Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 2, No. 18 DECISIONS ISSUED FEBRUARY 1, 1994 CIVIL PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE 07-3-2434 Panasonic Industrial Company v. Emerson Quiet Kool Corporation, Law Div. (5 pp.) Trial court properly did not allow defendant to offer into evidence the deposition testimony of an employee of plaintiff as a managing or authorized agent under R. 4:16-1(b), since defendant did not establish (1) that the interests of the plaintiff’s employee were the same as his principal and (2) whether another employee possessed the requisite information. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE 10-2-2435 In re Boganski, App. Div. (7 pp.) Trial court properly denied newspaper’s request for pre-sentence report of defendant who while on bail for aggravated sexual assault allegedly committed two more rapes and then killed himself, since newspaper’s claim that it needed the report to determine how the bail and sentencing process worked in this particular case was not a compelling need to overcome confidentiality of report, especially when information was available from other sources. EVIDENCE – AUTOMOBILES – AGENCY & PARTNERSHIP 19-2-2436 Gloria Ippolito, et al. v. Peggy Davis, Saddle River Tours, Ltd., Caesars Palace Casino, et al., App. Div. (4 pp.) Trial court evidentiary rulings, regarding plaintiff’s proofs on apparent and implied authority between Saddle River Tours and Caesars Palace Casino, affirmed where plaintiffs were injured in bus accident en route to Caesars, since evidence that plaintiff wanted to introduce did not support plaintiff’s contentions. FAMILY LAW 20-2-2437 James A. Terry v. Theresa Terry, App. Div. (23 pp.) Trial court erred in awarding physical custody of daughter to father since trial court failed to articulate substantive reasons for decision when (1) custody award was contrary to court- appointed psychologist’s recommendation and (2) daughter had resided with the mother for 15 months. INSURANCE – AUTOMOBILES 23-2-2438 Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Patricia W. Harry and Joseph T. Harry, App. Div. (4 pp.) Where insureds had received PIP benefits from their insurer and insured’s counsel had demanded seven times that insurer seek reimbursement from tortfeasor’s insurer, trial court erred in ordering insureds to reimburse their insurer, since insurer first did not seek reimbursement from tortfeasor’s insurance carrier. 23-2-2439 Cynthia A. Rizzi v. Robert J. Mott, App. Div. (3 pp.) Plaintiff who allegedly sustained back and neck injuries in a car accident did not satisfy the verbal threshold, where she failed to present evidence of injury other than doctor’s reports demonstrating at most only soft-tissue injury and she presented subjective complaints of pain and disability. LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT 25-2-2440 Big M, Inc. v. Board of Review and Melanie Campbell, App. Div. (4 pp.) Where employee’s increase in length of commute to 60 minutes from 10 minutes was not outside of parameters of employment contract terms, employee left her job without good cause attributable to her work and was not entitled to unemployment benefits. MUNICIPAL LAW 30-2-2441 Paul Shalita v. Township of Washington, App. Div. (9 pp.) Trial court erred by awarding municipal court judge compensation in excess of established salary on quasi- contractual grounds for conducting special sessions, since (1) a specific salary range was established by ordinance and/or resolution and (2) no specific legislation existed that permitted the judge to receive additional wages. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE 14-3-2442 State v. John Emil List, Opinion 1, Law Div. (7 pp.) During the state’s psychiatric evaluation, expert can question the defendant on whether he killed the decedent, since the defendant’s mental state has been placed in issue and the state’s expert cannot form an adequate opinion of the defendant’s mental status without questioning him on the murder. 14-3-2443 State v. John Emil List, Opinion 3, Law Div. (15 pp.) Evidence seized during warrantless search of defendant’s house is admissible, since the defendant did not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy after abandoning his house and even his name. 14-2-2444 State v. Courtney Riddle, App. Div. (6 pp.) Where judge and counsel had told defendant of exact trial date and counsel’s attempts to locate defendant on trial day were unsuccessful, defendant’s trial in absentia was proper since defendant knew of trial date; failure to specifically advise defendant that trial would be held in his absence is not an indispensable prerequisite for conducting a trial in absentia.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.