New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions

Browse Opinions From the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions


Recent Decisions From the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions

STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF N.H.
Date: July 6, 2015
Docket Number: a0433-14

PREETI GUNDECHA v. BOARD OF REVIEW
Date: June 26, 2015
Docket Number: a3128-13

STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CHARLES PURYEAR
Date: June 24, 2015
Docket Number: a2433-14 J.S.C. (temporarily assigned). These related interlocutory appeals raise questions concerning the admissibility of custodial statements given by co-defendants to law enforcement. Defendant Charles Puryear (Puryear) and defendant Markus Brown (Brown) were charged with crimes related to a fatal shooting that took place on November 26, 2011, in Newark, and an armed robbery that took place several days later in a motel in Sussex County. Each defendant gave two custodial statements to law enforcement on December 5, 2011. After a hearing, the trial court in Essex County ultimately suppressed the first statement given by Puryear, which concerned the robbery in Sussex County, and admitted Puryear's second statement, which concerned the Essex County shooting. The trial court admitted Brown's first statement, which concerned the Sussex County robbery, and ultimately suppressed his second statement, which concerned the shooting in Essex County. On these interlocutory appeals, Puryear argues that his second statement also should have been suppressed, and the State argues that the trial court erred in suppressing Puryear's first statement and Brown's second statement. Given the related facts and procedural history, we issue this consolidated opinion addressing all of the interlocutory appeals.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DATRELL T. WILLIAMS
Date: June 22, 2015
Docket Number: a5953-13

EWING OIL, INC v. JOHN T. BURNETT, INC
Date: June 19, 2015
Docket Number: a2770-13

TAMAR GINSBERG v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INC
Date: June 18, 2015
Docket Number: a1387-14 SABATINO, P.J.A.D. These four interlocutory appeals2 stem from a lawsuit involving factual allegations and parties that straddle the states of New York and New Jersey. The core question presented to us is whether the laws of New York, the laws of New Jersey, or some combination of the laws of both states, govern the claims, third-party claims, cross-claims, and defenses asserted in the litigation. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and their now-deceased daughter, have asserted claims of wrongful birth, wrongful life, medical malpractice, negligent hiring, and negligence in connection with their daughter's birth in 2008 and her subsequent diagnosis of Tay-Sachs disease, a genetically-inherited and fatal condition. In essence, plaintiffs contend that defendants each erred in the health care, genetic testing services, or genetic counseling they provided before the couple conceived their daughter upon a mistaken belief that the father was not a Tay-Sachs carrier.

P.M. v. N.P.
Date: June 17, 2015
Docket Number: a1947-12

ROSENTHAL & ROSENTHAL, INC v. VANESSA BENUN
Date: June 17, 2015
Docket Number: a2890-13

MELODY FAITH MAZUR v. CRANE'S MILL NURSING HOME
Date: June 11, 2015
Docket Number: a2072-14 PER CURIAM This is a medical malpractice action. Plaintiff has filed these appeals, which we consolidate for purposes of this opinion, from trial court orders dismissing the complaint on the ground that the affidavit of merit plaintiff served on defendants was deficient. Because the trial court based its disposition of defendant Pradip Sukhal Shah's motion on false statements in his answer, his attorney's certification, and his brief, as well as incompetent evidence, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. We also reverse the order dismissing the complaint against defendants Lutheran Social Ministries at Crane's Mill, Inc., and Lutheran Social Ministries of New Jersey, Inc., (collectively, LSM), which owned and operated the facility where the malpractice allegedly occurred. The arguments of the LSM defendants are essentially the same as Dr. Shah's and are based on either incompetent evidence on the motion record or unsupported statements in their brief. We remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

NORTH JERSEY MEDIA GROUP, INC v. TOWNSHIP OF LYNDHURST
Date: June 11, 2015
Docket Number: a2523-14

STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. TALADEEN ROSS
Date: June 10, 2015
Docket Number: a3026-13 FISHER, P.J.A.D. During the pretrial stage of this criminal prosecution, the trial judge entered orders directing the County of Middlesex to provide the means by which incarcerated defendants could accept, access and examine electronic discovery. Although we share the County's misgivings about the manner in which these orders were imposed, we also agree with the Public Defender that the issues have been rendered moot because the County has complied with the orders in question.

NEW JESEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY v. J.C.
Date: June 8, 2015
Docket Number: a2436-13

STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANTHONY F. STALTER
Date: May 27, 2015
Docket Number: a5674-12

STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DION E. ROBINSON
Date: May 21, 2015
Docket Number: a5600-12

The opinions published on Justia State Caselaw are sourced from individual state court sites. These court opinions may not be the official published versions, and you should check your local court rules before citing to them. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site, or the information linked to on the state site.