04-2-7908 Buchanan v. Leonard, App. Div. (Yannotti, J.A.D.) (17 pp.) The litigation privilege does not preclude a client from asserting a legal-malpractice claim against the attorney who represented him in a prior malpractice action where the attorney provided the client’s insurance carrier a memo seeking settlement authorization, in which the attorney stated the client had committed a criminal act, thereby allegedly causing the carrier to withdraw coverage. [Decided Oct. 9, 2012.]
14-2-7930 State v. McInerney, App. Div. (per curiam) (28 pp.) We reversed defendant’s conviction for second-degree child endangerment, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4a, because the trial court’s jury instruction, patterned after the Model Jury Charge, allowed for a conviction based on a relationship between defendant, a high school athletic coach, and student-victims not statutorily prescribed. [Decided Oct. 10, 2012.]
20-1-7924 D.W. v. R.W., Sup. Ct. (Albin, J.) (56 pp., including dissent by Wefing, P.J.A.D., temporarily assigned) Neither the trial court nor the Appellate Division referenced the applicable statutory provision, N.J.S.A. 9:17-48, which addresses the circumstances that warrant an order of genetic testing when parentage is in doubt. Even under the most generous view of the facts from Mark or Diane’s perspective, there is an absence of good cause to deny genetic testing. [Decided Oct. 10, 2012.]
34-2-xxxx Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Angeles. App. Div. (Koblitz, J.A.D.) (8 pp.) Defendant in this foreclosure case cited our decision in Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. 214 (App. Div. 2011), in support of his challenge to the Chancery judge’s refusal to allow him to raise the issue of standing based on a late assignment of mortgage. We affirmed, holding that defendant, who did not contest the foreclosure, waited too long to raise the issue of standing. He raised the issue for the first time more than three years after default on the mortgage, and after entry of final judgment, mediation, sheriff’s sale, and hardship stay of eviction. [Decided Oct. 11, 2012.]
35-5-7929 Aciu v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, Tax Ct. (Menyuk, J.T.C.) (17 pp.) Defendant director disallowed the exclusion of 50 percent of the gain on the sale of qualified small business stock in the calculation of net gains or income from the disposition of property. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted the director’s motion and denied the plaintiff’s, concluding that the New Jersey Gross Income Tax Act, N.J.S.A. 54A:5-1c, did not incorporate the exclusion permitted by I.R.C. § 1202. [Decided Oct. 9, 2012.]