|
Click on any decision below to get the full opinion – October 19, 2026.
|
NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION |
New Jersey Appellate Division
Civil – Underinsured Motorist Coverage
Matthew A. Galeano vs. USAA General Indemnity Company (Bergen County and Statewide) – This interlocutory appeal concerned the trial court's denial of summary judgment to an insurance company that denied underinsured motorist coverage to a motorcyclist who was injured in a collision with an underinsured automobile driver. The injured plaintiff contended the insurer should be equitably estopped from denying coverage because of (1) its response to a so-called "Longworth" letter from the plaintiff notifying the insurer of a pending settlement with the automobile driver, and (2) the insurer's lengthy delay in disclaiming coverage until 16 months after the accident. After considering the estoppel issues based on the briefs and the submitted documents, the trial court denied summary judgment, noting the existence of genuine issues of material fact that bear upon the estoppel assessment. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court and remanded for limited discovery pertinent to the estoppel claim and, if shown to be warranted by that discovery, a plenary hearing.
Civil – Wrongful Death
Percey Rengifo, Jr., etc. vs. Todd Amadei, et al. (Bergen County and Statewide) – The plaintiff Percy Rengifo, Jr,, on behalf of himself, the Estate of Percy Rengifo, Sr., and the decedent's heirs, appealed from an order entering judgment after a jury trial, an order denying a motion for a new trial, and an order granting attorney's fees pursuant to an
offer of judgment. The plaintiff sued the defendants for damages arising from the death of his father, who was fatally struck by a truck driven by the defendant and owned by the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court.
Civil – Business Litigation/Breach of Contract
Jonathan Christodoro, etc. vs. Frank Zisa, et al. (Bergen County and Statewide) – The appeals stem from contentious litigation between former business partners. After a lengthy bench trial, the court found: defendant Frank Zisa breached his contract with the plaintiff Jonathan Christodoro by, among other things, diverting funds and failing to properly maintain books and records of their joint business enterprise. The trial court also found Zisa breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and that the plaintiff met their burden to prove claims of unjust enrichment and conversion against Zisa. The court also dismissed Zisa's counterclaim and permitted the plaintiff to proceed with a full buyout of Zisa's interest in Attessa Properties, LLC. Finally, the court awarded the plaintiff attorneys' fees. Seven orders of the Chancery Division were challenged by the parties. The Appellate Division affirmed all orders on appeal.
Family – Parental Rights
DCPP vs. C.K., et al., In the Matter of the Guardianship of K.K. (Essex County and Statewide) – The defendant C.K. (Carol) appealed from Family Part judgment terminating her parental rights to her daughter, K.K. and granting guardianship of the child to the Division of Child Protection and Permanency. Carol did not challenge the trial judge's decision the division established the first prong of the best interest standards under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(1) and (2). Rather, she argued the division failed to satisfy its burden with respect to prongs two, three, and four. Specifically, Carol argued the division did not make reasonable efforts toward reunification, did not adequately consider kinship legal guardianship as an alternative to termination, and did not present expert testimony sufficient to establish termination would not do more harm than good. The division and the child's law guardian urged the Appellate Division to affirm the judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court.
Criminal – Alleged Official Misconduct
State of New Jersey vs. Ernest V. Troiano, Jr./State of New Jersey vs. Steven E. Mikulski (Cape May County and Statewide) – The state alleged the defendants Ernest V. Troiano, Jr. and Steven E. Mikulski, elected officials in the City of Wildwood, wrongly received state health benefits in violation of N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.26 because they were not full-time employees working 35 hours per week. Effective May 21, 2010, the Legislature amended N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.26, requiring full-time elected and appointed officials to work a minimum of 35 hours per week to qualify for the State Health Benefits Program. On July 31, 2023, based on their acceptance of state health benefits, the defendants were indicted for second-degree official misconduct, second-degree theft by unlawful taking, third-degree tampering with public records, and fourth-degree falsifying or tampering with records. On leave granted, the state appealed from orders permitting selective prosecution discovery and barring certain evidence the state sought to present, and an order granting reconsideration as to selective prosecution discovery only. The Appellate Division affirmed the court's selective prosecution discovery ruling. It also affirmed the court's in limine rulings regarding testimony of other city commissioners; sick, personal, holiday, and vacation time; and outside employment testimony. However, the panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the court's ruling regarding testimony from human resource personnel concerning classification of the commissioner position.
Criminal – Post-Conviction Relief
State of New Jersey vs. Tiquan Whitehurst (Essex County and Statewide) – The defendant Tiquan Whitehurst appealed from an order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. The defendant is serving two life sentences for murder. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court.
State of New Jersey vs. Raashea L. Hughey (Burlington County and Statewide) – The defendant Raashea L. Hughey appealed from an order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. He argued his plea counsel was ineffective, the PCR court should have allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea to first-degree robbery, and, at a minimum, the PCR court should have held an evidentiary hearing. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court.
Administrative – Medicaid Benefits
E.H. vs. Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services, et al. – In this matter, the petitioner tried twice, unsuccessfully, to secure Medicaid benefits before being granted benefits on her third application. The first time, she did not provide sufficient documentation for a number of requirements, including information relating to her husband, whose whereabouts were unknown. The county social services board denied her application but made an application to the Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services ("DMAHS") for a spousal waiver, which would excuse her from the obligation of proving information regarding her absent spouse. No decision was communicated regarding that spousal waiver application. In her second application, petitioner still could not locate the required information regarding her absent spouse and asked the county board to help her. The county board did not ask DMAHS for a spousal waiver and again, her application was rejected. Petitioner finally received Medicaid benefits following her third application, but DMAHS applied a penalty for the period of time representing the two prior failed applications. In this appeal, the Appellate Division was asked to determine whether the county board was required to seek a spousal waiver during the second application and whether its failure to so do was a violation of its statutory obligations. The Appellate Division concluded the county board was required, by statute, to provide petitioner with assistance, including renewing the request for a spousal waiver, and determined the petitioner should not suffer a penalty for the time between the filing of the second application and the acceptance of the third application.
|
