NJ Appellate Law Blog – NJ Appellate Lawyer Bruce D. Greenberg blogs about Appeals and Appellate Law Practice

One From "Column A" (the Supreme Court) and One From "Column B" (the Appellate Division)

In re Estate of Michael D. Jones, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). As summarized here, this case involved whether an ex-spouse's rights as the pay-on-death beneficiary on her deceased ex-husband's U.S. savings bonds were superseded by the parties' divorce. The couple's divorce settlement agreement ("DSA") required, as relevant here, that the ex-husband ("Michael") pay the ex-wife ("Jeanine") $200,000 in installments over time. The DSA did not specifically provide for the disposition of savings bonds....

Three New Appeals for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in three new appeals. All are from unpublished opinions of the Appellate Division....

The Supreme Court Says That Buck v. Henry Meant What It Said

Wiggins v. Hackensack Meridian Health, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). This medical malpractice wrongful death appeal arose under the Affidavit of Merit ("AOM") statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-26 et seq., and the Patients First Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41. Those statutes, whose history Justice Fasciale laid out in detail, require, in short, that a malpractice plaintiff provide an affidavit of merit from an expert who specializes in the same "specialty or subspecialty" as the defendant doctor if that doctor has a specialty....

A Filed Rate Doctrine Anniversary

On this date in 2004, the Supreme Court decided Smith v. SBC Communications, Inc., 178 N.J. 265 (2004). The case was a putative Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA") and breach of contract class action against Southern New England Telephone Company ("SNET") and BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. Plaintiff alleged that defendants falsely advertised that prepaid calling cards purchased at BJ's would yield substantially more calling time than plaintiff actually received....

January, So Far

With the coming of the new year, this blog went onto a new platform. That fact, along with a Supreme Court oral argument and a Committee on Character hearing last week, has left this blog behind as 2025 begins. Our appellate courts, however, have been active. Here are summaries of their January 2025 published opinions to date:...

The Days Before Christmas

No one can say that in the days before Christmas, "not a creature was stirring" in our appellate courts. The Supreme Court issued one decision and the Appellate Division published...

The Supreme Court Will Review Four Unpublished Appellate Division Decisions

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in four new matters. All of those involve unpublished opinions of the Appellate Division. In State v. Taylor, the question presented...

One From the Supreme Court and One From the Appellate Division

Rodriguez v. Shelbourne Spring, LLC, ___ N.J. ___ (2024). The first signed opinion of the current Term was by Justice Fasciale. The Court addressed issues relating to whether Hartford Underwriters...

Court-Appointed Attorney and Temporary Guardian in "Alleged Incapacitated Person" Case Under Rule 4:86 Have No Right to Fees Against Office of Adult Protective Services

In the Matter of A.D., an Alleged Incapacitated Person, ___ N.J. ___ (2024). This case was an appeal from a decision of the Appellate Division, discussed here, that the Office...

An Anniversary in Administrative Law

On December 4, 1973, the Supreme Court decided Mayflower Sec. Co. v. Bureau of Securities, 64 N.J. 85 (1973). The Bureau of Securities had suspended the registration of Mayflower, a...

1 2 34…Last

Sentencing Counsel's Limited Investigation of Defendant's Citizenship Was Not Constitutionally Ineffective in the Circumstances

State v. Hernandez-Peralta, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). Justice Wainer Apter's decision today for a 5-2 Supreme Court majority began by phrasing the issue presented. "In this appeal, we consider whether sentencing counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate defendant's citizenship status beyond asking him if he was a United States citizen and receiving an unequivocal ‘yes,' and therefore not advising him that his plea could make him subject to deportation." The majority found, based on the particular facts, that counsel was not constitutionally ineffective, reversing the two lower courts. Justice Noriega, joined by Justice Fasciale, dissented....

The 2025-26 General Assignment Order

Chief Justice Rabner announced the 2025-26 General Assignment Order. It is available here....

New Jersey's Charity Care Program for Hospitals is Not a Per Se Unconstitutional Taking of Property

Englewood Hospital & Medical Center v. State, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). New Jersey has had a charity care program, in one form or another, for 178 years. As Justice Fasciale summarized the current charity care program in his opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court, under the current program "hospitals cannot turn away a patient for inability to pay, N.J.S.A. 26:2H-18.64, and patients who qualify for charity care shall not be billed for services rendered, N.J.A.C. 10:52-11.4. Instead, ‘disproportionate share hospitals' (DSHs), or hospitals that serve a disproportionate number of low-income patients, see N.J.S.A. 26:2H-18.52, receive annual subsidies from the Health Care Subsidy Fund (HCSF) in exchange for providing charity care, see N.J.S.A. 26:2H-18.52, .58, .58d."...

A Municipal Court Administrator is Employed by the Township, Not the Administrative Office of the Courts

Palmisano v. State of New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). The opening paragraph of Judge Marczyk's opinion for the Appellate Division well encapsulates what the appeal was about and what the result was. "Plaintiff Lindsay Palmisano appeals from the trial court's April 1, 2024 order dismissing her complaint with prejudice against defendant State of New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts and Municipal Division (AOC) pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e). The primary issue on appeal is whether plaintiff, a municipal court administrator, is an employee of the AOC, thereby allowing her to assert a claim against the AOC under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49. Based on our review of the record and the applicable legal principles, we conclude plaintiff was employed by Vernon Township (Township), not the AOC, and, therefore, we affirm."...