These News Briefs and Decision Summaries are from the the New Jersey State Bar Association. They are an exclusive benefit of the Association in partnership with the New Jersey Law Journal. A subscription may be necessary to access the full text of some of the items listed:
NEWS BRIEFS:
Trump Picks Jennifer Mascott, of the White House Counsel’s Office, for 3rd Circuit Vacancy
President Donald Trump has announced his intention to nominate Jennifer Mascott, of the White House Counsel’s Office, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
The Capitol Report covers the latest NJSBA news in Trenton. Read about the Association’s comments on the rollout of the NextGen Bar Exam and the Judiciary revising questions on guilty plea forms that carry potential immigration consequences.
After Slip and Fall Leads to Amputation, Parties Settle for $3.6M
A man who lost his foot as a result of a severe slip and fall injury has agreed to settle his claims for $3.6 million.
Seeking New Members: NJSBA Corporate Sustainability, Cleantech and Climate Change Special Committee
Monitor ongoing developments in corporate sustainability, including clean and renewable energy initiatives, by joining this Special Committee. To join, fill out the form here and discover the NJSBA’s wide range of Special Committees for every practice area.
State and Federal Rules Clash as Trans Woman Sues Princeton
A transgender athlete—who alleges her registration in a track and field event at the school was revoked based on her gender identity—has sued Princeton University.
DECISION SUMMARIES:
Click on any decision below to get the full opinion from the New Jersey Judiciary – July 17, 2025
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
There are no decisions approved for publication.
NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
CREDITORS’ AND DEBTORS’ RIGHTS
991, LLC v. SSOMM, LLC, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendants SSOMM, LLC and Mahmoud Abdelwahab appealed an order that granted a final judgment of foreclosure to plaintiff and dismissed defendants’ counterclaim. In 2020, plaintiff made loan of $215,000 to SSOMM, LLC, secured by mortgages on properties in Newark, with a personal guaranty by Abdelwahab. Defendants defaulted on the loan in October 2021, leading to foreclosure proceedings initiated by plaintiff in February 2022. Defendants failed to respond initially, resulting in a default, but later filed an answer with affirmative defenses, a counterclaim, and a third-party complaint alleging misrepresentation by plaintiff’s principal, Chuck Lardizabal. The trial court granted summary judgment to plaintiff, finding no genuine issue of material fact regarding the foreclosure, but dismissed the counterclaim for lack of specificity in pleading fraud. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment for foreclosure, noting plaintiff’s compliance with Rule 4:46-2(c) and the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the counterclaim, determining it was improperly dismissed as it met the heightened pleading standard for fraud under Rule 4:5-8(a). The court concluded that the counterclaim was non-germane to the foreclosure action and should be addressed separately in the law division. The court remanded the case to restore the counterclaim and transfer it for further proceedings.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Vega, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the denial of his application for post-conviction relief. Initially indicted on 30 counts in 2016, defendant faced 22 charges after some were dismissed, including various charges of possession, possession with intent to distribute controlled dangerous substances, and firearm-related offenses. He was convicted on 17 counts and sentenced to a 32-year term with a 16-year parole ineligibility period, later amended to a flat 32-year sentence. Defendant’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and the Supreme Court denied certification. In his PCR petition, defendant claimed ineffective assistance of trial and direct appellate counsel, based on counsel’s failure to investigate a third-floor apartment’s occupancy, challenge inadequate jury instructions, or contest an aggravating factor at sentencing. The PCR court found no merit in these claims, noting the jury acquitted defendant of charges related to the third-floor apartment, and trial counsel effectively raised reasonable doubt. The PCR court also found no prejudice from the alleged ineffective assistance, as the sentencing court’s findings were supported by the record. On appeal, defendant contended the PCR court erred in its findings and that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. The court affirmed the PCR court’s decision for alternative reasons, finding that defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance under the Strickland/Fritz standard, as he did not demonstrate how the alleged deficiencies would have altered the trial’s outcome. The court also found no reversible error in the jury instructions or the sentencing court’s consideration of aggravating factors.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Davila-Izaguirre, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Defendant hired a party bus to celebrate his wife’s birthday. After several hours of drinking, the party returned to defendant’s house. Victim, a party guest, smoked marijuana and fell asleep on a couch. When she woke up, her clothes were missing and she found blood in her rectum area. She called a friend who took her to the hospital for a rape examination. Defendant’s DNA was found in her underwear. Defendant waived his Miranda rights and gave two recorded interviews. He asserted victim approached him, naked from the waist down and “started riding [him].” Trial judge allowed defendant’s wife to testify that victim told her if she had an affair, it would be via anal sex. Jury convicted defendant of second-degree sexual assault. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Defendant argued ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming his trial attorney failed to call witnesses to challenge victim’s credibility regarding her marijuana use and inadequately prepared wife for her testimony. PCR court found trial counsel’s strategy, including cross-examination and summation arguments, was not deficient and that additional witness testimony would not have altered the trial’s outcome. Court agreed defendant did not establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel and was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
CRIMINAL LAW
Martin v. State Parole Bd., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Appellant appealed the decision revoking his parole and imposing a twelve-month future eligibility term. Appellant pled guilty to burglary, disorderly persons offenses and other charges and was sentenced to probation to complete Recovery Court. He violated probation in 2020, leading to a four-year prison term. He was released on discretionary parole under the Earn Your Way Out Act in 2022. In February 2023, he had trouble getting a refill for his medication to treat his schizophrenia and bipolar disorders, went off his medication and disappeared. An arrest warrant issued, appellant surrendered to police and resumed taking his medication. Appellant pled guilty to each of the probation violations, admitted to relapsing as an alcoholic and requested placement in an in-patient program. Hearing officer found appellant seriously violated the conditions of his parole, was a flight risk and a danger to the community and was not amenable to community supervision at that time. Board panel accepted the hearing officer’s findings. Appellant argued Board did not adequately demonstrate that revocation was necessary. Court concluded Board correctly determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellant violated the conditions of his parole supervision, thus warranting revocation of parole and the imposition of a twelve-month FET. Court noted appellant admitted he failed to abide by the general and specific parole conditions.
FAMILY LAW
Golbin v. Golbin, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to reduce his financial contributions towards the college expenses of his three children from his marriage to plaintiff. The parties divorced in 2014, the final judgment of divorce incorporated their property settlement agreement which required both parents to contribute to their children’s post-secondary education based on their ability to pay. Plaintiff incurred over $60,000 in college expenses for the oldest child and moved to enforce the PSA. Trial court considered the parties’ gross income and ability to pay and found defendant in violation of litigant’s rights for not contributing and ordered him to pay arrears and 50% of future college costs. Defendant argued trial court erred by not applying the factors in Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529. Court found that argument lacked merit and affirmed the trial court’s decision.