New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - Published Opinions Decisions 2014
HETTY ROSENSTEIN v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
Date: December 31, 2014
Docket Number: a0945-12
Date: December 31, 2014
Docket Number: a0945-12
HILL INTERNATIONAL INC v. ATLANTIC CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION
Date: December 30, 2014
Docket Number: a4139-13
Date: December 30, 2014
Docket Number: a4139-13
ESSEX COUNTY CORRECTIONS OFFICERS PBA LOCAL NO 382 v. COUNTY OF ESSEX
Date: December 30, 2014
Docket Number: a4309-12
Date: December 30, 2014
Docket Number: a4309-12
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES v. N.M.
Date: December 24, 2014
Docket Number: a0349-13
Date: December 24, 2014
Docket Number: a0349-13
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY v. B.O.
Date: December 19, 2014
Docket Number: a4780-12
Date: December 19, 2014
Docket Number: a4780-12
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY v. B.O.
Date: December 19, 2014
Docket Number: a4946-12 KOBLITZ, J.A.D. In this consolidated matter, both parents appeal from a February 14, 2013 order finding they abused or neglected their seven-week-old infant, T.E.E. (Timmy1), within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c), by causing him to suffer brain injury through partial suffocation when they both took oxycodone and the mother, B.O. (Betty), slept with Timmy in the same bed.2 The parents argue that the eyewitness presented by the Division was so incredible and the doctor so poorly informed that the Division did not prove the parents' failure to exercise a minimum degree of care by a preponderance of the evidence. The Law Guardian joins the Division in urging us to affirm. After carefully reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.
Date: December 19, 2014
Docket Number: a4946-12 KOBLITZ, J.A.D. In this consolidated matter, both parents appeal from a February 14, 2013 order finding they abused or neglected their seven-week-old infant, T.E.E. (Timmy1), within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c), by causing him to suffer brain injury through partial suffocation when they both took oxycodone and the mother, B.O. (Betty), slept with Timmy in the same bed.2 The parents argue that the eyewitness presented by the Division was so incredible and the doctor so poorly informed that the Division did not prove the parents' failure to exercise a minimum degree of care by a preponderance of the evidence. The Law Guardian joins the Division in urging us to affirm. After carefully reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY v. N.C.M.
Date: December 16, 2014
Docket Number: a3666-13
Date: December 16, 2014
Docket Number: a3666-13
UNITED WATER NEW JERSEY, INC. v. BOROUGH OF HILLSDALEa0299-13
Date: November 26, 2014
Docket Number: a0299-13
Date: November 26, 2014
Docket Number: a0299-13
JAMES MORAN v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM
Date: November 25, 2014
Docket Number: a1041-13
Date: November 25, 2014
Docket Number: a1041-13
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERS, LLC v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Date: November 13, 2014
Docket Number: a5283-12
Date: November 13, 2014
Docket Number: a5283-12
ABBOTT V. BURKE PLAINTIFF SCHOOLCHILDREN v. NEW JERSEY STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
Date: November 12, 2014
Docket Number: a2816-12
Date: November 12, 2014
Docket Number: a2816-12
IN THE MATTER OF THE DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION BY GEORGE WINSTON, JR FOR A FIREARMS PURCHASER IDENTIFICATION CARD
Date: October 31, 2014
Docket Number: a1512-12
Date: October 31, 2014
Docket Number: a1512-12
NEW JERSEY NATURAL GAS COMPANY v. BOROUGH OF RED BANK
Date: October 28, 2014
Docket Number: a1096-12
Date: October 28, 2014
Docket Number: a1096-12
MANHATTAN TRAILER PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC v. MANHATTAN TRAILER COURT AND TRAILER SALES, INC
Date: October 28, 2014
Docket Number: a6169-12
Date: October 28, 2014
Docket Number: a6169-12
BENJORAY, INC v. ACADEMY HOUSE CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
Date: October 27, 2014
Docket Number: a5162-12
Date: October 27, 2014
Docket Number: a5162-12
E&J EQUITIES, LLC v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE TOWNSHIP OF FRANKLIN
Date: October 17, 2014
Docket Number: a2432-12
Date: October 17, 2014
Docket Number: a2432-12
BENJORAY, INC v. ACADEMY HOUSE CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
Date: October 16, 2014
Docket Number: a5162-12
Date: October 16, 2014
Docket Number: a5162-12
APPLICATION OF Y.L. TO PRACTICE MASSAGE AND BODYWORK THERAPY IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Date: October 3, 2014
Docket Number: a1226-13
Date: October 3, 2014
Docket Number: a1226-13
IN RE PETITION OF BOFI FEDERAL BANK TO ASSIGN LOTTERY PRIZE PAYMENT RIGHTS OF MICHELLE A
Date: October 3, 2014
Docket Number: a1694-12 J.S.C. (temporarily assigned). BofI Federal Bank (BofI) filed petitions seeking approval of the assignment of certain New Jersey State Lottery payments from four separate prize winners. The four petitions were heard and denied by three different judges pursuant to N.J.A.C. 17:20-7.9(j), which states that "no one shall have the right to assign prize payments due during the last two years of the annuity term." BofI argued in each case, and now contends in this consolidated appeal, that N.J.A.C. 17:20-7.9(j) is invalid because it is in conflict with and impermissibly enlarges the controlling statute N.J.S.A. 5:9-13, which regulates the assignment of the final two years of prize payments. We find N.J.A.C. 17:20-7.9(j), as promulgated by the New Jersey Division of State Lottery, is valid, and effectuates the legislative intent of N.J.S.A. 5:9-13. We therefore affirm all four decisions of the Law Division judges.
Date: October 3, 2014
Docket Number: a1694-12 J.S.C. (temporarily assigned). BofI Federal Bank (BofI) filed petitions seeking approval of the assignment of certain New Jersey State Lottery payments from four separate prize winners. The four petitions were heard and denied by three different judges pursuant to N.J.A.C. 17:20-7.9(j), which states that "no one shall have the right to assign prize payments due during the last two years of the annuity term." BofI argued in each case, and now contends in this consolidated appeal, that N.J.A.C. 17:20-7.9(j) is invalid because it is in conflict with and impermissibly enlarges the controlling statute N.J.S.A. 5:9-13, which regulates the assignment of the final two years of prize payments. We find N.J.A.C. 17:20-7.9(j), as promulgated by the New Jersey Division of State Lottery, is valid, and effectuates the legislative intent of N.J.S.A. 5:9-13. We therefore affirm all four decisions of the Law Division judges.
BRIAN DUNKLEY v. S. CORALUZZO PETROLEUM TRANSPORTERS
Date: September 16, 2014
Docket Number: a3252-12
Date: September 16, 2014
Docket Number: a3252-12
IN THE MATTER OF AN INITIATIVE PETITION FOR THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE JACKSON TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
Date: September 8, 2014
Docket Number: a0517-13
Date: September 8, 2014
Docket Number: a0517-13
PRINCETON SOUTH INVESTORS, LLC v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
Date: September 8, 2014
Docket Number: a0850-12
Date: September 8, 2014
Docket Number: a0850-12
ERIC G. HANISKO v. BILLY CASPER GOLF MANAGEMENT INC.
Date: September 8, 2014
Docket Number: a5053-12
Date: September 8, 2014
Docket Number: a5053-12
ALLIED BUILDING PRODUCTS CORP v. J. STROBER & SONS LLC
Date: September 5, 2014
Docket Number: a1113-12
Date: September 5, 2014
Docket Number: a1113-12
STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. SALADIN THOMPSON
Date: September 5, 2014
Docket Number: a2154-11 P.J.A.D. In these matters, calendared back-to-back as ordered by this court on August 8, 2012 and consolidated for purposes of opinion, defendant appeals from the May 13, 2011 ruling in which the court found the State "did not engage in impermissible discrimination in exercising its peremptory challenges."1 The determination was rendered following a remand proceeding ordered by this court. Defendant also appeals from the sentence imposed following the remand hearing and from the September 30, 2011 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). Following our review, we are unable to determine from the record of the remand proceeding whether the State's exercise of seven of its nine peremptory challenges to excuse African-Americans was the product of impermissible discrimination as opposed to situation-specific bias because the court failed to engage in the requisite "third-step" analysis established in State v. Gilmore, 103 N.J. 508, 538 (1986). We conclude the record of the remand hearing was too deficient to enable meaningful appellate review and a further remand would serve no useful purpose. Further, in light of this determination, we deem it unnecessary to consider defendant's challenge to the sentence imposed on remand and his PCR petition. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of conviction and remand for a new trial.
Date: September 5, 2014
Docket Number: a2154-11 P.J.A.D. In these matters, calendared back-to-back as ordered by this court on August 8, 2012 and consolidated for purposes of opinion, defendant appeals from the May 13, 2011 ruling in which the court found the State "did not engage in impermissible discrimination in exercising its peremptory challenges."1 The determination was rendered following a remand proceeding ordered by this court. Defendant also appeals from the sentence imposed following the remand hearing and from the September 30, 2011 order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR). Following our review, we are unable to determine from the record of the remand proceeding whether the State's exercise of seven of its nine peremptory challenges to excuse African-Americans was the product of impermissible discrimination as opposed to situation-specific bias because the court failed to engage in the requisite "third-step" analysis established in State v. Gilmore, 103 N.J. 508, 538 (1986). We conclude the record of the remand hearing was too deficient to enable meaningful appellate review and a further remand would serve no useful purpose. Further, in light of this determination, we deem it unnecessary to consider defendant's challenge to the sentence imposed on remand and his PCR petition. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of conviction and remand for a new trial.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MARK C. SHEPPARD
Date: September 3, 2014
Docket Number: a0195-12 J.A.D. Defendant Mark Sheppard appeals from the judgment of conviction entered following a jury trial, where he was found guilty of second-degree aggravated assault and four other offenses, arising out of the stabbing of a Hispanic man. Defendant claims trial error regarding admission of evidence to prove an anti-Hispanic motive for the crimes charged, including a video-recorded encounter between defendant and the police subsequent to the stabbing. He had separately filed an appeal from the denial of a suppression motion and resulting convictions of two weapons offenses. These appeals are consolidated for purposes of this opinion. After careful review, we affirm the denial of defendant's suppression motion and weapons-offense convictions, but we reverse and remand for a new trial on the aggravated assault charge and related offenses. I.
Date: September 3, 2014
Docket Number: a0195-12 J.A.D. Defendant Mark Sheppard appeals from the judgment of conviction entered following a jury trial, where he was found guilty of second-degree aggravated assault and four other offenses, arising out of the stabbing of a Hispanic man. Defendant claims trial error regarding admission of evidence to prove an anti-Hispanic motive for the crimes charged, including a video-recorded encounter between defendant and the police subsequent to the stabbing. He had separately filed an appeal from the denial of a suppression motion and resulting convictions of two weapons offenses. These appeals are consolidated for purposes of this opinion. After careful review, we affirm the denial of defendant's suppression motion and weapons-offense convictions, but we reverse and remand for a new trial on the aggravated assault charge and related offenses. I.
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES v. S.I.
Date: August 20, 2014
Docket Number: a2878-12
Date: August 20, 2014
Docket Number: a2878-12
DARCY J. KOLODZIEJ v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SOUTHERN REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Date: July 25, 2014
Docket Number: a4826-12
Date: July 25, 2014
Docket Number: a4826-12
STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED NINETY-THREE DOLLARS 2,293 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY
Date: July 17, 2014
Docket Number: a4929-11
Date: July 17, 2014
Docket Number: a4929-11
IN RE CHALLENGE OF CONTRACT AWARD SOLICITATION 13-X-22694
Date: July 3, 2014
Docket Number: a4629-12
Date: July 3, 2014
Docket Number: a4629-12
THOMAS CANNAVO v. HON CHRISTOPHER J. CHRISTIE
Date: June 26, 2014
Docket Number: a0632-12 P.J.A.D. In these appeals, which we have consolidated for purposes of this opinion, several groups of public-employee plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of N.J.S.A. 43:3B-2 (Chapter 78), a 2011 statute that suspended the payment of cost of living increases (COLAs) to current and future retirees receiving pensions from each of the State's public pension funds. See L. 2011, c. 78,
Date: June 26, 2014
Docket Number: a0632-12 P.J.A.D. In these appeals, which we have consolidated for purposes of this opinion, several groups of public-employee plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of N.J.S.A. 43:3B-2 (Chapter 78), a 2011 statute that suspended the payment of cost of living increases (COLAs) to current and future retirees receiving pensions from each of the State's public pension funds. See L. 2011, c. 78,
IN THE MATTER OF THE EXPUNGEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL RECORDS OF G.P.B.
Date: June 9, 2014
Docket Number: a1359-13
Date: June 9, 2014
Docket Number: a1359-13
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY v. J.A.
Date: June 9, 2014
Docket Number: a2435-12
Date: June 9, 2014
Docket Number: a2435-12
PINELANDS PRESERVATION ALLIANCE v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Date: June 3, 2014
Docket Number: a4880-11
Date: June 3, 2014
Docket Number: a4880-11
KATHLEEN A. DONOVAN v. BERGEN COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS
Date: May 30, 2014
Docket Number: a1117-12
Date: May 30, 2014
Docket Number: a1117-12
KATHLEEN A. DONOVAN v. BERGEN COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS
Date: May 30, 2014
Docket Number: a1362-12 CARROLL, J.S.C. (temporarily assigned). These consolidated appeals involve the statutory roles of the County Executive and the County Board of Chosen Freeholders (Board or Freeholders) under the county executive form of government. Specifically, we review (1) whether the County Executive, or the Board of Freeholders, has the authority to hire the county's auditor, and (2) whether the County Executive may appoint a designee to participate in Board meetings on his/her behalf.
Date: May 30, 2014
Docket Number: a1362-12 CARROLL, J.S.C. (temporarily assigned). These consolidated appeals involve the statutory roles of the County Executive and the County Board of Chosen Freeholders (Board or Freeholders) under the county executive form of government. Specifically, we review (1) whether the County Executive, or the Board of Freeholders, has the authority to hire the county's auditor, and (2) whether the County Executive may appoint a designee to participate in Board meetings on his/her behalf.
COMMITTEE OF FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 522 v. DONNA L. FREDERICK
Date: May 15, 2014
Docket Number: a0870-13
Date: May 15, 2014
Docket Number: a0870-13
IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE NORTHEAST AND UPPER DELAWARE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS
Date: May 15, 2014
Docket Number: a5266-07
Date: May 15, 2014
Docket Number: a5266-07
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW JERSEY v. NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Date: May 13, 2014
Docket Number: a3381-12
Date: May 13, 2014
Docket Number: a3381-12
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY v. M.C.
Date: May 5, 2014
Docket Number: a2398-12
Date: May 5, 2014
Docket Number: a2398-12
ELBERT HUGHES v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO.
Date: April 23, 2014
Docket Number: a4913-11 J.A.D. In these consolidated cases, we consider whether a manufacturer has a duty to warn that component parts, which will be regularly replaced as part of routine maintenance, contain asbestos. Under the facts of this case, we find it would be reasonable, practical and feasible to impose such a duty here. However, we also reject plaintiffs' argument that causation may be proved by proximity to defendant's product in the absence of proof they were exposed to an asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by defendant and, therefore, conclude plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing of causation.
Date: April 23, 2014
Docket Number: a4913-11 J.A.D. In these consolidated cases, we consider whether a manufacturer has a duty to warn that component parts, which will be regularly replaced as part of routine maintenance, contain asbestos. Under the facts of this case, we find it would be reasonable, practical and feasible to impose such a duty here. However, we also reject plaintiffs' argument that causation may be proved by proximity to defendant's product in the absence of proof they were exposed to an asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by defendant and, therefore, conclude plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing of causation.
IN THE MATTER OF THE GRANT OF A CHARTER TO THE MERIT PREPARATORY CHARTER SCHOOL OF NEWARK
Date: April 9, 2014
Docket Number: a0019-12
Date: April 9, 2014
Docket Number: a0019-12
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY v. L.W.
Date: April 7, 2014
Docket Number: a3001-12
Date: April 7, 2014
Docket Number: a3001-12
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY v. C.W.
Date: March 27, 2014
Docket Number: a0542-12
Date: March 27, 2014
Docket Number: a0542-12
N.B. v. S.K.
Date: March 24, 2014
Docket Number: a0899-12 FISHER, P.J.A.D. These appeals require consideration of the not uncommon circumstance, during settlement of a divorce action, of a domestic violence victim's agreement to vacate a final restraining order (FRO) entered pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (the PDVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35, and to replace the FRO with restraints in the divorce action (the matrimonial restraints). Here, in 2012, after the matrimonial restraints proved ineffectual for years, plaintiff N.B. filed a domestic violence action and, upon that action's dismissal, unsuccessfully moved for relief from a 2003 order that vacated her 2002 FRO. We agree the trial judge erred in granting an involuntary dismissal of plaintiff's 2012 domestic violence action because he mistakenly failed to give sufficient consideration to defendant S.K.'s past and present violations of the matrimonial restraints and, therefore, reverse and remand for a new trial. We affirm the denial of the motion to vacate the 2003 order that vacated the 2002 FRO solely because plaintiff failed to seek that relief within a reasonable period of time, and we express no view of the merits of that argument had relief been timely sought.
Date: March 24, 2014
Docket Number: a0899-12 FISHER, P.J.A.D. These appeals require consideration of the not uncommon circumstance, during settlement of a divorce action, of a domestic violence victim's agreement to vacate a final restraining order (FRO) entered pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (the PDVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35, and to replace the FRO with restraints in the divorce action (the matrimonial restraints). Here, in 2012, after the matrimonial restraints proved ineffectual for years, plaintiff N.B. filed a domestic violence action and, upon that action's dismissal, unsuccessfully moved for relief from a 2003 order that vacated her 2002 FRO. We agree the trial judge erred in granting an involuntary dismissal of plaintiff's 2012 domestic violence action because he mistakenly failed to give sufficient consideration to defendant S.K.'s past and present violations of the matrimonial restraints and, therefore, reverse and remand for a new trial. We affirm the denial of the motion to vacate the 2003 order that vacated the 2002 FRO solely because plaintiff failed to seek that relief within a reasonable period of time, and we express no view of the merits of that argument had relief been timely sought.
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY v. K.N.
Date: March 20, 2014
Docket Number: a4847-12
Date: March 20, 2014
Docket Number: a4847-12
IN THE MATTER OF FREDDIE B FRAZIER, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Date: March 14, 2014
Docket Number: a3099-11
Date: March 14, 2014
Docket Number: a3099-11
STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RAYMOND E. TROXELL
Date: February 13, 2014
Docket Number: a3730-10reda MESSANO, P.J.A.D. Defendant Raymond E. Troxell was indicted by the Middlesex County grand jury for the first-degree murder for hire of his business partner, Vincent Russo, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1) or (2), -3(b)(4) and -3(b)(4)(e). Co-defendant, Frank Marsh, was charged in the same indictment with the first-degree purposeful or knowing murder of Russo, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1) or (2), -3(b)(4) and -3(b)(4)(d); second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a); and second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b). Defendant was tried separately from Marsh and found guilty by the jury. The jury also answered two specific interrogatories in the affirmative, compelling a mandatory sentence of life without parole, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(b)(4). Defendant raises the following arguments on appeal:
Date: February 13, 2014
Docket Number: a3730-10reda MESSANO, P.J.A.D. Defendant Raymond E. Troxell was indicted by the Middlesex County grand jury for the first-degree murder for hire of his business partner, Vincent Russo, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1) or (2), -3(b)(4) and -3(b)(4)(e). Co-defendant, Frank Marsh, was charged in the same indictment with the first-degree purposeful or knowing murder of Russo, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1) or (2), -3(b)(4) and -3(b)(4)(d); second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a); and second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b). Defendant was tried separately from Marsh and found guilty by the jury. The jury also answered two specific interrogatories in the affirmative, compelling a mandatory sentence of life without parole, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(b)(4). Defendant raises the following arguments on appeal:
PORT LIBERTE II CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC v. NEW LIBERTY RESIDENTIAL URBAN RENEWAL COMPANY, LLC
Date: January 31, 2014
Docket Number: a2574-11
Date: January 31, 2014
Docket Number: a2574-11
PORT LIBERTE II CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC v. NEW LIBERTY RESIDENTIAL URBAN RENEWAL COMPANY, LLC
Date: January 31, 2014
Docket Number: a3129-11xx
Date: January 31, 2014
Docket Number: a3129-11xx
STEPHANIE PLATIA v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF HAMILTON
Date: January 29, 2014
Docket Number: a1730-12
Date: January 29, 2014
Docket Number: a1730-12
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES v. W.F.
Date: January 28, 2014
Docket Number: a0190-12
Date: January 28, 2014
Docket Number: a0190-12
JUDITH A. DINAPOLI v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF VERONA ESSEX COUNTY
Date: January 22, 2014
Docket Number: a5649-11
Date: January 22, 2014
Docket Number: a5649-11
RICHARD CAPORUSSO v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SENIOR SERVICES
Date: January 13, 2014
Docket Number: a2266-12
Date: January 13, 2014
Docket Number: a2266-12
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT v. CREST ULTRASONICS
Date: January 7, 2014
Docket Number: a0417-12
Date: January 7, 2014
Docket Number: a0417-12
CARLOS M. POLANCO v. BOARD OF REVIEW DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Date: January 7, 2014
Docket Number: a0772-12
Date: January 7, 2014
Docket Number: a0772-12
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.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
