Criminal Law Library Blog
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:
Lowenstein Sandler is facing a mounting challenge in litigation over its alleged role in the failure of a cannabis venture.
Christine A. Amalfe Sworn In As NJSBA President
Christine A. Amalfe took the oath of office on Thursday as president of the NJSBA for the 2025-2026 term, assuming leadership over the state’s largest organization of legal professionals. Read more here.
Court Watch: Mediators Beware! Get It in Writing!
“The terms of the settlement must be reduced to writing and signed by the parties before the mediation comes to a close.” This was the sage advice that Judge Mara E. Zazzali–Hogan gave to mediators, lawyers, and parties, and approved by Judge Thomas W. Sumners, in Gold Tree Spa v. PD Nail, 475 N.J. Super. 240 (App. Div. 2023).
Senior Lawyers Conference Aids Attorneys Entering the Next Chapter
NJICLE will focus on attorneys approaching retirement to navigate the end of their careers. The May 28 conference will address the uncertainties that come with age, how to find renewed passion for work, new opportunities worth exploring and how to ensure long-term financial security. Register here.
Here’s How An $18M Defamation Verdict Was Knocked Down to $500
A New Jersey judge has turned an $18 million defamation verdict into a molded verdict for $500 in the case of a journalist from Ghana who claimed a politician from that nation falsely labeled him a criminal.
DECISION SUMMARIES:
Click on any decision below to get the full opinion
from the New Jersey Judiciary – May 15, 2025
NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION:
CREDITORS’ AND DEBTORS’ RIGHTS
U.S. Bank Trust Nat’l Ass’n v. 60 Creek Rd, LLC, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant Mastrocola appealed the denial of his motion to expunge a sheriff’s deed following a foreclosure judgment in favor of plaintiff. Co-defendant executed a note and mortgage on a property in 2019. Defendants D’Arpa and Mastrocola were guarantors on the note. Defendants defaulted on the loan in 2021. Plaintiff initiated a foreclosure action and a final foreclosure judgment was entered in March 2023. Defendant’s motion to vacate was denied because trial court found plaintiff had no obligation to adjourn the sheriff’s sale because of a loan modification application. The sheriff’s sale occurred in September 2023. Trial court also denied defendant’s motions for reconsideration and to expunge the sheriff’s deed. Defendant asserted trial court abused its discretion and failed to provide adequate findings. Court affirmed for the reasons expressed by the trial court. Court noted defendant’s motion to expunge the deed was essentially a third attempt to challenge the sheriff’s sale, which had been properly upheld.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Bolden, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence on murder and weapons charges. State argued defendant killed victim because he was embarrassed about a “fight video” on Facebook showing victim pushing defendant to the ground. Officers noticed a vehicle near the crime scene, determined it belonged to defendant, stopped the vehicle and towed it pending application of a search warrant. Defendant’s cellphones were in the vehicle. Trial court denied defendant’s pretrial motions challenging the stop of his vehicle, the seizure of his cellphones and seeking to bar the fight video and portions of his statement to police from being introduced as evidence. Defendant argued trial court erred because the seizure of the phones was illegal, in admitting the non-authenticated fight video and failing to redact officers’ lay opinions from his interrogation video and asserted prosecutor made improper arguments and used misleading diagrams. Court found the failure to redact improper police commentary from defendant’s interrogation video and prosecutor’s comments on defendant’s invocation of his right to counsel warranted reversal of defendant’s conviction. Court also noted trial court’s failure to issue a necessary jury instruction on identification and remanded for a limited evidentiary hearing on the seizure of defendant’s cell phones. However, admission of the fight video as proof of the altercation did not rise to reversible error.
FAMILY LAW
In the Matter of G.B.M., II., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Appellant appealed a Family Part order mandating the forfeiture of his weapons and revocation of his Firearms Purchaser Identification Card following the issuance of a temporary restraining order under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. The TRO led to the seizure of his firearms and FPIC, although the TRO was later dismissed. The state moved to forfeit appellant’s firearms and FPIC, citing statutory provisions and federal law. During the trial, the state presented witnesses, including J.P., A.G., and R.R., who testified about appellant’s past behavior, including stalking, harassment, and domestic violence incidents. R.R. detailed instances of physical and sexual violence, as well as threats made by appellant. The trial court found the testimonies of the state’s witnesses credible, despite some inconsistencies, and determined that R.R. was a victim of domestic violence. Appellant’s mother testified about the relationship issues between R.R. and her son, while medical records also indicated appellant’s mental health struggles. The trial court found that the state’s petition for forfeiture was time-barred under the PDVA but allowed the proceedings to continue under other statutes. The trial court concluded that appellant was disqualified from possessing firearms due to public safety concerns and falsification of his FPIC application. On appeal, appellant argued procedural errors and contested the court’s findings. However, the court upheld the trial court’s decision, affirming that the state’s actions were justified under the applicable statutes and that the evidence supported the disqualification and forfeiture.
FAMILY LAW
New Jersey Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. A.O., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed a Family Part order finding she had abused or neglected her child I.O., diagnosed with sickle cell disease, by failing to accept his medical diagnosis and obtain necessary treatment. Defendant missed several medical appointments and refused to administer prescribed medication, citing disbelief in the diagnosis. The parties disputed whether defendant’s actions constituted neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4), with the Division of Child Protection and Permanency arguing that her failure to seek medical care placed I.O. in imminent danger. The trial court found defendant’s refusal to acknowledge the diagnosis and seek treatment placed I.O. at high risk of harm or death and concluded she had abused or neglected him. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding substantial credible evidence supporting the conclusion that defendant’s inaction and refusal to accept medical advice constituted neglect, placing I.O. in imminent danger. The court also noted that defendant’s cultural and religious beliefs were not sufficiently defined or supported, nor could they outweigh the Division’s duty to provide medical care for treatable or preventable disease. The court further found that defendant’s mental health challenges were not supported by sufficient evidence during the fact-finding hearing.
FAMILY LAW
G.M.P. v. S.R., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Court consolidated plaintiffs’ and defendant’s appeals of orders relating to child custody and grandparent visitation. Plaintiffs were the paternal grandparents of child born in 2019, and in 2023, court enforced plaintiffs’ visitation order entered in September 2021 and the parenting time order granted to defendant Jake as part of a July 2021 family neglect order. A 2023 case management order allowed the parties to conduct discovery and for an in camera review of the Division of Child Protection and Permanency’s records which were part of the prior FN matter. A subsequent order reserved parenting time issues for mediation but mediation was unsuccessful. A 2024 order partially granted defendant Jake’s application for parenting time, denied plaintiffs’ application for custody of child and vacated plaintiffs’ prior order granting grandparent visitation. Appellants argued trial court erred in relying on documents from the previous FN litigation that were not part of the hearing record. Court agreed that the trial court erred by relying on documents and evidence from the FN litigation that were not admitted into the record and found that error required reversal. Nothing in the record indicates the FN and FD matters were consolidated. Additionally, trial court erred by failing to provide the parties with notice that it might rely upon materials in the Division file and by relying upon documents and materials which were not identified or moved into evidence at the hearing. Trial court also failed to address defendant Jake’s application to return child to New Jersey.