Five More Cases for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in five new cases. Two of them involve published opinions of the Appellate Division.

Delanoy v. Township of Ocean resulted in an Appellate Division opinion that was reported at 462 N.J. Super. 78 (App. Div. 2020). That ruling was discussed here. The question presented to the Supreme Court, as phrased by the Supreme court Clerk’s office, is “Did the Township of Ocean Police department’s “Maternity Assignment Standard Operating Procedure” violate the New Jersey Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and its provisions within the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-12?” Vacating a summary judgment for defendants that the Law Division had entered, the Appellate Division held that the maternity SOP violated the statute.

The other appeal that arises out of a published Appellate Division decision is State v. Roman-Rosado. The opinion there was reported at 462 N.J. Super. 183 (App. Div. 2020). The question presented in that case is “Among other issues, did the police officer have reasonable suspicion to effectuate a traffic stop under N.J.S.A. 39:3-33, which prohibits ‘a license plate frame or identification marker holder that conceals or otherwise obscures any part of any marking imprinted upon the vehicle’s’ license plate?”

Defendant pled guilty to violating N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)(1) (certain persons not to possess a weapon). The weapon was found after police stopped defendant’s vehicle for violating N.J.S.A. 39:3-33. He sought to suppress the weapon as having been the product of an unlawful search and seizure, but that motion was denied. He then pled guilty and appealed the denial of his suppression motion. The Appellate Division agreed with defendant and vacated his conviction.

State v. Carter, another case that the Court has taken up, presents the same question as in Roman-Rosado. On the facts in Carter, a two-judge panel of the Appellate Division, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed the Law Division’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence (there, heroin).

Deras v. Hamwi presents this question: “Can an insurance carrier deny Uninsured Motorist (UIM) coverage to a resident relative because the resident relative had already recovered UIM benefits as an insured from another policy, where the prior recovery did not fully cover the insured’s damages?” The Law Division rejected the resident relative’s claim, and a three-judge panel of the Appellate Division affirmed in an unpublished opinion.

The final appeal is State v. Szemple, a case with a history of over 25 years, as the question presented reflects: “Where defendant was convicted in 1994, was defendant’s motion to compel discovery, including ‘copies of any and all notes, reports, statements or other types of writings memorializing any interviews, talks, discussions’ with his former wife, a successive petition for post-conviction relief, and did the State have an ongoing obligation to provide the requested discovery to defendant?” The Law Division denied defendant’s request for discovery, but an unpublished opinion of a two-judge Appellate Division panel reversed, holding that the State had an ongoing obligation to provide the discovery sought.