STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANTHONY NOVELLINO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY NOVELLINO,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________________________

Submitted June 4, 2013 Decided

Before Judges Fisher, Alvarez and Waugh.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, Indict-

ment No. 11-02-00199.

Glazer & Luciano, P.C., attorneys for appellant (David B. Glazer, on the brief).

Fredric M. Knapp, Acting Morris County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Maggie Calderwood, Executive Assistant Prosecutor/

Special Deputy Attorney General, of counsel; Clementine Manochio, Supervising Assistant Prosecutor/Special Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In 2011, defendant was charged with the murder of his former wife. Prior to trial, defendant moved to disqualify the Morris County Prosecutor's Office. The motion was based on

defendant's assertion that, in 2005, he hired Robert A. Bianchi the Morris County Prosecutor at the time defendant was indicted and during the time he was investigated for his former wife's murder to represent his son in a criminal matter. Defendant claimed that during the course of Bianchi's representation of his son, Bianchi obtained confidential information about defendant's relationship with his family, stress in the household, and defendant's financial situation circumstances that may have relevance to the pending homicide case.

The trial judge denied defendant's motion, as well as a later motion for reconsideration. We granted defendant's motion for leave to appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, however, Bianchi resigned the position of Morris County Prosecutor. As a result, we conclude that whether the circumstances referred to by defendant created an impermissible conflict of interest has become a moot point, thereby requiring dismissal of the appeal.

Notwithstanding Bianchi's resignation, defendant argues that confidential information obtained from Bianchi's prior representation of his son may be improperly used against him at trial. We express no view on that subject. Defendant is

certainly free to pursue that issue in some future appeal if his present concerns eventually ripen into fruition.

Appeal dismissed as moot.

3