ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] As a result, by letter dated September 20, 2023, [...] demanded that [...] immediately “cease and desist” its unauthorized conduct and provide detailed information about its unauthorized activities.  [Pa205].  This letter expressly advised that [...]’s conduct constituted an Event of Default under the Settlement Agreement and the Lease, and, consequently, that [...] would submit the Consent Judgments for entry.  [Pa205].  [...]’s then-counsel confirmed receipt of the demand and that it had been shared with [...].  [Pa202 at ¶ 13].  On September 20 and 21, 2023, [...]’s representatives visited the Leased Premises, observed additional dump trucks attempting to access the Leased Premises, and engaged 24-hour security to prevent [...], or those acting in concert with it, from exacerbating the damage it had already inflicted.  [Pa214 at ¶ 7].  At no point did [...] prohibit [...], or its Subtenant, from accessing the Leased Premises.
[directive] In composing a live lineup, the lineup administrator or investigator should:  a.  Include only one suspect in each identification procedure.  b.  Select fillers who generally fit the witness’s description of the perpetrator.  When there is a limited or inadequate description of the perpetrator provided by the witness, or when the description of the perpetrator differs significantly from the appearance of the suspect, fillers should resemble the suspect in significant features, such as gender, race, skin color, facial hair, age, and distinctive physical characteristics.  c.  When there is more than one witness, consider placing the suspect in different positions in each lineup.  d.  Include a minimum of four fillers per identification procedure.  e.  When showing a new suspect to the same witness, avoid reusing fillers in lineup.  - 3 - B.
[brief] These amendments had been introduced in 1966 as Assembly Bills Nos. 204 and 252 with the following statement appended:  After an area has been declared blighted by a municipality there is a natural decline in property values resulting both from the desire of the inhabitants to immediately relocate and the natural reluctance on the part of buyers to purchase property within the affected area.  There is no time period during which these development agencies must acquire the property needed to carry out the proposed plan.  The purpose of this bill is to assure a property owner the compensation to which he is morally entitled and to prevent the undue hardship which will accrue as a result of the inevitable diminution in property values between the date of the declaration of blight and the institution of the condemnation proceedings.  These bills were ultimately passed by the 1967 Legislature as Assembly Bills Nos. 347 and 349.  See also, Report of Eminent Domain Revisions Commission, pp 24-28 (April 15, 1965), citing Wilson v. Long Branch, supra.  Accordingly, the Legislature avoided creating a burden on the property owner to prove that the declaration caused a loss in value, and denied the condemnor the right to create a litigable issue by claiming to the contrary.  This issue is spelled out in Newark Housing Authority v. Ricciardi, 176 N.J. Super. 13 at 19 (1980):  [1,2]  Because the alternative valuation date is based on the presumption that a blight declaration will adversely affect value, the Legislature did not impose on condemnees, the obligation to prove that an actual decline in value between the declaration date and the taking date was in fact attributable to the declaration.  Nor did it, conversely, offer condemnors the defensive opportunity to prove that an actual decline was attributable to causes other than the declaration.  Rather, it chose to establish an absolute standard to be uniformly applied to all blighted area takings on the altogether reasonable theory that that standard in the overwhelming majority of cases, would assure the property owner of no more than his constitutional right to just compensation.
[directive] In many cases, the examination of collateral issues presented by the complaint can be as important as the resolution of the allegation itself.  For example, while investigating an allegation of excessive force during an arrest, the officer’s actions in making the arrest may be improper.  In such cases, even though the investigation may exonerate the officer of the excessive force allegation, internal affairs must still examine whether the officer should have been effecting the arrest at all.  7.12.2
[brief] Without developing a clear and undisputed factual record the Board determined the appellant had a break in service and was therefore disqualified to re-enroll as a tier one pension employee in [...].  A break in service is defined as “any pension reporting period without pay. ”  N.J.A.C. 17:2-1A.1  There are clear exceptions to this definition designed to protect an employee temporarily out of work.  The decision of the Board required the conclusion there was no layoff in the recreation department in [...] in March of 2020.  [Pa54-57]  This goes against the weight of the evidence.  The best evidence in the case are the statements of the parties at the time the events occurred.  [...] made it clear in both words and actions that this was a temporary situation driven solely by the COVID19 emergency.  They advised the State this was a layoff and in fact returned the appellant to his exact same position six months later.  [Pa5,7,8,9,11,14,15]  The decision of the Board was based entirely on the lack of a Civil Service compliant layoff notice.  [Pa54-57]  The Board did not analyze the facts or the party’s intentions.  The Board adopted the position there was a requirement for an official layoff notice to confirm there was a layoff.  [Respondents’ brief P10-11]  This may be the practice of the individuals who made the decision at the [...].  [Pa18]  There is no Administrative Code requirement or regulation of any kind that supports this legal conclusion.  There is no law, and none was cited, that supports the position that without compliance with Civil Service procedures the appellant should be penalized and the time he was forced out of work be classified as a break in service.
[brief] R. 4:46-2(c).  Pursuant to Rule 4:46-2, the Court considers “whether the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, are sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party. ”  Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995).  Even if no genuine issue of material fact exists, the inquiry must still turn to whether the trial court correctly interpreted the law.  DepoLink Ct. Reporting & Litig. Support Servs. v. Rochman, 430 N.J. Super. 325, 333 (App. Div. 2013) (quoting Massachi v. AHL Servs., Inc., 396 N.J. Super. 486, 494 (App. Div. 2007)).  This Court accords no deference to the trial judge’s conclusions on issues of law.
[directive] 1.  Enumere cualquier promesa o manifestación que le ha hecho el juez en cuanto a la sentencia que le dará.  List any promises or representations that have been made by the judge as to what your sentence will be.  [Sí/Yes]  [No/No]  2.  Entiende que si, en el momento de dictar sentencia, el juez determina que al imponer una sentencia no mayor que la que él le prometió, no se tendrían en cuenta los intereses de la justicia, entonces el juez podrá ordenar que se anule su declaración, o a usted le permitirán retirar su declaración, y se proseguirá a conocer su causa.  Do you understand that if the judge determines at the time of sentencing that imposing a sentence no greater than that which he or she promised would not serve the interests of justice, then the judge may order your plea be vacated or you will be allowed to withdraw your plea, and your case will proceed to trial.  Fecha/Date: Acusado/Defendant  Aprobado por: (Solamente para los efectos de la declaración)  Juez/Judge Approved by (For purposes of plea only)  Fiscal/Prosecutor Formulario promulgado por la directriz #01-18, (02/23/2018), CN 11077-Spanish página 1 de 1 Form
[brief] TABLE OF CONTENTS  TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ iii  PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................  1  PROCEDURAL HISTORY .......................................................................................................  2 ISSUES PRESENTED...............................................................................................................  9  STATEMENT OF FACTS .........................................................................................................  9  THREE HOME INVASIONS ..................................................................................................  9  ARREST OF [...] AND [...] ......................................................  18  TORRES’ TESTIMONY AGAINST [...] .............................................................  22 ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................................
[brief] [...]’s Motion for an Attorneys’ Fees was Properly Rejected by the Trial Court  As discussed above, the trial court rejected [...]’s attempts to recover its fees under both Section 17.1 and 18.2 of the PSA.  On its cross-appeal, [...] limits its arguments to Section 17.1, abandoning its arguments as to Section 18.2.  (See [...] Brief, at 59-72).  At the outset, it is necessary to refer the Court to the entirety of Section 17.1 of the PSA, as it is well-settled that the language of the contract must be read as a whole, and in context.
[brief] In asserting a claim for conversion, Appellants allege that the [...] “have intentionally exercised a right over the Solar Rights inconsistent with the Plaintiffs’ ownership rights creating an exclusion of these rights. ” (Pa001646).  Appellants claim as a result thereof, Appellants” have lost the value of the Solar Rights, the value of the development, and the sale of \(^2\)  It is worth noting that the dispute among the partners resulted in federal litigation, *[...] v. [...]*, [...], that was settled. the Solar Project on account of the [CEP] Defendants.
[brief] (Aa1; Aa127).  The motions were opposed by the Plaintiff who submitted opposition indicating that she lived in the lower unit of the [...] and that she had no other property.  (Aa350).  She disputed that the claim was about a water leak and that it was a flood.  (Aa350).  She was directed by [...] to leave the premises when they conducted the inventory.  She watched them go through her drawer and other areas where there was no flooding.  (Aa350)  She alleges that they stole many items that never made the inventory list.  This included items that were locked in a storage unit.  They took items from her medicine cabinet.  They damaged skin care items that she was never paid for.  She was told that they were retained to inventory repair and restoration.  (A351).  They took items that were never repaired.  (Aa351).  And new items that were ripped and torn.  (Aa351).  Furs were taken and required ripped and damaged.  (Aa351).  She had knowledge of all items that were taken and not returned and items that were returned ripped or tags off.  (aa351  Issues of fact were raised as to the claim against [...].
[brief] [...] effectuated the Disputed Transactions in his capacity as a shareholder and/or officer of [...] and [...], performing a role that [...] agreed he had in the companies.  36T9-24 to 10-4.  There was no allegation or finding that any transaction violated the law.  It follows, therefore, that [...]’s possession of some, if not all, of the disputed sums was “initially lawful. ”  Meisels, supra, 240 N.J. at 305.
[brief] On or about August 3, 2022, shortly after the commencement of this action, Plaintiff filed its original *lis pendens* (the “Original *Lis Pendens*”) under *N.J.S.A.* 2A:15-6.  (Da8.)  After entry of the Final Judgment, Plaintiff promptly discharged the Original *Lis Pendens*.  Plaintiff filed its Notice of Appeal of the Final Judgment on September 4, 2023 (Pa0236-40), and, in connection therewith, on September 21, 2023, filed the Second *Lis Pendens*.  Plaintiff was not required to seek a stay, and the termination of the PSA has no effect on the Second *Lis Pendens* filed in connection with this appeal.
[brief] Id. at 32:11–33:9; see United States v. Medco Health Sols. Inc., 777 F. App’x 30, 31, 34 (3d Cir. 2019) (motion to dismiss); U.S. ex rel. Schumann v. AstraZeneca Pharm. L.P., 769 F.3d 837, 840 (3d Cir. 2014) (same); Paranich, 396 F.3d at 328 (summary judgment); U.S. ex rel. Mistick PBT v. Hous. Auth., 186 F.3d 376, 378–79 (3d Cir. 1999) (motion to dismiss).  And this court itself has agreed that an NJFCA case can be dismissed on public disclosure bar grounds before trial.  See Brennan, 454 N.J. Super. at 620–21.  Indeed, the trial court reached the same conclusion when it dismissed the 3AC on public disclosure bar grounds.  See 1T at 4:6–8, 13:23–14:3, 14:10–25, 16:2–17:2.  B.  The Trial Court Mistook Legal Arguments for Factual Disputes.
[brief] TABLE OF CONTENTS  PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF FACTS ...........................................  1 LEGAL ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................  1 POINT I  [...] HAS A PARTICIPATORY INTEREST IN THE EVIDENCE SEIZED FROM [...]’S CAR AND THEREFORE HAS STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE WARRANTLESS STOP OF THE CAR.  .........................................................................................................................  1  POINT II  THE WARRANT AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ESTABLISH PROBABLE TO SEARCH  [...]’S STORAGE UNIT.............................................................................................................  5  CONCLUSION  ..................................................................................................................  10  PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
[directive] warrant.  See complaint for a apply to or acomplaint-summons issue when to 14  Page grounds the of any where offenses  persons disorderly violence domestic to limited Directive this offenses persons disorderly other any or apply, to (4)  2C:25-21(a)(1) to N.J.S.A. in specified that requirement general the (limiting 3.2 Section Cf. 5.
[brief] 14  Konieczny v. Micciche, 305 N.J. Super. 375, 384-385 (App. Div. 1997) .......... 22 Lawson Mardon, Wheaton v. Smith, 160 N.J. 383 (1999) .................... 25, 26, 27 Linden Bd. Of Educ. v. Linden Educ. Assn, 202 N.J. 268 (2010)
[directive] A key function of the juvenile justice system in New Jersey is to rehabilitate youth and help them enter adulthood less likely to break the law.  For the vast majority of youthful offenders, the system works best when juveniles are diverted away from formal court proceedings and towards social or familial support.  Over the past two decades, New Jersey has emerged as a national leader in safely reducing the number of juveniles detained by the juvenile justice system.  We were the first state in the country to fully adopt a groundbreaking program known as the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI), which transformed the state’s juvenile justice system and largely eliminated the chronic, dangerous overcrowding that plagued our state’s juvenile detention facilities.  Since 2003, the year before New Jersey implemented JDAI, the total number of juveniles in detention per year has dropped by 80 percent, from about 12,000 to less than 2,500, with youth of color accounting for almost 90 percent of the decline.  Further, juveniles who are placed in detention alternative programs in lieu of detention receive supervision and support in their communities while awaiting the outcome of their case in court.  These reforms have not only reduced the number of juveniles sent to secure detention, but resulted in deep and dramatic systemic changes.  The decline in numbers has allowed multiple detention centers to merge their operations and share services.  At the start of JDAI, there were 17 county-operated detention centers in New Jersey - today there are seven.  The number of juveniles held in detention has also led to a reduction in the number of juveniles committed to state custody.  As with detention reductions, the reduction in the population of youth committed to secure confinement has most dramatically impacted communities of color.  1  This Directive is intended to build upon these successes and push forward the next phase of New Jersey’s Juvenile Justice Reform efforts.
[brief] There, this Court was asked to review whether the trial court had ruled correctly that the two withheld criminal investigatory records were in fact exempt under OPRA.  The Court, however, was unable to do so because it could not “review the contents of the two criminal investigatory reports. ”  Da79.  The Court also corrected a procedural misstep that it observed below, namely, the documents needed to be reviewed in camera so that the parties and the records custodian could have an opportunity to be heard.  Da79-80.  In its October 27, 2023, Statement of Reasons, the trial court on remand emphasized one word in the remand instructions—“information”—as if that \(^1\)
[directive] Broadly speaking, the Attorney General’s statutory role includes three distinct but related responsibilities:   To be the State’s “chief law enforcement officer,” responsible for the general supervision of criminal justice in New Jersey, N.J.S.A. 52:17B-98;   To be the “sole legal advisor” for all officers, departments, boards, bodies, commissions and instrumentalities of State Government, except as specifically provided by statute, N.J.S.A. 52:17A-4(e); and   To be the “head” of the Department of Law & Public Safety (LPS), with oversight of the Department’s thousands of employees and its various divisions, offices, and commissions.
[directive] The juror. or witness prospective a intimidate, order to whether determining in account into take may court a information that of categories does Directive that this noted be It should (x.23 to 2A:162-20(a) N.J.S.A. See detention. pretrial 22 detention pretrial relevant the to be would information that or evidence of type the limit may specification  This hearing. detention the of scope the limit thus and decision, 23 into take detention, may order pretrial whether to determining when court, a that provides 2A:162-20 N.J.S.A. concerning: information account charged; offense the of circumstances and nature the (a) consider the court may the that except defendant, eligible the against evidence the of weight the (b) excluded; be to sought evidence any of admissibility including: defendant, eligible of the characteristics history and the (c) family ties, condition, mental and physical character, defendant's eligible the (1) ties, community community, in residence the of length resources, financial employment, record history, and criminal alcohol abuse, or drug to relating history conduct, past and proceedings; court at appearance concerning on was defendant eligible arrest, the or offense current the of time the at whether, (2)
[brief] ”  PCAST Report at 54.  Nor should an expert testify “to --- 13 https://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/sites/ca3/files/2023%20Chapter%204%20revisions%20final.pdf a source attribution to the exclusion of all others in the world. ”  NIST Report at 72, Recommendation 3.7.  Accordingly, [...] recommends experts express their opinions in any of the following ways:
[brief] Indeed, no record was developed before the trial court with respect to conflict of interest.  See [...] & [...], Current N.J. Court Rules (2024) (Gann), cmt. 1 to Rule 2:5-4(a) (“It is, of course, clear that in their review the appellate courts will not ordinarily consider evidentiary material which is not in the record below .  . . .”).  Furthermore, plaintiff’s hypothetical request for an advisory opinion from this Court violates basic principles of judicial jurisprudence.  See, e.g., Zamboni v. Stamler, 199 N.J. Super. 378, 383 (App. Div. 1985), where the Appellate Division noted as follows in rejecting a similar request:  [T]he issue presented is purely hypothetical at this point.  We will not render advisory opinions or function in the abstract; nor will we decide a case based upon facts which are undeveloped or uncertain.  See New Jersey Ass'n for Retarded Citizens v. Dept. of Human Serv., 89 N.J. 234, 241, 445 A.2d 704 (1982); Crescent Pk. Tenants Assoc. v. Realty --- 4  See also Sutter v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of N.J., 406 N.J. Super. 86, 106 (App. Div. 2009); Ricci v. Ricci, 448 N.J Super. 546, 567 (App. Div. 2017).  Eq. Corp. of N.Y., 58 N.J. 98, 107, 275 A.2d 433 (1971); New Jersey Turnpike Auth. v. Parsons, 3 N.J. 235, 240, 69 A.2d 875 (1949).  (emphasis added; footnote omitted).  See also DeBenedictis v. State, 381 N.J. Super. 233, 240 (App. Div. 2005) (same).  Plaintiff’s belated and unperfected conflict of interest argument should be disregarded.
[brief] The only instance where this does not occur is when a single-family dwelling is constructed because that type of use is exempt from site plan review under *N.J.S.A. 40:55D-\ --- \(^7\)  The ability to lawfully construct/utilize the stormwater management infrastructure is clearly different than whether the drainage plan is feasible.  *See, e.g., Field v. Franklin Twp. Planning Bd.*, 190 N.J. Super. 326 (App. Div. 1983).  \(^8\)  On April 3, 2021, the Board Engineer wrote, “The overall approach to stormwater management for the project appears to conform to our ordinance.
[brief] H637a Holm-106: [...] response to discovery request HOLM-[...]-PNL-104, objected to stating the depreciation treatment of the Transmission Line (SOICR p. 12) ....................................................  H638a Holm-107: [...] response to discovery request HOLM-[...]-PNL-105, objected to disavowing stranded cost recovery of the Transmission Line (SOICR p. 12) ...........................................  H639a Holm-108: [...] response to discovery request HOLM-[...]-PNL-106 objected to disavowing stranded cost recovery of the Distribution Line (SOICR p. 12) ........................................... H640a Holm-109: [...] response to discovery request HOLM-[...]-PNL-107, objected to disavowing stranded cost recovery of the Regulator Station (SOICR p. 12) ...........................................
[brief] TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATUTES  N.J.S.A. 53:5A-10.................................................................2, 10  COURT RULES  R. 2:2-3(a)(2)..............................................................................7 R. 2:5-5(b)..................................................................................10  CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS  N.J. Const. art. VI, § 5, para. 4.......................................................7  CASES  Bartley Healthcare Nursing & Rehab. v. New Jersey Dep't of Health & Senior Servs., 2011 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 329 (App. Div. Feb. 15, 2011)....................................................8  Blackwell v. Dep't of Corr., 348 N.J. Super. 117, 123 (App. Div. 2002).....................................7  In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 482-83 (2007).......................................9  Ensslin v. Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen’s Retirement System, 311 N.J Super 333 (App. Div. 1998)......................10, 11, 12  Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186 (App. Div. 2010)...........16