SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NOS. A-0200-18T4

 A-1220-18T4

 A-1681-18T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RONY CHERY,

Defendant,

and

INTERNATIONAL FIDELITY

INSURANCE CO.,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JERRY TYRE,

Defendant,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-0200-18T4

and

ALLEGHENY CASUALTY CO.,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

OMAR WILLIAMS,

Defendant,

and

ALLEGHENY CASUALTY CO.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________

Submitted September 17, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Fisher, Accurso and Gilson.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Hudson County, Indictment Nos. 13001984-

001, 16-05-0719 and 16-08-1124.

Richard P. Blender, attorney for appellants.

Chasan Lamparello Mallon & Cappuzzo, PC, attorneys 

for respondent (Maria P. Vallejo, of counsel and on the 

brief).

November 20, 2019
3

A-0200-18T4

PER CURIAM

In these consolidated appeals, sureties that posted bail for the defendants

in these criminal cases – prior to the 2017 amendments to Rule 3:26-6 and the 

revised bail remission guidelines ("revised guidelines") – argue in a single point

that the trial court erred by applying the revised guidelines and "in not applying 

the bail forfeiture guidelines . . . in existence at the time the bails were written." 

Stated another way, the sureties argue that the revised guidelines should not have 

been applied retroactively because "it is patently unconscionable to allow one 

party to the bail-recognizance contract, the State-creditor, to alter the most 

essential component of the bail contract . . . than was originally agreed upon 

when the contract was first entered into." The sureties argue as well that 

application of the revised guidelines violates the Contracts Clause of the United 

States Constitution, U.S. Const., Art. I, § 10, and that the revised guidelines are 

inconsistent with their stated purpose of "simplify[ing] and streamlin[ing] the 

process for handling applications to set aside or remit bail forfeiture."

We recently rejected these and other similar challenges to the revised 

guidelines in ABC Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Grant, 459 N.J. Super. 340, 348 (App. 

Div.), certif. denied, __ N.J. __ (Nov. 4, 2019), where we held that the revised 

guidelines should be applied "retroactively" because they are "procedural, not 
4

A-0200-18T4

substantive[,]" "not unconstitutional[,]" "not an unlawful exercise of the Court's 

supervisory authority," and do "not constitute a material change to existing 

contracts." For these same reasons, we conclude that the sureties' arguments are 

without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in another written opinion. 

R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

The orders under review in these appeals are affirmed.