Stephen De Luca

🚨Key Ruling: Established Permissive and Easily Satisfied Standard for Obtaining Final Protective Orders under SASPA🚨   ▷ Learn about the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in C.R. v. M.T. clarifying the permissive and easily satisfied standard for obtaining a Final Protective Order under SASPA.    New Supreme Court of New Jersey Decision – Sexual Assault Survivor Protection Act (SASPA) Read Full Blog Post Here: https://lnkd.in/epN2K-ya On April 22, 2024, the Supreme Court of New Jersey decided C.R. v. M.T., 257 N.J. 126 (2024), in which it clarified the showing required to establish "the possibility of future risk to the safety or well-being of the alleged victim" pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:14-16(a)(2), in order to obtain a final protective order (FPO) under the Sexual Assault Survivor Protection Act (SASPA). Key Takeaways on the Sexual Assault Survivor Protection Act (SASPA) This decision underscores the Court’s broad interpretation of the Sexual Assault Survivor Protection Act (SASPA), making it clear that the standard for issuing a final protective order (FPO) is permissive and easily satisfied. The Court highlighted that survivors of sexual assault do not need to demonstrate immediate danger but only the possibility of future harm to their safety or emotional well-being. This decision strengthens protections for sexual assault survivors under SASPA.  Need legal assistance or looking to refer a case? Don't hesitate to call us 24/7 at (862) 315-7929 Stay informed with regular legal updates from our team of former prosecutors at The Bianchi Law Group. Follow us for insightful commentary and legal analysis on criminal defense, domestic violence, and municipal court cases. #FormerProsecutors #CriminalDefense #DomesticViolence #DWI #DUI #NewJersey #NJ No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey 🛡️ TEAM OF FORMER PROSECUTORS 🛡️ Robert Bianchi, ESQ., NREMT David Bruno, Esq. Danielle Esposito, Esq. Christopher A. Eaton, Esq. Paul A. Di Lella, Esq. Tricia Howarth Margolis Esq. Christina Hall, Esq. Maura Lynch Robert Esnes Alessandro Amato

10

3 Comments

🚨 New NJ Appellate Division Decision – Fourth Amendment Rights 🚨 On February 7, 2024, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division decided State v. Haskins, examining the retroactive application of State v. Smith concerning traffic stops for tinted windows. The court deemed Haskins' appeal within the "pipeline," despite the appeal filed after the Smith decision. Khalil H. Haskins faced a traffic stop for tinted windows, which led to the seizure of illegal substances and a firearm. The motion to suppress the evidence was denied, based on State v. Cohen. However, Haskins contended the stop was unlawful under State v. Smith, which redefined reasonable suspicion for window tints. The appellate court, analyzing the retroactivity of Smith, applied a three-step process: confirming Smith as a new rule, considering its purpose for enhancing fact-finding, and assessing the impact on the administration of justice. Choosing pipeline retroactivity, the court vacated the denial of the motion to suppress, remanding the case for a review under the Smith standards, and directed that a new judge oversee the proceedings to ensure impartiality. You can read the entire case here - https://lnkd.in/eH9QGm-v Stay informed with regular legal updates from our team of former prosecutors at the Bianchi Law Group. Follow us for insightful commentary and legal analysis on criminal defense, domestic violence, and municipal court cases. 👨‍⚖️ Need legal assistance or looking to refer a case? 📲 Don't hesitate to call us 24/7 at (862) 315-7929. #FormerProsecutors #CriminalDefense #DomesticViolence #DWI #DUI #NJ #NewJersey No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of #NewJersey  🛡️ TEAM OF FORMER PROSECUTORS 🛡️ Robert (Bob) Bianchi, Esq. David Bruno, Esq. Danielle Esposito Christopher A. Eaton, Esq. Paul A. Di Lella Tricia Howarth Margolis Esq. Christina Hall Maura Lynch Robert Esnes Alessandro Amato

5

2 Comments

🚨Persistent Offender Sentencing Requires Jury Decision on Key Facts🚨 On November 27, 2024, the NJ Appellate Division decided State of New Jersey v. Jamel Carlton, ___ N.J. Super ___ (App. Div. 2024), which addressed significant issues surrounding persistent offender extended-term sentencing and key evidentiary rulings. The court held that enhanced sentences under New Jersey's persistent offender statute must comply with constitutional requirements recently outlined in Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), mandating jury determinations of factual predicates. Carlton’s extended-term sentence was vacated, and the case remanded for a jury determination. The ruling underscores the importance of preserving constitutional protections in criminal sentencing. Decision Highlights: Carlton was convicted of multiple offenses, including aggravated sexual assault and burglary, resulting in a 42-year sentence under NERA with lifetime parole supervision.  The NJ Appellate Division ruled that sentencing decisions requiring factual findings must be made by a jury, aligning with federal precedent.  The court rejected arguments of harmless error, reaffirming that efficiency does not override constitutional guarantees under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Read the Full Blog Post Here: https://lnkd.in/eR2Mnibg Stay informed with regular legal updates from our team of former prosecutors at the Bianchi Law Group. Follow us for insightful commentary and legal analysis on criminal defense, domestic violence, and municipal court cases. Need legal assistance or looking to refer a case? Don't hesitate to call us 24/7 at (862) 315-7929. #FormerProsecutors #CriminalDefense #DomesticViolence #DWI #DUI #NJ #NewJersey No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey 🛡️ TEAM OF FORMER PROSECUTORS 🛡️  Robert Bianchi, ESQ., NREMT David Bruno, Esq. Danielle Esposito, Esq. Christopher A. Eaton, Esq. Paul A. Di Lella, Esq. Tricia Howarth Margolis Esq. Christina Hall, Esq. Maura Lynch Robert Esnes Alessandro Amato  

3

1 Comment

🚨 NJ Appellate Division Decision – Jurisdictional Law on Sex Abuse Litigation 🚨 On February 28, 2024, the NJ Appellate Division decided E.T., A.M., A.R., and others v. The Boys and Girls Clubs of America, reversing the lower court's decision that New Jersey courts have specific personal jurisdiction over the Boys and Girls Clubs of America (BGCA) in a case involving allegations of sexual abuse by a counselor within The Boys and Girls Clubs of Hudson County. This pivotal decision highlights the complexities of jurisdictional law, particularly in cases involving national organizations with local affiliates.   In this case, the plaintiffs alleged they were sexually abused by Arthur Freudenberg, a part-time counselor for the Hudson County BGC, between approximately 1978 and 1982. They sought compensatory and punitive damages from the local entity and the national organization, BGCA. However, jurisdictional discovery showed that BGCA, based in Georgia, did not have direct control over the local club's hiring, training, or supervision practices, including those of Freudenberg. The Appellate Division found that BGCA's connection to New Jersey, through affiliation and brand used by the Hudson County BGC, did not constitute purposeful availment of New Jersey jurisdiction concerning the allegations.   This decision significantly marks the limits of specific personal jurisdiction and underscores the need for clarity in the operational relationships between national organizations and their local affiliates.   Read the Full Decision Here: https://lnkd.in/ePagx6NE   Stay informed with regular legal updates from our team of former prosecutors at the Bianchi Law Group. Follow us for insightful commentary and legal analysis on criminal defense, domestic violence, and municipal court cases.   Need legal assistance or looking to refer a case? Don't hesitate to call us 24/7 at (862) 315-7929. #FormerProsecutors #CriminalDefense #DomesticViolence #DWI #DUI #NJ No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of #NewJersey   🛡️ TEAM OF FORMER PROSECUTORS 🛡️ Robert (Bob) Bianchi, Esq. David Bruno, Esq. Danielle Esposito, Esq. Christopher A. Eaton, Esq. Paul A. Di Lella, Esq. Tricia Howarth Margolis Esq. Christina Hall, Esq. Maura Lynch Robert Esnes Alessandro Amato

4

2 Comments

⚖️ NEW REPORT RELEASE: Understanding the facts about failure to appear (FTA) and factors linked to a higher or lower FTA risk can aid judges in making better bail decisions. Under New York law, courts may set bail or other pretrial conditions solely if they are “necessary” to ensure return to court. Our latest statewide study documents failure to appear (FTA) rates among New Yorkers released at arraignment and identifies factors associated with higher or lower FTA. The report also contains seven key takeaways for policymakers. 💡Some Key findings from our report include:   ▪️ Regional Consistency in FTA Rates: In 2022, the statewide FTA rate was 17%, with NYC at 16%, suburbs at 18%, and upstate at 20%.    ▪️Low FTA Risk for Violent Felonies: Those charged with violent felonies had a statewide FTA rate of 13%. After controlling for other factors, the FTA likelihood was 10 percentage points lower for violent felonies than for misdemeanors.    ▪️Variation Among Specific Charges: Highest FTA rates were for petit larceny (28%), burglary (27%), and misdemeanor drug possession (25%). Lowest rates were for DWI (5%) and felony weapons cases (9%), indicating a common misperception.    ▪️Impact of Criminal History Factors: Having a pending case or multiple prior misdemeanor convictions elevated FTA risk, while prior nonviolent or violent felony convictions or current probation/parole status had little impact.    ▪️Demographics Unrelated to FTA Risk: FTA rates did not vary by race, ethnicity, or gender. Statewide FTA likelihood was 17% for Black, Hispanic, and white people. For violent felonies, it was 13% for Black and 14% for Hispanic and white people. Yet judges disproportionately set bail for Black and Hispanic compared to white people in 2022.    ▪️Detained People’s FTA Risk: The estimated FTA rate for those detained at arraignment was 16%, only 3 percentage points higher than 13% for released cases, suggesting that judges are not identifying significantly higher-risk individuals. ➡ For detailed insights and actionable recommendations, head over to our website, where you can explore the full report. https://lnkd.in/eHAec3yv

21

Orissa High Court Invalidates Screening Committee Decision: “No Recovery of Excess Payment Without Reasoned Justification,” Emphasizes Compliance with Natural Justice and Protection of Group-C Employees from Arbitrary Recoveries Court’s Decision: The Orissa High Court quashed the Screening Committee’s decision and the associated Office Order dated May 30, 2023, which downgraded the petitioner’s pay scale and directed recovery of an alleged excess amount of ₹3,75,255. The Court held that: The Screening Committee failed to comply with principles of natural justice as required under the High Court’s earlier directions issued on January 13, 2023. The Committee did not adequately address the petitioner’s objections or provide a reasoned decision. The recovery order contravened the precedent set in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015), which protects certain employees from recovery of overpayments caused by administrative errors. Court’s Reasoning: Non-Compliance with Directions: The Screening Committee did not address the petitioner’s objections, including his reliance on Rafiq Masih and Bihari Lal. The Committee merely reiterated its earlier stance without providing a fresh or reasoned decision. Violation of Precedents: The recovery order was inconsistent with Rafiq Masih, as the petitioner was a Group-C employee, and recovery would impose financial hardship. Lack of Reasoned Order: The Court criticized the Committee’s failure to give a speaking order, stating that reasons are the lifeblood of judicial and administrative decisions. Conclusion: The Court quashed the Screening Committee’s recommendations and the corresponding recovery order. It directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s case in light of judicial precedents and provide a detailed, reasoned decision. #SupremeCourt #LegalUpdate #MotorVehiclesAct #RightToLife #GoldenHour #CashlessTreatment #RoadSafety #PublicHealth #GovernmentPolicy #LegalFramework #HealthcareJustice #InsuranceClaims

1

New Yorkers will be asked at the 2024 elections to vote on whether to approve Proposition 1, also known as the "Equal Rights Amendment," which is a proposed amendment to the State Constitution’s current equal protection provision. The Government Law Center's latest explainer by Legal Director Richard Rifkin examines Proposition 1, the practical implications of the ballot proposal, and ongoing debates among New Yorkers. Read the explainer: https://lnkd.in/euityTEt The Government Law Center provides nonpartisan explainers of proposed amendments to the New York State Constitution in order to help voters understand the choices they are being asked to make. We neither endorse nor oppose the particular proposed amendments that our explainers discuss. Our role is to explain, not to advocate for a position or course of action.

3

The Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in Kellner, a case involving advance notice bylaws adopted in the wake of the recent universal proxy rules, provides important guidance to companies and boards in a developing area of law. Faiz Ahmad | Art Bookout | Steve Daniels | Allison Land | Joseph Larkin | Edward Micheletti | Jenness Parker | Rick West #delaware #litigation #corporategovernance #mergersandacquisitions #boardofdirectors

8

🚨Juvenile Offender Eligible for Megan’s Law Termination After 15 Years On July 1, 2024, the #NJ Supreme Court decided In re Registrant J.A., 258 N.J. 22 (2024), which clarified the requirements for terminating Megan’s Law obligations for juvenile offenders. The Court ruled that juveniles adjudicated delinquent in Family Court, as opposed to being convicted as adults, are only required to demonstrate that they pose no threat to public safety to qualify for termination, without needing to meet the 15-year offense-free requirement. In In re Registrant J.A., J.A., had been adjudicated delinquent in 1999 for the predicate aggravated sexual assault and in 2000 and 2001 committed other non-Megan’s law offenses. Despite remaining offense-free since 2004 and leading a law-abiding life, his application to terminate his Megan’s Law registration was denied by the trial court and affirmed by the NJ Appellate Division based on the 15-year offense-free requirement contained in N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(f). The NJ Supreme Court reversed, finding that because J.A. had been adjudicated delinquent in Family Court, rather than convicted, he only needed to satisfy the public safety requirement. This ruling highlights the evolving interpretation of Megan’s Law, particularly in differentiating between juvenile adjudications and adult convictions. It also underscores the Court's commitment to public safety while allowing for the possibility of rehabilitation and relief for juvenile offenders who no longer pose a threat. Read the Full BLG Blog Post Here: 📲https://lnkd.in/ezvzDXSc Stay informed with regular legal updates from our team of former prosecutors at the Bianchi Law Group. Follow us for insightful commentary and legal analysis on criminal defense, domestic violence, and municipal court cases. Need legal assistance or looking to refer a case? Don't hesitate to call us 24/7 at (862) 315-7929. #FormerProsecutors #CriminalDefense #DomesticViolence #DWI #DUI #NewJersey No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey 🛡️ TEAM OF FORMER PROSECUTORS 🛡️  Robert Bianchi, ESQ., NREMT David Bruno, Esq. Danielle Esposito, Esq. Christopher A. Eaton, Esq. Paul A. Di Lella, Esq. Tricia Howarth Margolis Esq. Christina Hall, Esq. Maura Lynch Robert Esnes Alessandro Amato

6

2 Comments

The New York Appellate Division, Second Department recently issued a noteworthy decision concerning how to evaluate the enforceability of a restrictive covenant, such as a covenant not to compete, in an ordinary commercial contract. In a new #ClientAlert, Partners Peter Shapiro and Adam Hoffman explore the implications of the #appeals court's ruling in Twitchell Tech. Prods., LLC v. Mechoshade Sys., LLC, which applied a "rule of reason" analysis aimed at balancing the competing public policies in favor of robust competition and freedom to contract. Read the full alert on our website. #BusinessLaw #CommercialLaw #CommercialContracts #AppellateLaw #NewYorkLaw

23

1 Comment