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:
ADP Claims Former Employee Took Client Information, Proprietary Data to Competitor
ADP claimed its former district manager misappropriated its trade secrets and breached a non-disclosure agreement by providing the company’s information to a competitor, Paychex.
The latest NJSBA Capitol Report covers New Jersey’s $58.78 billion budget for 2026, which includes a historic $6.7 billion surplus. Read the full report here.
Join the New Jersey State Bar Association this year for a series of free lunchtime webinars through Practice HQ, a member resource designed to help you build and maintain a successful, thriving legal practice.
NJSBA Appellate Practice Special Committee Seeks New Members
Get an edge in appellate practice by joining this NJSBA special committee. To join, fill out the form here and discover the NJSBA’s wide range of Special Committees for every practice area.
I Am My Brother’s Keeper: An Unapologetic Apology for Neo-Traditionalism in Client Counseling
One of the emerging great debates in the field of legal education concerns the advocate’s orientation in client counseling.
DECISION SUMMARIES:
Click on any decision below to get the full opinion
from the New Jersey Judiciary – July 7, 2025
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
CRIMINAL LAW
In re Registrant S.O., Appellate Division, Judge Vanek. The state appealed the trial court’s orders terminating registrants S.O.’s and G.N.’s registration obligations under Megan’s Law and the Community Supervision for Life statute. Both registrants sought to terminate their obligations, arguing they no longer posed a threat to public safety. S.O. had a history of sexual offenses against minors and subsequent non-sexual offenses, including domestic violence, while G.N. had a juvenile adjudication for sexual assault and a series of non-sexual criminal offenses. The trial court limited its analysis of registrants’ requests to their risk of sexual re-offense, relying on expert reports that suggested both registrants were unlikely to commit future sexual offenses. On appeal, the state argued that the trial court erred in considering only the risk of sexual re-offense, contending that the appropriate scope of review required consideration of a broader range of behaviors when determining if a registrant poses a threat to public safety. The court found the trial court’s approach too narrow, emphasizing that the statutory language requires consideration of all subsequent offenses, sexual and non-sexual, to assess a registrant’s threat to public safety, along with consideration of a registrant’s tier classification, Registrant Risk Assessment Scores, expert evaluations, and evidence of a registrant’s attendance in therapeutic programs or counseling. The court vacated the trial court’s orders and remanded the cases for further proceedings, instructing the trial court to evaluate the registrants’ entire subsequent history, including non-sexual offenses, tier classifications, and any restraining orders, to determine if they meet the statutory criteria for terminating their obligations under Megan’s Law and CSL. (Approved for Publication)
NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
In the Matter of Adoption of Amendment to the Ne. Water Quality Mgmt. Plan, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. The Bi-County Development Corporation appealed the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s enactment of a 2023 amendment to the Northeast Water Quality Management Plan affecting a property owned by Bi-County in the Highlands Region. The amendment reduced the sewer service area for Bi-County’s planned 204-unit affordable housing project. Bi-County argued that the amendment was arbitrary and capricious, violated a 2014 settlement agreement, and was not supported by credible evidence. Bi-County also sought a hearing, claiming the DEP’s action was adjudicatory. The court found that the 2023 WQMP Amendment violated the 2014 settlement agreement, which stipulated that the DEP would not adopt a WQMP amendment that did not provide sufficient sewer service for the project as long as it remained exempt under the Highlands Act. The court determined that the DEP’s action was premature, as the project’s site plans were not finalized, and thus voided the 2023 WQMP Amendment. The court also addressed Bi-County’s arguments regarding N.J.A.C. 7:15-4.4, which governs sewer service area delineation, and found that Bi-County failed to raise this issue before the DEP, rendering it procedurally deficient. Additionally, the court concluded that the DEP’s interpretation of the regulation was reasonable. Regarding Bi-County’s request for a hearing, the court held that the adoption of the WQMP Amendment was a quasi-legislative action, not requiring a formal adjudicatory hearing. The court reversed the DEP’s decision and remanded the case for the DEP to revise the 2023 WQMP Amendment to include the entire property in the sewer service area.
CREDITORS’ AND DEBTORS’ RIGHTS
LVNV Funding LLC v. Costello, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the denial of her motion to vacate a default judgment in favor of plaintiff. Defendant entered into a credit agreement, which was charged off in 2011 after she failed to make timely payments, and was subsequently assigned to plaintiff. At the time of the assignment, plaintiff was not a licensed New Jersey consumer lender. Plaintiff sought judgment on the account and was granted default judgment followed by a writ of execution against goods and chattels in 2014. Plaintiff was granted a wage execution against defendant in 2016, which she unsuccessfully contested. Defendant later participated in and received compensation from a class action settlement in 2019, which addressed plaintiff’s licensing issues. Plaintiff moved to vacate the default judgment, wage execution and bank levy in 2024. Trial court found plaintiff’s delay in seeking relief was inexcusable and applied the doctrine of laches. Court found no abuse of discretion in trial court’s application of laches and noted defendant’s awareness of the licensing issue at least five years before her motion.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Armand, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Police responded to a call and a 12-year-old victim alleged that 23-year-old defendant sexually assaulted her. Victim alleged her 12-year-old friend was dating defendant, they had gone to spend the night at defendant’s house and he touched victim and pulled down her shorts and attempted to spread her legs. She pushed him away and the incident ended. Defendant pled guilty to third degree endangering the welfare of a child in 2002. In 2009, defendant hired counsel to pursue PCR but no petition was filed. In 2019, defendant met a private investigator who told defendant he had worked for defendant’s former PCR counsel and that victim had recanted her statements. Defendant filed a pro se PCR petition in 2020 citing newly discovered evidence. PCR counsel was appointed and defendant alleged trial counsel failed to investigate. Private investigator certified victim recanted her statement and said she felt guilty for making a false statement and police pressured her to do so. PCR court found the PCR petition was time-barred, since it was filed 17 years post-sentencing and investigator’s memory and notes were hearsay and not sufficient to constitute newly discovered evidence. PCR court also found the claims of IAC unsubstantiated, noting defendant’s admissions during the plea and sentencing hearings. Court affirmed, agreeing that the PCR petition was time-barred and noting that defendant never attempted to pursue PCR within the five-year window.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Melendez, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Defendant, a gang member, was implicated in the deaths of two individuals and the injury of another. A gang member was killed and two days later, two children were struck by bullets not aimed at them and one died. A few days later another victim was fatally wounded after allegedly being mistaken for someone else. Witnesses identified defendant as being involved. He was seen running from a car involved in the first shooting. Another witness stated he bought firearms, linked to the shootings, from defendant. Defendant was convicted on multiple counts, including first-degree murder and aggravated assault. The denial of his PCR petition was affirmed on appeal. Defendant moved for a new trial based on affidavits from two co-defendants certifying defendant was not involved in the shootings. Trial court granted an evidentiary hearing and found co-defendant’s testimony was not credible, noting his bias, evasive demeanor and the convenience of naming a deceased gang member as an accomplice. Court affirmed, concluding trial court did not abuse its discretion. Court found that co-defendant’s testimony, even if credible, would not have changed the outcome of the trial given the weight of the evidence against defendan