Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case was the deductibility of a worthless nonbusiness asset under the New Jersey Gross Income Tax Act. The Waksals filed a complaint in Tax Court, challenging a deficiency assessed on their sale of the asset on the ground that section 5-1c of the Act authorized their deduction of a worthless nonbusiness debt by incorporating the Internal Revenue Code’s treatment of such debts into New Jersey’s tax law through language stating that gains or losses should be determined by methods use “for federal income tax purposes.” The Waksals and the Director of the Division of Taxation cross-moved for summary judgment, and the Tax Court granted the Director’s motion, holding that section 5-1c only applies when a taxpayer has sold, exchanged or disposed of property, and that its applicability may depend on the circumstances of the underlying transaction. The Tax Court dismissed the Waksals’ complaint. The Waksals appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed substantially for the reasons cited by the Tax Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the worthless nonbusiness debt at issue was not a “sale, exchange or other disposition of property.” Section 5-1c did not integrate into the Act every provision of the Internal Revenue Code governing capital gains and losses, and 26 U.S.C.A. 166(d)(1)(B) did not constitute a federal “method of accounting” for purposes of this case. View "Waksal v. Director, Division of Taxation" on Justia Law

Defendant New Vornado/Saddle Brook, LLC owned a tract of land that was located in East Brunswick's HC-2 (General Highway Commercial District) zone. The property included one vacant free-standing building which New Vornado sought to convert into a gym. Because a for-profit health club was treated as a conditional use in the zone, the gym was required to comply with the relevant conditions established in the zoning ordinance, particularly that the boundary of the lot on which the gym was to be situated could not be located within 500 feet of any residence. On the other side of the street and behind other existing commercial buildings, there was a small residential neighborhood 1,200 feet away from New Vornado's property, but the edge was within 500 feet of a residence. New Vornado filed an application seeking a conditional use variance to enable it to open the gym. Plaintiff TSI East Brunswick, LLC (TSI), the owner of a health club located across the street from New Vornado's property, was the principal objector to New Vornado's application. Plaintiff filed suit to challenge the local Zoning Board's approval of New Vornado's variance. The trial court upheld the Board's decision, finding that New Vornado had met its burden of proving that its proposed plan satisfied both the positive and negative criteria and that TSI had failed to demonstrate that the Board's grant of a conditional use variance was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. TSI appealed; the Appellate Division affirmed. After its review, the Supreme Court agreed with the Appellate Division and affirmed the Zoning Board's decision. View "TSI East Brunswick, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Twp. of East Brunswick" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Michael Battaglia worked for defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) since 1985. He alleged he received a demotion in retaliation for making certain workplace complaints and comments. In suing UPS, he alleged that his demotion violated the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) and the Law Against Discrimination (LAD). Plaintiff also alleged breach of contract, relying on employee manuals stating that employees would not be disciplined for complaints. The trial court dismissed the contract claim for lack of evidence. Following numerous arguments over jury instructions, the court directed the jury that it could consider evidence involving credit cards, meal practices “and other things” on the CEPA claim. The jury found UPS liable on the CEPA and LAD claims, and awarded plaintiff $500,000 in economic damages and $500,000 in emotional distress damages. UPS made numerous post-trial motions, and the court granted its request for remittitur of the emotional distress award, reducing it to $205,000. The parties cross-appealed. The appellate panel affirmed the CEPA claim and dismissal of plaintiff's contract claim, but reversed the LAD verdict for lack of evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision to the extent that it dismissed the LAD claim and affirmed the CEPA verdict. Under the LAD, an employee who voices complaints and allegedly suffers a retaliatory employment action need only demonstrate a good-faith belief that the complained-of conduct violates the LAD. An identifiable victim of actual discrimination is not required. An LAD plaintiff may only recover an award for future emotional distress if evidence of permanency is offered in the form of an expert opinion. In order to succeed on a fraud-based CEPA claim, a plaintiff must reasonably believe that the complained-of activity was occurring and was fraudulent. View "Battaglia v. United Parcel Service, Inc." on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this appeal was whether the Executive Reorganization Act of 1969, authorized a Chief Executive to abolish an agency such as the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH), which the Legislature created and placed "in, but not of," an Executive Branch department. Because COAH is "in, but not of," an Executive Branch department, the plain language of the Reorganization Act does not authorize the Governor to abolish an independent agency like COAH. The Court held that to abolish independent agencies, the legislative and executive branches must enact new laws that are passed by the Senate and Assembly and signed by the Governor. View "In re Plan for the Abolition of the Council on Affordable Housing" on Justia Law

Defendants Harvey and Phyllis Karan owned a beachfront home which had a panoramic view of the beach and ocean. Plaintiff Borough of Harvey Cedars sought an easement over more than one quarter of the Karans' property to build a storm-protection dune which would invariably obstruct the Karans' view. When the Karans withheld consent, the Borough used its eminent domain power to acquire the easement. Since the parties could not agree on just compensation, the Borough filed an action in the Law Division. The Karans rejected a three-member panel of appointed commissioners' award and demanded a jury trial. At the end of trial, the court charged the jury that the Karans were entitled to "just compensation," defined as the difference between the fair market value of the property immediately before the taking and the fair market value of the remaining property immediately after the taking. It explained that fair market value included those features that enhanced the property, as well as those that diminished it, but it specifically prohibited the jury from considering any project-related general benefit enjoyed by other residents of the Borough. The jury awarded the Karans $375,000. The issue of what constituted "just compensation" was before the Supreme Court on appeal. The Court concluded after its review that a property's fair market value should be used as the benchmark in computing "just compensation": non-speculative, reasonably calculable benefits that increase the property's value at the time of the taking regardless of whether those benefits are enjoyed to a lesser or greater degree by others in the community. Because the Borough was prohibited from presenting evidence of such benefits, and the trial court erroneously charged the jury as to the calculation method for just compensation, the Court remanded for a new trial. View "Borough of Harvey Cedars v. Karan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Kelly Ruroede, a police officer on temporary sick leave, was suspended without pay and ultimately terminated from his employment based on numerous charges originally stemming from an off-duty verbal and physical altercation outside a restaurant and bar. The Borough of Hasbrouck adopted the recommendation of a disciplinary hearing officer and terminated him. Plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court; the Court found that the disciplinary hearing deprived plaintiff of due process, reversed, placed plaintiff on inactive-paid status, and remanded for a new hearing. The Appellate Division affirmed the superior court. In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the Borough challenged the Superior Court's decision. The Supreme Court concluded that the Superior Court erred by vacating the termination and ordering a remand. Furthermore, the Court concluded there was sufficient evidence presented at the disciplinary hearing to satisfy plaintiff's due process rights, therefore plaintiff's reinstatement to inactive-paid status was also in error. Both the Superior Court and Appellate Division were reversed. View "Ruroede v. Borough of Hasbrouck Heights" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Kane Properties, LLC contracted to purchase a piece of property in Hoboken zoned for industrial use. It applied for the necessary variances to construct a residential building. The Zoning Board granted the requested variances. The principal objector to plaintiff's proposal, Skyline Condominimum Association, Inc. appealed to the Hoboken City Council. Before the hearing, Skyline's attorney accepted an appointment as the City Council's attorney. Plaintiff objected to the attorney's participation in the appeal, and the attorney recused himself. Council reversed the zoning board's decision. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the attorney's involvement in the Skyline appeal in spite of a conflict of interest had irreparably tainted the City Council’s decision. The trial court affirmed the City Council’s decision. Plaintiff then appealed to the Appellate Division. After applying an appearance-of-impropriety standard and finding a conflict of interest, the panel concluded that the attorney's participation in the appeal tainted the City Council’s action. The matter was remanded to the City Council for a proceeding de novo. But Plaintiff filed a petition for certification to the Supreme Court, arguing that a remand back to the City Council was inappropriate. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court set aside the City Council's decision because the Court found it was tainted by its new attorney's conflict of interest. View "Kane Properties, LLC v. City of Hoboken" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that in a case involving issues for zoning variances under the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), evaluation of the suitable standard is a fact-specific and site-sensitive matter requiring a finding that the general welfare would be served because the proposed use was peculiarly fitted to the particular location. Although the availability of alternative locations is relevant, it does not bar a finding of particular suitability. View "Price v. Himeji, LLC" on Justia Law

The Town of Kearny hired Brandt-Kuybida Architects to design and plan the construction of a new public safety facility. Construction began in 1994. The general contractor, Belcor Construction, signed a "Certificate of Substantial Completion" in late 1995. Approximately ten days later, the architects signed the same Certificate. The Certificate defined the date of substantial completion in language similar to that of the construction contract. The signatories to the Certificate, however, left the "date of issuance" and the "date of completion" of the project blank. In Spring1996, the Town's Construction Official issued the first Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO), limited to the police section of the building. Structural defects in the facility surfaced shortly after the Kearny Police Department took occupancy, including leaks, buckled tiles and cracks in the walls. By 2007, ceilings in the facility had fallen and pipes had separated and pulled, all of which were attributed to uneven settlement. The Town never issued a final certificate of occupancy and on February 8, 2007, had the building vacated. Belcor initiated arbitration proceedings against the Town because the Town withheld final payment under the contract. Belcor and the Town resolved their dispute by Stipulation of Settlement. Both the Stipulation of Settlement and the related Town of Kearny Resolution identified the date of substantial completion of the facility as February 1, 1996. The issues before the Supreme Court were: (1) when could a building be considered substantially complete for purposes of calculating the ten-year period of the statute of repose; and (2) whether the Comparative Negligence Act and the Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law authorized the allocation of fault to defendants who obtained dismissals pursuant to the statute of repose. The Supreme Court concluded after review that (1) the ten year period of the statute of repose started when the first Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the facility; and (2) when the claims against a defendant are dismissed on statute of repose grounds, fault may be apportioned to the dismissed defendant under the Comparative Negligence Act and the Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law. View "Townof Kearny v. Brandt" on Justia Law

I.S. and E.S. are the divorced biological parents of twin girls. Following a series of reported events, I.S. admitted she was overwhelmed and needed help, and acknowledged the children needed placement in a residential facility where they could receive medical supervision and intensive counseling. In 2007, the Division of Youth and Family Services conducted an emergency removal and sought custody of the twins. The trial court concluded that the Division failed to establish I.S. abused or neglected the children, but because she could not protect them from injury, the court ordered the twins' placement in a residential facility. Though the court found no evidence of abuse or neglect, it ultimately granted sole custody to one of the girls prior to E.S., and sole custody of the other to I.S. I.S. appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division judgment awarding E.S. custody to one of the twins. The Court reversed the trial court's order to the extent that it was based on continued jurisdiction under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.50(c). View "N.J. Dep't of Children & Families, Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. I.S." on Justia Law