Amicus Cases

Text/HTML

Bianchi v. Ladjen, et. al.
Appellate Division Docket No,: A-3310-15 
Questions about procedures used in house closings, the role of title companies, and the use of experts and net opinions
Click here to read the NJSBA Brief 

Dunbar Homes, Inc. v. The Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Franklin 
Supreme Court Docket No,: 079076
When is a submission to the planning board considered an “application for development” that triggers the “time of application rule,” which states that the regulations in effect on the date of submission of an application for development govern the review of that application?
Click here to read the brief 

Heredia v. Piccininni
Appellate Division Docket No.
A-5714
Should the judges be required to ask open-ended void dire questions during jury selection and if the failure to do so is grounds for a new trial?
Click here to read the brief written by Lauren D. Fraser, Esq., John E. Gregory, Esq., Liana M. Nobile, Esq., and Michael R. Pagliione, Esq.
   
John Smith, a fictitious person. v. Arvind R. Datla, MD; Consultants in Kidney Disease, PA, ABC 1-20 (one or more fictitious corporations), DEP Company 1-20 (one or more fictitious companies); John and/or Jane Doe 1-20 (names being fictitious)
Appellate Division Docket No.
A-1339-16T3
The Appellate Division case, Smith v. Datla, centers on a question over the application of what statute of limitations should apply, and the NJSBA warns it presents access to justice issues that could have wide-ranging effects. 
Click here to read the brief by Thomas H. Prol, Esq., William H. Mergner Jr., Esq., and Liana M. Nobile, Esq.
Smith v. Datla involved the proper statute of limitations that should be applied to matters involving the AIDS Assistance Act. The association successfully advocated against any attempt to limit the rights of people living with HIV/AIDS and their access to the courts due to a restrictive statute of limitations, which could have broad-reaching effects and extend to claims in other areas of law. The Appellate Division agreed completely with the NJSBA's amicus position. Read the opinion here.
The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Division ruling in Smith v. Datla, which was in line with the association's amicus argument. Read the opinion here.



   
In the matter of a Complaint Filed by the New Jersey Association of Counties
Challenging Provisions of the Criminal Justice Reform Act as an Unfunded Mandate

New Jersey Council on Local Mandates
Docket No. COLM-0004-16
The association is seeking to be an amicus party in a matter pending before the New Jersey Council on Local Mandates that challenges bail reform measures. 
Click here to read the brief written by Thomas H. Prol, Esq.
The Council on Local Mandates released a transcript of the Feb. 15 arguments about criminal justice reform, where the measure was upheld. NJSBA President Thomas H. Prol argued on behalf of the association. To read the account, click here.
   
Schoenefeld v. Schneiderman, et al.
Supreme Court of the United States Docket No.: 16-780
The association urged the nation's highest court to review bona fide office rules.
Click here to read the brief written by Thomas H. Prol, Esq. and David B. Rubin, Esq. 
   
Moreland v. Parks 
Appellate Division Docket No.: A-4754-16T4
Trial Court Docket No: MER-L- 227-11
At issue is a case where appellant is making a Portee v. Jaffee claim for emotional distress denied by the trial court because they are not the biological parent. 
NJSBA Brief 

 

Jamie Taormina Bisbing v. Glenn R. Bisbing, III
Supreme Court Docket No. 077533
Appellate Division Docket No.: A-4059-14
Did the plaintiff, who did not have an attorney, make a clear, knowing and unmistakable waiver of statutory rights to have a court grant permission to relocate children?
Click here to read the brief written by  Timothy F. McGoughran, Esq., Brian G. Paul, Esq., Derek M. Freed, Esq. and Albertina Webb, Esq. 
   
Paterson v. Borough of Garwood/Villaraut
Superior Court of New Jersey
Appellate Division
Docket No.:  A-2328-15
Challenges a trial court decision that imposed notice requirements on a land use application that are more stringent than those set forth in the Municipal Land Use Law (“MLUL”) and the case law interpreting it.  
Click here to read the brief written by Howard D. Geneslaw, Esq., Cameron W. MacLeod, Esq. and Michael D. DeLoreto, Esq.

Ekaterina Schoenefeld v. State of New York, New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, Committee on Professional Standards of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department and Its Members
United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit Docket No.: 11-4283-cv
NJSBA submits a brief of amicus curiae in support of Plaintiff's Petition for Rehearing, and argues that The Court should grant rehearing en banc because the panel decision substantially limits the important right of clients to choose their own counsel.
Click here to read the brief written by David B. Rubin, Esq.   

State of New Jersey v. Scott Robertson

Supreme Court Docket No.: 075326
Appellate Division Docket No.: A-58-14
What is the appropriate standard for a stay pending appeal in matters involving the suspension of a motor vehicle license in two scenarios: a) From a judgement issued in municipal court on appeal to the Superior Court, and (b) from a judgement issued in the law division on appeal to the Appellate Division? 
Click here to read the brief written by Jeffrey Evan Gold, Esq. and Kimberly A. Yonta, Esq.
The Court generally agreed with the NJSBA
amicus position that the Crowe standards do not apply to applications for a stay of driver’s license suspension in DWI appeals from municipal court to the Law Division. The Court held there should be a presumption in favor of a stay unless there is a serious safety threat. Read the opinion here.
    
Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. Ward & Olivo, LLP.

Supreme Court Docket No.: 075310 
Does a law firm practicing as an LLP get converted into a general partnership, allowing its individual partners to be held liable for the negligence of fellow partners, when it fails to maintain professional liability insurance required to operate as an LLP under R. 1:21-1C(a) (3)?
Click here to read the brief written by Peter J. Gallagher, Esq.

 

State of New Jersey v. Denelsbeck
Supreme Court Docket No.: 075170
Was this defendant, who is charged with a fourth offense of driving while intoxicated (DWI), entitled to a jury trial because of the aggregate penalties that he faced?
Click here to read the brief written by Jeffrey Even Gold, Esq., Barbara Ungar, Esq. and Justin M. Moles, Esq.  

State v. William L. Witt

Supreme Court Docket No.: 074468

Did the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, as articulated in State v. Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6 (2009), apply to permit the search of defendant’s vehicle and seizure of the handgun from the console?

Click here to read the brief written by Jeffrey Evan Gold, Esq., Kimberly Yonta, Esq. and Justin M. Moles, Esq.

HELD: The exigent-circumstances standard set forth in Pena-Flores is unsound in principle and unworkable in practice. Citing Article I, Paragraph 7 of New Jersey’s State Constitution, the Court returns to the standard articulated in State v. Alston, 88 N.J. 211(1981), for warrantless searches of automobiles based on probable cause: The automobile exception authorizes the warrantless search of an automobile only when the police have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of an offense and the circumstances giving rise to probable cause are unforeseeable and spontaneous

Click here for the Opinion

Sergio Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture 
Supreme Court Docket No.: 074603
Could the employer enforce a contractual provision in an employment application, by which the employee waived the two-year statute of limitations applicable to claims against the employer and shortened the period for such claims to six months?
Click here to read the brief written by John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq., Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq., Liana M. Nobile, Esq., and Javier J. Diaz, Esq.

State v. James Buckner

Supreme Court Docket No.: 074390

Does N.J.S.A. 43:6A-13(b), which authorizes the recall of retired judges for temporary service, violate provisions of the New Jersey State Constitution?

Click here to read the brief written by Sandra T. Ayres, Esq., Robert B. Hille, Esq., John W. Kaveney, Esq. and Thomas H. Prol, Esq.

Held: Defendant has failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the Recall Statute is clearly repugnant to the New Jersey Constitution. To the contrary, the current law, in effect since 1975, is consistent with both the language and the history of the modern State Constitution, and does not violate the separation of powers doctrine.
Click here for the Opinion

 

Anthony C. Major v. Julie Maguire

Supreme Court Docket No.: 074345

When adjudicating an application for grandparent visitation, under what circumstances must the trial court follow the procedural guidelines articulated in the Appellate Division's recent decision R.K. v. D.L., Jr., 434 NJ Super. 113 (App. Div. 2014)?

Click here to read the brief written by Brian G. Paul, Esq., Jeralyn L. Lawrence, Esq. and Cheryl E. Connors, Esq.

 

Conley, et. al. v. Guerrero, et. al. 
App. Div. Docket No. - A-3796-13
Was proper notice of termination for a real estate contract, during an attorney review period, served when buyer’s broker received notice of termination via facsimile and via electronic mail?
Click here to read the brief written by Stuart J. Lieberman, Esq., Heather G. Suarez, Esq., and F. Bradford Batcha, Esq.
Supreme Court Docket No. 076928

Click here to read the brief written by Thomas H. Prol, President, F. Bradford Batcha, Esq., Stuart J.  Lieberman, Esq., Michael G. Sinkevich, Esq., and Heather G. Suarez, Esq.

  

State of New Jersey v. Timothy Adkins

Supreme Court Docket No.: 073803

Should the defendant's blood test results be suppressed in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Missouri v. McNeeley, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013), which held that there is no per se rule of exigency in drunk driving cases?

Click here to read the brief written by Jeffrey Evan Gold, Esq. and Thomas Cannavo, Esq.

 

In the Matter of Opinion No. 17-2012 of the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics 
Docket No.: 072810
May an attorney volunteer on behalf of Volunteer Lawyers for Justice to provide pro bono legal services to a debtor in a "no-asset" Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding if the attorney's law firm represents a creditor of the debtor in an unrelated matter? Held: Volunteer Lawyers for Justice’s pro bono bankruptcy program does not present a conflict of interest under RPC 1.7.  With appropriate safeguards, a volunteer attorney can represent a low-income debtor in a no-asset Chapter 7 bankruptcy matter even if the attorney’s firm represents one or more of the debtor’s creditors in unrelated matters.
Click here to read the Brief written by Susan A. Feeney, Esq., Emily B. Goldberg, Esq. and Judah Skoff, Esq.
Click here to read the Opinion

 

Peter Innes v. Marzano-Lesnevich, et.al.

Supreme Court Docket No.: 074291

This case focuses on a number of issues, including (1) whether the attorney fee provisions established in Saffer v. Willoughby can be extended to permit non-clients to obtain an award of attorney's fees from their adversary's attorneys for alleged negligence, and (2) what criteria should be used to qualify experts in legal malpractice cases.

Click here to read the brief written by Dennis Drasco, Esq., Arthur M. Owens, Esq. and Fruqan Mouzon, Esq.

 

Elizabeth Gnall v. James Gnall
Supreme Court Docket No.: 073321
This case questions the reversal of a limited duration alimony award and whether a fifteen-year marriage qualifies as short term, precluding an award of limited duration alimony 
Click here to read the brief written by Brian Schwartz, Esq., Derek Freed, Esq. and Brian Paul, Esq.

 

Morristown Associates v. Grant Oil Company 
Supreme Court Docket No.: 073248
Does the general six-year statute of limitations established by N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1 for damage to property apply to a private claim for contribution under the New Jersey Spill Compensation Control Act; and if so, did the discovery rule allow plaintiff to pursue claims for damages arising prior to the limitations period?
Click here to read the Brief written by Craig S. Provorny, Esq. and Laurie J. Sands, Esq. on behalf of the New Jersey State Bar Association.

State of New Jersey v. Julie Kuropchak
Supreme Court Docket No.: 072718
In this appeal challenging a conviction of driving while intoxicated, was it error to admit the documentary evidence and the Alcotest results, and was the observational evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction?
Click here to read the Brief written by John Menzel, Esq. on behalf of the New Jersey State Bar Association.

State of New Jersey v. James J. Revie

Is a defendant who is convicted of a third offense of driving while intoxicated (DWI) more than ten years after his second DWI conviction entitled to a second step-down in sentencing under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(3) after having already received a step-down in sentencing on his second DWI conviction?

Click here to read the Brief written by Jeffrey Evan Gold, Esq.

 

Ross v. Maeker

Supreme Court Docket No.: 072185

Does the 2010 amendment to the Statute of Frauds (N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(b)) requiring a writing memorializing palimony agreements and independent advice of counsel prior to executing such an agreement apply to bar enforcement or oral agreements that existed before adoption of said amendments?

Click here to read the Brief written by Ralph J. Lamparello, Esq., Brian G. Paul, Esq., Brian M. Schwartz, Esq., and Elizabeth M. Vinhal, Esq. on behalf of the New Jersey State Bar Association

Click here to read the opinion

D&D Associates, Inc. v. North Plainfield Board of Education
Third Circuit Case No.: 12-2236
Can the attorney for the Board of Education be sued by plaintiff for defamation and tortious interference for statements in pre-litigation letters sent to plaintiff’s attorneys and plaintiff’s performance bond surety termination the parties’ contractual relationship?
Click here to read the Brief written by Ralph J. Lamparello, Esq., Thomas H. Prol, Esq. and Sharon A. Balsamo, Esq. on behalf of the New Jersey State Bar Association

Acupuncture Society of NJ v. NJ Department of Banking and Insurance, Docket No. A-1792-12

NJ Healthcare Coalition v. NJ Department of Banking and Insurance, Docket No. A-1038-12

NJ Coalition for Quality Health Care v. NJ Department of Banking and Insurance, Docket No. A-1445-12

NJ Association of Justice in NJ v. NJ Department of Banking and Insurance, Docket No. A-1636-12

The case focuses on whether DOBI exceeded its authority in adopting new regulations governing personal injury protection benefits provided in the aftermath of auto accidents.

 

Click here to read the Brief written by Kevin P. McCann, Esq. and Anthony Murgatroyd, Esq., on behalf of the New Jersey State Bar Association

 

Martin O'Boyle v. Borough of Longport (070999)

Are the documents requested from the Borough protected from access under the Open Public Records Act because they are protected by the attorney work-product privilege and common interest doctrine?

Click here to read the Brief written by Thomas Hoff Prol, Esq. and President Kevin McCann, on behalf of the New Jersey  State Bar Association

 

In the matter of Sean Alden Smith, an Attorney at Law, Docket No. 070529 D-98-11 - This case questions whether the DRB has authority to order diversion during the post-complaint stage of a disciplinary proceeding.

Click here for the NJSBA brief drafted by Kevin McCann, David Dugan, Robert Hille

Schoenefeld v. State of New York, Docket No. 11-4283-cv (pending in the Second Circuit) – Is a New York statute requiring non-resident attorneys to maintain an office in the state unconstitutional?

 

Click here for the NJSBA brief drafted by David B. Rubin.

 

A federal appeals court said the question of whether an attorney must have an office in New York in order to handle cases there needs more review. Click here to read the decision.

 


State v. Cahill, Docket No. 68,727 -- Were defendant’s motor vehicle violations properly dismissed on the basis that he was denied a speedy trial? Decision pending.

Click here for the NJSBA brief drafted by Jeffrey Evan Gold.

 

0