Search Results
| Case name | Citation | Summary |
| [New Jersey] DJS Co. v. East Orange | 2012/03/16 | Docket No: none This letter opinion constitutes the court’s decision with respect to the defendant’s above-captioned cross-motions, following oral argument. click here to get this docum |
| [New Jersey] Vitold L. Milaszewski v. Director, Division of Taxation | 2012/03/09 | Docket No: none This letter constitutes the court’s opinion after trial in the above-referenced matters in which plaintiff challenges the final decision of the Director, Division of Taxation denying his applications for homestead property tax reimbursements for tax years 2009 and 2010. click here to get this docum |
| [New Jersey] Raymond R. Bruce, Jr. v. Township of Maple Shade | 2012/03/09 | Docket No: none This letter sets forth the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law on defendant’s motion to dismiss the Complaint. R. 1:6-2(f). click here to get this docum |
| [New Jersey] Conway v. Marlboro Township | 2012/03/05 | Docket No: none I have received Mr. Alfieri’s letter enclosing a proposed consent order reinstating the complaint and a stipulation of settlement. For the following reasons, I am unable to sign the consent order. click here to get this docum |
| [New Jersey] Madge P. Bolden v. Director, Division of Taxation | 2012/03/02 | Docket No: none This letter constitutes the court’s opinion after trial in the above-referenced matter in which plaintiff challenges the final decision of the Director, Division of Taxation denying her application for a homestead property tax reimbursement for tax year 2010. For the reasons explained more fully below, the Director’s decision is affirmed. click here to get this docum |
| [New Jersey] Gurvey et al. v. Township of Montclair | 2012/02/23 | Docket No: none This is the court’s opinion in connection with plaintiffs’ letters of December 14, 2011 and December 16, 2011, treated as motions, seeking the court’s disqualification/recusal, and re-consideration of this court’s final Order dated December 14, 2011. click here to get this docum |
| [New Jersey] Schweitzer-Mauduit International Inc. v. Director | 2012/02/14 | Docket No: 007376-2005 Plaintiff, a manufacturer of cigarette papers with a plant in Spotswood, New Jersey, contests the defendant’s assessment of use tax on certain of its purchases and also contests the defendant’s denial of a claim for a refund of sales and use taxes. click here to get this docum |
| [New Jersey] ATLANTIC CITY SHOWBOAT, INC. v. DIRECTOR | 2012/01/24 | Docket No: none DeALMEIDA, P.J.T.C. The first question before the court is whether the amount charged by an electric public utility for the distribution of electricity through the local distribution infrastructure to a consumer is subject to sales tax. click here to get this docum |
| [New Jersey] FATMA MOHAMED v. IGLESIA EVANGELICA OASIS DE SALVACION | 2012/03/21 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: A-6019-10T4 J.S.C. (temporarily assigned). Plaintiff tripped and fell after she stepped into a depression in a sidewalk adjacent to property owned by defendant Iglesia Evangelica Oasis De Salvacion. Plaintiff sued defendant for damages for the injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of her fall. Finding defendant to be a non-commercial entity and thus not subject to sidewalk liability under Stewart v. 104 Wallace Street, Inc., 87 N.J. 146 (1981) and its progeny, the trial judge granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. Because the trial court should have permitted plaintiff to complete discovery before considering defendant's motion, we reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings. I Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] BUILDING MATERIALS CORPORATION OF AMERICA v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY | 2012/03/13 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: L-10529-98. FASCIALE, J.A.D. In this insurance coverage dispute, plaintiff Building Materials Corporation of America d/b/a GAF Materials Corporation (GAF) appeals from a judgment of no cause of action entered after a lengthy jury trial; and defendant National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (National Union) cross-appeals from an order denying its motion for a new trial on its counterclaim. We affirm on the appeal and cross-appeal. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] INVESTORS SAVINGS BANK v. KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION | 2012/03/12 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: A-0404-10T2 SKILLMAN, J.A.D. (retired and temporarily assigned on recall). Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] IN RE REORGANIZATION PLAN 1-2011 | 2012/03/08 | Docket No: A-6301-10T4 CARCHMAN, P.J.A.D. The issue raised in this appeal is whether, pursuant to the Executive Reorganization Act of 1969, N.J.S.A. 52:14C-1 to -11 (Reorganization Act), a Governor may abolish an independent agency created by the Legislature that is "in but not of" a department of the Executive Branch. As applied here, the narrower issue is whether respondent Governor Chris Christie may, under the terms of the Reorganization Act, "abolish" the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH), an independent agency created by the Fair Housing Act, N.J.S.A. 52:27D-301 to -329 (FHA), and transfer the duties, responsibilities and obligations of that agency to the sole authority of the Commissioner of the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). Strictly construing the Reorganization Act, we conclude that it does not grant the Governor the power to abolish a legislatively created, representative, independent authority that is "in but not of" the Executive Branch or any department in that branch of the government. Applying this rule here, we determine that the Governor exceeded his authority under the Reorganization Act in abolishing COAH. Accordingly, we reverse. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] CHARLES CAMERON v. ROY B. EWING | 2012/03/08 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: L-449-07. OSTRER, J.S.C. (temporarily assigned). This appeal presents the novel issue whether the stream of payments due a homeowner under a home equity conversion mortgage, also known as a reverse mortgage, is subject to execution and garnishment for the benefit of judgment creditors of the homeowner. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] TOWNSHIP OF FRANKLIN v. FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP PBA LOCAL 154 SUPERVISORY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION | 2012/03/08 | Docket No: A-2313-10T1 J.A.D. In these two matters, calendared back-to-back and consolidated for purposes of this opinion because they present identical issues for review, appellant the Township of Franklin (the Township) appeals from two separate Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) decisions denying its scope of negotiation petition, seeking a determination that proposed work schedule modifications were non-negotiable. The Township maintained its managerial authority to implement new schedules was authorized by a provision contained in the collective negotiations agreements (CNA)1 with respondents, the Franklin Township PBA Local #154 (PBA) and the Franklin Township PBA Local #154 Supervisory Officers Association (SOA), the collective bargaining organizations for certain police officers employed by the Township.2 PERC rejected the Township's position and ordered the issues must be arbitrated. Following our review of the arguments advanced, in light of the record and applicable law, we affirm both PERC orders. The Township, a public employer as defined by N.J.S.A. 34:13A-3,3 of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 to -30, entered into independent CNAs with the PBA and SOA, governing the terms of employment of all member police officers employed by the Township. The CNAs at issue were effective from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009, and contained clauses addressing management's right to change work schedules. Pending a successor agreement, the terms of the 2008-2009 CNAs remain in full force and effect. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] TOWNSHIP OF FRANKLIN v. FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP PBA LOCAL 154 | 2012/03/08 | Docket No: A-2313-10T1 J.A.D. In these two matters, calendared back-to-back and consolidated for purposes of this opinion because they present identical issues for review, appellant the Township of Franklin (the Township) appeals from two separate Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) decisions denying its scope of negotiation petition, seeking a determination that proposed work schedule modifications were non-negotiable. The Township maintained its managerial authority to implement new schedules was authorized by a provision contained in the collective negotiations agreements (CNA)1 with respondents, the Franklin Township PBA Local #154 (PBA) and the Franklin Township PBA Local #154 Supervisory Officers Association (SOA), the collective bargaining organizations for certain police officers employed by the Township.2 PERC rejected the Township's position and ordered the issues must be arbitrated. Following our review of the arguments advanced, in light of the record and applicable law, we affirm both PERC orders. The Township, a public employer as defined by N.J.S.A. 34:13A-3,3 of the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 34:13A-1 to -30, entered into independent CNAs with the PBA and SOA, governing the terms of employment of all member police officers employed by the Township. The CNAs at issue were effective from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009, and contained clauses addressing management's right to change work schedules. Pending a successor agreement, the terms of the 2008-2009 CNAs remain in full force and effect. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEW JERSEY v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY | 2012/03/07 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: A-2232-09T3 P.J.A.D. Plaintiff Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey appeals from a judgment of the Tax Court denying its claim for a refund of $145,000,000, concluding that the Premium Tax Cap Statute (PTC), N.J.S.A. 54:18A-6, as amended by Assembly Bill A4401 (A4401), L. 2005, c. 128, was not unconstitutional as a denial of due process or equal protection, a bill of attainder, or special legislation. By its terms, A4401 eliminated the tax cap on premiums received by health service corporations (HSCs) when at all relevant times, plaintiff was the only HSC in New Jersey. Among its other claims, plaintiff charged that it was singled out for retaliation after it refused to convert to for-profit status. We conclude that plaintiff's claims are without merit. A4401 was rationally related to the legislative goals of raising revenue to reduce a budget deficit as well as to eliminate a loophole in the tax law whereby HSCs had a lower effective tax rate than other health insurance carriers. We further conclude that plaintiff's claim of retaliation is likewise without merit, and the trial judge properly denied plaintiff's motion for additional discovery and properly granted defendants'1 motion for summary judgment. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] HEATHER HOLST-KNUDSEN v. ERIK MIKISCH | 2012/03/06 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: FM-07-293-09. J.A.D. Plaintiff Heather Holst-Knudsen appeals from a February 9, 2011 order denying in part her post-divorce motions and granting the cross-motion of defendant Erik Mikisch to reduce his child support payments. We affirm the order in part and reverse it in part. Because the trial court did not make sufficient findings of fact as to child support and the proposed change of the child's surname, and because it did not apply controlling law to those issues, we reverse and remand those parts of the order. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. SAEED T. ELLIS | 2012/03/06 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: 07-04-0915. PARRILLO, P.J.A.D. Tried by a jury, defendant Saeed Ellis was convicted of fifty-three drug-related counts including second-degree conspiracy to distribute a controlled dangerous substance, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b(2) and N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2, and first-degree leader of a narcotics trafficking network, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-3. The conspiracy was merged with the "kingpin" offense, for which defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a twenty-five year period of parole ineligibility. Sentences on the remaining counts were all made to run concurrent. On appeal, defendant challenges his drug kingpin conviction, arguing that his motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted. We agree, and accordingly vacate that conviction, unmerge the conspiracy count and remand for resentencing thereon. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] TRACEE EDMONDSON - v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH OF ELMER | 2012/03/05 | Docket No: 93-5/10. GRALL, J.A.D. Tracee Edmondson appeals from a final decision of the Commissioner of Education dismissing her challenge to an agreement expanding a sending-receiving relationship between the Pittsgrove Township Board of Education and the Board of Education of the Borough of Elmer (collectively the Boards). The municipalities are in Salem County, and they border one another. The Commissioner concluded that this arrangement does not exceed the authority granted to the Boards in N.J.S.A. 18A:38-8, amount to a de facto regionalization that must be accomplished in accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:13-34, or permit the Commissioner's intervention on the ground that Elmer's local school district is a non-operating district, N.J.S.A. 18A:8-43 to -49. We affirm those determinations. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] TELEBRIGHT CORPORATION, INC. v. DIRECTOR, OF TAXATION | 2012/03/02 | Court: Supreme Court of Washington Docket No: A-5096-09T2 J.A.D. In a published opinion, Telebright v. Director, Division of Taxation, 25 N.J. Tax 333 (Tax 2010), the Tax Court held as follows: a foreign corporation that regularly and consistently permits one of its employees to telecommute full-time from her New Jersey residence is doing business in New Jersey, is subject to the New Jersey Corporation Business Tax Act N.J.S.A. 54:10A-1 to -41, and must file New Jersey Corporation Business Tax returns. We affirm, substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge DeAlmeida's opinion. We add the following discussion. Click here to get this docume |