[brief] In *Katz v. Schachter*, 251 N.J.Super. 467, 473-474, 598 A.2d 923 (App. Div. 1991), *certif. denied*, 130 N.J. 6, 611 A.2d 646 (1992), plaintiff homeowners brought suits against various defendants, including realtors and a termite company to recover damages from the demolition of the property caused by an extensive termite infestation.
[brief] A.  Unclean Hands  The unclean hands argument is an important argument made by Appellant in the underlying litigation.  However, unfortunately the trial judge failed to properly decide this important case issue, and simply brushed it off.  What caused this legal dispute?  This legal dispute originated from the two (2) December 10, 1998 deeds, listing [...] (namely, [...]) as the owner, thereby enabling him, as the title owner listed in the deed, to transfer the title to others.  Pursuant to these two (2) deeds, the title of the property was transferred from [...] to [...] (a/k/a [...]), which resulted in the further transfer from [...] to [...] many years later.  As a result, [...] filed the underlying litigation.  Trial transcripts contain the following testimony of [...] regarding the names used by [...] and [...], respectively.
[brief] As noted above, Section 4 of the Public Access Law and NJDEP’s existing Public Access Rule\(^{16}\) jointly provide that the Department may require public access on private property only if (i) the public already has access to the shoreline; (ii) the applicant proposes a change in the existing footprint of a structure or a change in the use of the property; and (iii) the imposition of a new access requirement is “consistent with the public trust doctrine. ”  See N.J.S.A. 13:1D-153; N.J.A.C. 7:7-16.9(k)(2).  Nevertheless, the Department proceeded to require [...] to create new public access to the waterfront on and across its property as a condition of \(^{16}\)N.J.A.C. 7:7-16.9(k)(2) unambiguously provides that at an existing residential development, such as [...], where the proposed activities consist solely of accessory development or structural shore protection (e.g., a bulkhead), no public access is required if there is no existing public access onsite.  authorizing the reconstruction of a bulkhead, which neither changed the use of the Property nor expanded the footprint of a structure thereat in a manner that would allow for the imposition of additional conditions without violating established Department regulations.  See N.J.A.C. 7:7-15.11(d)(2) and N.J.A.C. 7:7-16.9(k)(2).  Of equal importance is the fact that NJDEP’s Public Access Rule, N.J.A.C. 7:7-16.9(k)(2), expressly provides that at an existing residential development, such as [...], where the proposed regulated activities consist “solely of accessory development or structural shore protection” (in this case, a bulkhead), no public access is required if there is no existing public access onsite.  Crucially, when considered jointly, the Engineering Rule expressly indicates at N.J.A.C. 7:7-15.11(d)(2)(ii)-(iii) that the reconstruction of an existing bulkhead does not qualify as new construction and is conditionally acceptable to NJDEP when the replacement bulkhead is located no more than 24 inches outshore of the existing bulkhead.  N.J.A.C. 7:7-16.9(k)(2), in turn, provides that new public access need not be created for permitted activities at an existing residential development if there is not already public access onsite and the proposed activities consist solely of accessory development or structural shore protection.  [...]’s request to reconstruct its failing bulkhead plainly satisfies both of these conditions.  To the extent, if any, that the Public Access Law authorizes the imposition of a public access requirement as a consequence of [...] reconstructing its failing bulkhead, NJDEP’s record below does not include (i) any analysis of the present demand for public access at or near [...]’s property; (ii) the extent to which the public access that already exists at [...] and [...] satisfies this demand; or (iii) why the creation of new public access to the waterfront at [...]’s property would result in public access that is more meaningful and reasonable than the public access that would result from improving the existing public access options at [...] and [...].
[brief] Da 257-259  State’s Pre-Sentence Memorandum Initial Sentencing4.............................  Da 260-266  Re-Sentencing Counsel for Petitioner Pre-Sentence Memorandum for Re-Sentencing with Exhibits5.........................................................  Da 267-284  Amended Notice of Appeal.......................................................................  Da 346-349  Confidential Appendix – Da 285 to 345
[brief] “When an agency’s determination alters the status quo, persons who are intended to be reached by the finding, and those who will be affected by its future application, should have the opportunity to be heard and to participate in the formulation of the ultimate determination. ”  *Northwest Covenant Med. Ctr. v. Fishman*, 167 N.J. 123, 136 (2001) (quoting *Metromedia*, 97 N.J. at 330).
[brief] Objecting to Motion to Reconsider for [...] filed on October 26, 2023  Exhibit A - Intervenor’s First Set of Interrogatories on Defendant’s 806a-811a  Exhibit B - Defendant’s Demand for Production of Documents to [...]  812a-815a  Exhibit C - E-Mail Correspondence Between Counsel 816a-819a  Exhibit D - E-Mail Correspondence Between Counsel 820a-826a  Exhibit E - Responses to General Interrogatories  827a-833a  Exhibit F - Responses to General Interrogatories 834a-840a  Exhibit G - Responses to General Interrogatories  841a-843a  Certification of [...]  Objection to Motion to Reconsider  TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
[brief] The resolution of criminal charges proffered against Plaintiff arising from the subject appeal is indeed noteworthy.  As referenced in the Preliminary Statement, charges were proffered against Plaintiff for possession of CDS, obstruction of justice and resisting arrest stemming from his arrest on February 20, 2020.  On October 27, 2021, following a trial which took place over several court sessions, Hon. [...], J.M.C. in Highland Park Municipal Court found plaintiff guilty of obstruction of justice, and of resisting arrest.  The other pending charges were dismissed.
[brief] (Pa 388 - [...] Deposition at pp. 38-39, L 21-25, 1-3).  [...]’s name is not on the deed.  (Pa353 - Deposition of [...] pp. 97, L 13-20.).  There is a bank generated document, signed by Johnny [...] and [...], stating that the $50,000 was not required to be paid-back by [...] to Matos.  (Pa213).  Despite this document, the Court below ruled that there was no gift intended.  (6T 20-24, 27).  There are no documents of any kind, writing, emails, contracts or text messages, or other recorded communications that preserve whatever agreements may have been made, if any, between [...] and Johnny [...], as to the purchases and rentals of both the Florida and New Jersey homes.  There was never a lease agreement either.  (6T-13, 21-22).  [...] gave Johnny [...] a check for $50,000.00.  (Pa214).  (Pa334-335 - [...] Deposition at p.21, L1-8.).  Johnny [...] is now the husband of [...] [...] and therefore the son-in-law of [...].
[brief] [...] is a regulated utility of the State of New Jersey under Title 48 of the New Jersey statutes.  (Da525a, ¶13).  [...] currently serves approximately 2.3 million electric customers in New Jersey.  (Da523a, ¶4).  Since 2007, [...] has installed more than 575 miles of 69kV power lines in almost 100 municipalities in New Jersey (“69kV Statewide Initiative”).  (Da524a, ¶5).  [...]’s 69kV Statewide Initiative involves the upgrading of electric transmission and distribution lines throughout the State to meet increasing electric demand and to ensure the continued reliability of its energy infrastructure.  (Da524a, ¶6).  The Union County Project and, more specifically, the less than five miles of work necessary in Westfield, is just a small part of [...]’s overall Statewide Initiative.  (Da523a, ¶3; Da526a, ¶15).  B.
[directive] Investigative records created during an internal affairs investigation are included in the "Records Retention and Disposition Schedule for Local Police Departments" issued by the INTERNAL AFFAIRS POLICY & PROCEDURES | November 2022  55 New Jersey Division of Archives and Records Management.  Under the schedule, files concerning a criminal homicide must be permanently maintained.  The schedule also requires that any other file involving a criminal matter resulting in the subject officer’s arrest must be maintained for 75 years.  While the schedule further suggests that all other criminal or administrative internal affairs investigative records be maintained for at least 5 years, agencies should maintain these files as they relate to a particular officer for that officer’s career plus 5 years.  9.4.2
[brief] POINT IV  THE PROSECUTOR’S IMPROPER BURDEN-SHIFTING AND NAME-CALLING IN SUMMATION  REQUIRES REVERSAL OF DEFENDANT’S CONVICTIONS.  (Partially Raised Below: 9T 105-18 to 106-14)  [...]’s defense throughout the trial was that, although he lived in the area, he did not shoot [...].  The jury was tasked with deciding whether [...] was misidentified or whether he was the shooter.  But the prosecutor improperly muddied this issue through inappropriate name-calling and burden-shifting.  These inappropriate tactics deprived [...] of his rights to due process and a fair trial and require reversal of his convictions.
[brief] [...]’s strategically abridged reference to the Named Insured endorsement of its policy to support its “dedicated payroll” argument (Zb25) is also unavailing.  Nothing in the exclusion says anything about “reporting” or “submitting” payroll – it speaks in terms of *not having* a “dedicated” payroll.  --- 8  The binder states:  “**Only the policy itself provides coverage. **  This binder is not a part of and is not incorporated into the insurance policy.  If there is any conflict between the coverage descriptions shown in this proposal and the actual insurance policy, the insurance policy prevails.  **The insurance policy supersedes this binder.**” (Dta1362.) for employees on site.  However, [...] admits that [...] did, as exemplified by its references to the efforts [...] made to report its dedicated payroll for on-site employees to [...].  (Zb16.)  As is apparent from the policy language that [...] omits, which excludes material providers, delivery persons, and the like, the cited language confirms the policy’s intent to exclude similar types of service providers who were incidentally on the site on a transitory basis, i.e., those lacking a payroll “dedicated” to on-site operations.  (Dta146.)  To the extent [...] argues otherwise, its strained interpretation must be construed against it.  [...] argues that cancellation of [...]’s separate workers compensation policy also “automatically” cancelled its CGL coverage.
[directive] When searching for a person with Alzheimer’s Disease who is lost or has wandered, remember:  Most found within ½ mile of last location # The person may have a typical intended destination #  Usually found a short distance from road (perhaps following a railroad track)  #  They will not be crying for help #  They will not respond to shouts #  They may be suffering from exposure to the elements #  May be found in familiar area, such as former residence or workplace #  Ask caregiver or other person familiar with the lost individual if he/she has any # daily or weekly routines, and check those locations that person tells you about.  [...]
[brief] Honorable Judges of the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division  Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex Trenton, New Jersey 08625  Re: STATE OF NEW JERSEY (Plaintiff-Respondent) v. [...] (Defendant-Appellant)  Docket No. [...] Indictment No. [...]  Criminal Action: On Appeal From An Order Dismissing a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County
[directive] These Guidelines are designed to incorporate and streamline the procedures, policies and criteria used by prosecutors for determining whether to apply for or to waive an extended term of imprisonment pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6f.  Specifically, this statutory sentencing feature is automatically accounted for when a defendant falls under Criminal History Categories IV or V, or where the prosecutor uses Table 2 of the Table of Authorized Plea Offers.  See also Attorney General Directive 1998-1, Section 4.
[brief] (Da 23-29)  On June 1, 2023, assigned PCR counsel filed a brief in support of defendant’s PCR application.  (Da 30-33)  Defendant’s pro se supplemental brief dated April 1, 2023, was made a part of the appendix to counsel’s brief.  (Da 34-37)  On July 31, 2023, a PCR hearing was held before the Honorable [...], J.S.C. (3T 3-1 to 11)  At the conclusion of the hearing [...] did not issue a decision stating, “I will be posting a decision. ”  (3T 7-1)  On August 1, 2023, [...] issued an order (Da 38), and written decision denying defendant’s application for post-conviction relief including his request for an evidentiary hearing.  (Da 39-45)  On September 21, 2023, defendant filed a Notice of Appeal.  (Da 46-49)  On February 29, 2024, defendant filed an amended Notice of Appeal.  (Da 50-54)  STATEMENT OF FACTS
[directive] Supplemental Plea Form for Eluding (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b) or Theft of a Motor Vehicle or Unlawful Taking of a Motor Vehicle (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-2.1)  English, English-Spanish, English-Haitian, English- Polish, English-Korean, & English-Portuguese Versions  NOTICE:  This is a public document, which means the document as submitted will be available to the public upon request.  Therefore, do not enter personal identifiers on it, such as Social Security number, driver’s license number, vehicle plate number, insurance policy number, active financial account number, or active credit card number.  New Jersey Judiciary (N.J.S.A. Supplemental Plea Form for Eluding 2C:29-2b) or Theft of a Motor Vehicle (N.J.S.A. or Unlawful Taking of a Motor Vehicle 2C:20-2.1)
[brief] (SDa166).  Also, on April 24, 2020, counsel for the [...] defendants issued a R. 1:4-8 letter to plaintiff’s counsel demanding the withdrawal of the Complaint.  (SDa1)  Specifically, this letter stated:  Dear [...]:  As you know, we represent, [...], Esquire and [...] in the subject litigation you have initiated.  We believe that the Complaint violates the provisions of R. 1:4-8.  You have instituted this new matter, alleging the same allegations as you alleged in the Complaint under docket number: [...], and this new lawsuit has been initiated for the improper purpose of harassing our clients creating needless litigation costs in an attempt to remedy the dismissal with prejudice, that occurred in 2016, over four years ago.
[directive] (2)  In all other cases a person is guilty of a disorderly persons offense if that person purposely or knowingly violates a condition to avoid contact with an alleged victim or a condition of home detention with or without the use of an approved electronic monitoring device.  Judicial officers should be prepared to handle requests for complaint- warrants based on the amendments to N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9(a)(1) and on the new charge, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9(a)(2).
[directive] 9.11.4  Whenever a law enforcement officer makes an application to the New Jersey Division of Pensions for retirement benefits, in anticipation of upcoming retirement and the receipt of a pension, both the employing law enforcement agency and the officer shall have an affirmative obligation to report to the Division of Pensions the existence of any pending internal affairs investigation, complaint or case, including those on appeal, as well as any criminal charges against that officer. 14  9.12
[directive] Laboratory Analysis for Submission of Requests Timely 1 U.2 72  Testing ........... for Forensic for Submitting Evidence Time Limit 10.2.1 72 .................  Notification  If Testing No Longer Needed 10.2.2  Prompt Completion of Investigative Reports Prioritize Authority to Prosecutor's 10.3 with Comply Speedy Examinations When Needed to Forensic and 72 .........................................
[brief] Id. at 463 (“It has long been established that an expert may rely on his own knowledge, as well as on facts supplied to him by others. ”)  Likewise, the Appellate Division’s decision in Cho v. Trinitas Regional Medical Center, 443 N.J. Super. 461 (App. Div. 2015) does not outright bar in limine motions.  The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice based upon “a summary procedure on the day of trial. ”  See, Cho, supra at 463.
[brief] Id., 100 N.J.  at 643-44.  In State v. Sutton, 132 N.J. 471, 485 (1993), the Court added that in determining whether the terms should be concurrent or consecutive, the focus of the court should be on the fairness of the overall sentence.  And in Yarbough, 100 N.J. at 646, the Court citing State v. Cloutier, 596 P.2d 1278, 1284 (Or. 1979), stated that although a defendant’s conduct may have constituted multiple offenses, the sentencing phase concerns the disposition of a single, not multiple human being. ”
[brief] [...] further stated indignantly, to [...], you…allow him to use the court as a weapon…No one gets arrested on a civil matter…so go send the sheriff again. ”  (1T, Pg. 16, Lines 20-24)  He went on, “then you (indiscernible) to have me arrested.  That’s illegal.” (1T, pg. 18, lines 20-21).  In fact [...] had commented that was why she had scheduled that appearance on Zoom rather than in person (1T, Pg. 9, lines 14-15).  [...] further explained, that the Sheriff had gone to [...]’s residence pursuant to her Order, albeit not to arrest him, but to take an inventory.
[brief] On March 21, 2016, [...]’s Union Representative, [...], the Executive Vice President of [...] advised [...] of the [...], who [...] assigned to investigate [...]’s allegations against [...], that [...] was retiring on May 1, 2016 and asked whether the Office of Labor Relations had anybody with “direct knowledge” of what [...] was alleged to have done because what [...] reported was all hearsay.  (Pa682).  On March 29, 2016, [...], the Director of the [...], sent an email to [...] requesting an update and asking whether [...] was interviewed and advising “Staff are looking for resolution of this matter prior to [...]’s retirement” (Pa682) which also supports a retaliatory motive.  In response to the questions of [...]’s Union Representative, [...] responded on April 4, 2016 stating that [...] was “observed being under a co-workers desk by several staff while the co-worker was on vacation” (Pa682) when this was a lie, also supporting a retaliatory motive.
[brief] The motion to disqualify was filed on July 2, 2024, which was before paper discovery was even completed.  Paper discovery was not completed.  Depositions were not completed.  Depositions of fact witnesses were to be completed in November 13, 2024.  (Pa62).  Service of expert’s reports was due on or before December 30, 2024.  (Pa62).  Rebuttal reports were not due until February 7, 2025 and expert depositions were to be completed by March 1, 2025.  (Pa62).  The discovery end date was March 1, 2025.  (Pa62).  Arbitration was scheduled for March 12, 2025 and trial was May 19, 2025.  (Pa62).  As of July 2, 2024, when the motion was filed trial was still 10 months away.  In December 2024, Appellants filed a motion to stay discovery which was granted.  (344a).  Accordingly, there is no prejudice to the Respondents and there is no basis for Respondents’ claim that the filing of the motion was tactical.  Indeed, Respondents fail to provide any support for their claim that the filing of the motion was tactical.  COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS
[brief] While a court is not bound by an agency’s determination on a question of law, the court is to give deference to a municipality's informal interpretation of its ordinances.  While a court is not bound by an agency's determination on a question of law, nevertheless, the court is to “give deference to a municipality's informal interpretation of its ordinances. ”  DePetro v. Township of Wayne Planning Bd., 367 N.J. Super. 161, 174 (2004); Wyzykowski v. Rizas, 254 N.J. Super. 28, 38, (App.Div.1992), aff’d in part, rev'd in part, 132 N.J. 509 (1993).
[brief] [...] (hereafter “decedent”) was an eighty-one-year-old woman, with a long history of medical issues when she presented to the [...] emergency room on June 12, 2016.  Her medical history included hypertension, diabetes and arthritis.  5T90-18 to 21.  Due to complications of total hip surgery, she also suffered from a foot drop, a neurological problem (5T90-6 to 11) that required her to wear a leg brace which extended to just below her left knee.  5T82-21 to 83-12.  According to one of her sons, her physical abilities were so limited that she required care from a podiatrist just to clip her toenails.  5T92-19 to 24.