|
Click on any decision below to get the full opinion – October 16, 2026.
|
NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION |
New Jersey Appellate Division
Family – Restraining Order
L.A. vs. C.A.F. (Camden County and Statewide) – The defendant C.A.F. appealed from a final restraining order entered in favor of the plaintiff L.A., pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. The Appellate Division vacated the order, reinstated the temporary restraining order and remanded for a new trial before a different judge, finding that the trial court did not comply with Rule 1:7-4.
Family – Emotional Abuse
B.P. vs. Department of Children and Families (New Jersey Department of Children and Families) – B.P. appealed from Department of Children and Families, Division of Child Protection and Permanency's final agency decision determining allegations of her emotional abuse towards A.H. was "not established" under N.J.A.C. 3A:10-7.3(c)(3). The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court.
Family – Custody Dispute
DCPP vs. M.W.G., Jr., In the Matter of G.G. (Burlington County and Statewide) – The defendant M.W.G., Jr. ("Mark") appealed from the Family Part order dismissing the plaintiff the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency's complaint for the care and custody of his daughter, G.G. ("Gina"), pursuant to Title 9, N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21 to -8.73, and Title 30, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-11 to -15.4 ("FN litigation"). Mark asserted the trial
court erred in dismissing the FN litigation at the division's request without affording a plenary hearing to address custody and parenting time with Gina. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court.
Employment – Class Action
Maria Aguirre, et al. vs. CDL Last Mile Solutions, LLC, et al. (Bergen County and Statewide) – The defendants CDL Last Mile Solutions, LLC (CDL), Subcontracting Concepts, LLC d/b/a SCI and Anthony Curcio challenged two orders. The first granted the plaintiffs' application to certify this New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and New Jersey Wage Payment Law dispute as a class action, appointed class representatives and class counsel. The trial court modified its order by clarifying and expanding the class to include drivers based out of CDL's Moonachie and Carlstadt facilities, while narrowing the class to exclude individuals classified by the defendants as employees who oversaw work performed by delivery drivers. On appeal, the defendants argued the court erred when it certified the class because the plaintiffs' counsel initially sued Katty Ponce, one of the defendants' former employees, whom they contend fell within the class as originally pled which caused a permanent, disqualifying conflict. According to the defendants, that conflict was not remedied by her later dismissal from the case or by the court's exclusion of certain supervisory employees from the class pursuant to the order. The defendants also contended the: 1) record does not support the court's finding that Ponce fell within the terms of the order, 2) revised class definition improperly excluded individuals who otherwise belonged in the class, 3) class includes drivers who may be adverse to one another because some drivers allegedly hired or paid other drivers, and 4) certification was premature on an insufficiently developed record. The Appellate Division was convinced the trial court properly exercised its discretion when it determined the plaintiffs satisfied Rule 4:32-1, including subsection (a)(4)'s adequacy of representation prong, after the parties consented to the dismissal of Ponce with prejudice before certification and the class was later refined to exclude employees who oversaw work performed by delivery drivers. It further determined that the trial court acted properly when it modified the class definition before final judgment, and the record at the certification stage was sufficient to support that preliminary class-management decision. Finally, Appellate Division was satisfied the court acted well within its discretion when it determined common questions concerning the defendants' classification and compensation practices predominated over any individualized issues, and when it concluded certification was appropriate without additional discovery.
Estate – Will Contest
In the Matter of the Estate of Joanne W. Schneider, Deceased (Bergen County and Statewide) – Richard H. Schneider and Robert J. Schneider, Jr., two children of the decedent, Joanne Schneider, appealed from a Chancery Division order denying their motion to shift their burden of proof and granting summary judgment in favor of the decedent's other two children, Deborah L. Schneider and Jennifer W. Sanzari. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that Deborah and Jennifer did not share a confidential relationship with Joanne and that no suspicious circumstances surrounded the will the Chancery judge admitted to probate.
Civil – Personal Injury
Valdomiro Silva, et al. vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al. (Hudson County and Statewide) – The plaintiff Valdomiro Silva was injured when he fell from a ladder while working on a jobsite owned by appellant Jersey City Municipal Utilities Authority (JCMUA). At the time of the accident, Silva was employed by J. Fletcher Creamer & Son, Inc. (Creamer). Silva filed suit against JCMUA and other defendants alleging negligence and failure to comply with pertinent safety standards. Pursuant to the contract between JCMUA and Creamer, Creamer obtained an insurance policy naming JCMUA as an additional insured, provided a defense to JCMUA, and covered all defense costs. After discovery concluded, the trial court granted JCMUA summary judgment, finding it did not owe Silva a duty of care. Silva later settled his case against the remaining defendants. Thereafter, JCMUA brought a third-party complaint, seeking contractual and/or implied indemnification from Creamer for JCMUA's legal fees incurred in defending Silva's complaint. In short, although JCMUA incurred no expenses or damages because Creamer provided it a defense, it nevertheless contended Creamer should be individually responsible under the parties' contract to pay JCMUA the expenses JCMUA incurred in defending against Silva's allegations—the same monies Creamer's insurer had already paid JCMUA under the policy. The trial court disagreed with JCMUA's interpretation of the contract and granted Creamer summary judgment, dismissing JCMUA's third party complaint. JCMUA appealed from the orders denying its summary judgment motion, and the subsequent denial of reconsideration, and the grant of summary judgment to Creamer. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court.
Civil – Open Public Records Act
PBNJ Capital, LLC vs. Township of Montville, et al. (Morris County and Statewide) – The plaintiff PBNJ Capital, LLC appealed from an order denying its application for disclosure of documents by the defendants Township of Montville and its municipal clerk, Stacy Kostka, under the Open Public Records Act. The Appellate Division vacated the order and remanded for further proceedings.
|
