The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in four new cases. One of those appeals is from a published opinion of the Appellate Division. The others involve unpublished per curiam Appellate Division decisions.
The appeal involving a published opinion is Crisitello v. St. Theresa School. That opinion was reported at 465 N.J. Super. 223 (App. Div. 2020). The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “In this matter concerning the termination of plaintiff, a teacher, was defendant entitled to summary judgment under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and the ministerial exception of the First Amendment?” As discussed here, a three-judge panel of the Appellate Division reversed the Law Division’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant school.
Stewart v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority presents this question: “Did plaintiffs establish the requisite elements to impose liability against a public entity and its general contractor under the Tort Claims Act?” The unpublished opinion of a two-judge Appellate Division panel reversed a summary judgment in favor of defendant, finding that there were “disputed issues of material fact relevant to the application of immunity under the Tort Claims Act.”
In Moynihan v. Lynch, the question presented is “Among other issues in this palimony action, is the written agreement between the parties unenforceable due to the 2010 amendment to the Statute of Frauds, N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h)?” The Family Part held that the agreement was enforceable, but the Appellate Division, in an unpublished opinion by a three-judge panel, reversed based on the 2010 amendment to the Statute of Frauds.
The final new case is State v. Ryan, a criminal matter. The question presented is “Can an offense committed as a juvenile serve as a predicate offense for imposition of a sentence of life without parole under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.1(a), known as the ‘Three Strikes Law’?” The Law Division denied defendant’s petition for post-conviction relief from the sentence imposed, and a two-judge Appellate Division panel, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed “for the comprehensive and well-explained reasons” given by the Law Division.