Late last week, the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division each issued two published opinions. Neither court has issued any published opinions this week (nor is either court slated to do so tomorrow, a relatively long hiatus for both courts at this point in a Term), thus affording time for another catch-up post. Here are summaries of those latest opinions.
Maison v. New Jersey Transit Corp., 245 N.J. 270 (2021). This was a 4-3 decision in a case in which plaintiff, a passenger on a New Jersey Transit bus, was attacked and injured by another passenger, who threw a bottle at plaintiff. Justice Albin authored the majority opinion, in which Chief Justice Rabner and Justices Solomon and Pierre-Louis joined. Justice Patterson wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justices LaVecchia and Fernandez-Vina. All seven Justices agreed that New Jersey Transit could not invoke certain defenses under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 et seq., and that fault was to be allocated among the potentially responsible parties, including the bottle-thrower. The split in the Court surrounded the majority’s ruling that “the heightened duty-of-care standard governing private common carriers protects equally those people who ride on public common carriers such as NJ Transit.” The dissenters also differed with the majority’s jury charge regarding allocation of fault, asserting that the charge “presses the jury to allocate most –if not all–of the fault in this case to NJ Transit.”
Goldfarb v. Solimine, 245 N.J. 326 (2021). This case arose under the New Jersey Uniform Securities Law, N.J.S.A. 49:3-47 et seq. That statute requires to have a writing memorializing the terms for an investment relationship. Plaintiff alleged that he “received specific promises of a base salary and return on investments for managing in-house the sizeable investment portfolio of defendant’s family,” and that he quit another job to take that position. But there was never a written agreement regarding that alleged employment promise, so plaintiff relied on promissory estoppel. Plaintiff won a jury trial as to both liability and damages, overcoming defendant’s argument that the Securities Law precluded a suit based on promissory estoppel. As discussed here, the Appellate Division affirmed on liability but remanded the case for a new trial on damages.
In a 5-1 decision, with Justice LaVeccchia writing the majority opinion, Justice Albin dissenting, and Justice Patterson not participating, the Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s ruling, as modified. The majority upheld the liability verdict, holding that the statute did not bar a promissory estoppel claim. The majority remanded “for a new damages trial in which plaintiff will have the opportunity to prove reliance damages. He is not entitled to benefit-of-the-bargain damages.” Justice Albin’s dissent contended that plaintiff should not have been allowed to proceed on any theory since the Securities Act barred “any suit on the contract,” a bar that he believed should include a promissory estoppel theory.
Mack-Cali Realty Corp. v. State of New Jersey, 466 N.J. Super. 402 (App. Div. 2021). Judge Messano wrote this lengthy opinion, the subject of which was plaintiffs’ challenge to a Jersey City ordinance that imposed a 1% tax on an employer’s payroll but exempted from the calculation employees who were residents of Jersey City. Plaintiffs attacked as unconstitutional, on various grounds (including the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution), the statute that authorized the ordinance, and assailed the ordinance as unconstitutional, void for vagueness, and ultra vires. The Law Division found the statute and ordinance constitutional and valid, and granted defendants’ motion to dismiss because plaintiffs had failed to join an indispensable party.
The Appellate Division agreed that most of plaintiffs’ claims were properly dismissed. But the panel reversed as to plaintiffs’ claim under the Commerce Clause and stated that the failure to join an indispensable party did not justify dismissal. The case is likely headed to the Supreme Court, as the Appellate Division, apparently recognizing the importance of the matter, “stay[ed its] judgment for forty-five days to permit the parties to seek further review.”
State v. Harris, 466 N.J. Super. 502 (App. Div. 2021). This case, actually eight consolidated cases, involved the statutory admission criteria for the Drug Court program. The Appellate Division’s 76-page opinion, written by Judge Susswein, focused on the criteria for determining whether a defendant is a candidate for Track One or Track Two of the program. In addressing the specific issue presented, one of “first impression,” the Appellate Division held that “the trial court erred in ruling that a defendant is a Track One candidate by reason of past convictions or having previously been sentenced to state prison.” That is just a capsule summary of a detailed opinion that is worth reading in full.