Archive by Date

September 2014
S M T W T F S
« Aug    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  
 

 

 

 

 
 
A-1717-13T3 MICHAEL MARTINEZ VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS(NEWJERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS)

A-1717-13T3 MICHAEL MARTINEZ VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS(NEWJERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS)

Download original court document


NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THEAPPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISIONSUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYAPPELLATE DIVISIONDOCKET NO. A-1717-13T3MICHAEL MARTINEZ,Appellant,v.NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OFCORRECTIONS,Respondent._______________________________Submitted September 16, 2014 ­ Decided September 23, 2014Before Judges Yannotti and Fasciale.On appeal from the New Jersey Department ofCorrections.Michael Martinez, appellant pro se.John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General,attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi,Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; LucyE. Fritz, Deputy Attorney General, on thebrief).PER CURIAMMichael Martinez appeals from an October 24, 2013, finalagencydecisionbytheNewJerseyDepartmentofCorrections(NJDOC)upholdingadeterminationthatheisguiltyofprohibited act *.215, possession of prohibited substances with intent to distribute, contrary to N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a).Weaffirm.At approximately 5:00 p.m. on September 16, 2013, Martinezunsuccessfully attempted to walk through a metal detector at ahalfway house where he was confined.A manager asked him tostep aside and await further instructions, and a supervisor thenobserved Martinez pull a large bundle from his pants and toss iton the floor.The bundle contained a ziplock bag of syntheticmarijuana, six packs of cigarette rolling paper, eighteen bluntrolling papers, five packs of instant sanka coffee, and fourplastic gloves filled with clear liquid smelling of alcohol.A Hearing Officer (HO) conducted a hearing.Martinez plednot guilty, defended the matter using counsel substitute, andcross-examined the manager and supervisor by questioning them inwriting.Martinezdidnotcallanywitnesses.Martinezrequested permission to take a polygraph examination and to seevideosurveillancethathemistakenlybelievedcapturedtheincident.Both requests were denied.The HO found Martinezguilty.1Martinez filed an administrative appeal resulting inthe final decision under review.1The HO imposed varioussanctions,whichMartinezhasnotchallenged in this appeal.2A-1717-13T3On appeal, Martinez argues that the there was insufficientevidencetoconvicthimoftheinfractionandurgesusto”substitute [our] judgment” for that of the NJDOC.He alsocontends that he was denied due process by the decision to denyhis requests to review the video surveillance and submit to apolygraph examination.Our review of the NJDOC’s decision is limited.We willonly reverse when the agency’s decision is arbitrary, capriciousor unreasonable, or unsupported by substantial credible evidencein the record as a whole.Henry v. . . .

September 23, 2014 Read More
A-0942-13T1 JOSEPH P. LYNDELL, III VS. DONNA MARIA DADARIO(FM-04-413-08,CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

A-0942-13T1 JOSEPH P. LYNDELL, III VS. DONNA MARIA DADARIO(FM-04-413-08,CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

Download original court document


NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THEAPPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISIONSUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYAPPELLATE DIVISIONDOCKET NO. A-0942-13T1JOSEPH P. LYNDELL, III,Plaintiff-Appellant,v.DONNA MARIA DADARIO,Defendant-Respondent.______________________________________Argued September 10, 2014 ­ DecidedSeptember 23, 2014Before Judges Waugh and Maven.On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,ChanceryDivision,FamilyPart,CamdenCounty, Docket No. FM-04-413-08.Ted M. Rosenberg argued the cause forappellant (Ted M. Rosenberg, attorneys;Robert M. Rosenberg, on the brief).Donna Maria Dadario, respondent, argued thecause pro se.PER CURIAMPlaintiff, Joseph P. Lyndell, III, appeals from the July 3,August 29, and October 18, 2013, Family Part orders denying hismotionstoreduceorterminatehisalimonyobligationtodefendantDonnaMariaDadario,denyinghisrequesttostayalimony pending this appeal, and recalculating child support to include the original alimony amount, respectively.1Because weconclude that defendant made a prima facie showing of changedcircumstances,wereverseandremandforreconsiderationofplaintiff’smodificationrequest,inaccordancewiththeprocedures set forth in Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 157-59(1980).The background facts relevant to this matter follow.Theparties were married on May 9, 1987, and divorced on May 23,2008.They have three children, now twenty-four, twenty-two,and eighteen years of age; at present the eldest and middlechild are emancipated.A divorce trial began on the issuespertainingtothecustodyofthechildren,equitabledistribution, and child and spousal support.Before the trialconcluded, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement(agreement), which the court incorporated into the dual finaljudgment of divorce (FJD).The relevant section of the agreement reads,Based upon [p]laintiff’s income of $75,000and [d]efendant’s income of $45,000, andtaking into account the length of theparties[']marriageandotherfactors1The Notice of Appeal filed by plaintiff indicates his intentto appeal the July 3, 2013 order denying his motions toemancipate his oldest son and terminate his obligation to paythat child’s automobile insurance. . . .

September 23, 2014 Read More
A-0539-13T4 EUGENIE MARTIN VS. VISTING ANGELS SOLUTIONS, INC.(NEW JERSEYDEPARTMENT OF LABOR, DIVISION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION)

A-0539-13T4 EUGENIE MARTIN VS. VISTING ANGELS SOLUTIONS, INC.(NEW JERSEYDEPARTMENT OF LABOR, DIVISION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION)

Download original court document


NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THEAPPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISIONSUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYAPPELLATE DIVISIONDOCKET NO. A-0539-13T4EUGENIE MARTIN1,Petitioner-Appellant,v.VISITING ANGELS SOLUTONS, INC.,Respondent-Respondent._____________________________________Argued September 10, 2014 ­ Decided September 23, 2014Before Judges Fuentes, Kennedy and O’Connor.On appeal from the New Jersey Department ofLabor, Division of Workers’ Compensation,Claim Petition 2010-2973.Edward I. Davis argued the cause forappellant (Joworisak & Associates, L.L.C.,attorneys; Donald T. Joworisak, on thebrief).Richard J. Williams, Jr., argued the causefor respondent (McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney &Carpenter, L.L.P., attorneys; Mr. Williams,of counsel and on the brief; Jill J.Pomeroy, on the brief).1Appellant identified herself as “Eugenie Martin” in the Noticeof Appeal and as “Eugennie Martin” in her Letter Brief in lieuof a formal brief under Rule 2:6-2(b).The transcript of thehearing held before the Judge of Compensation refers to her as”Eugennie Martin Buckner.”Consistent with the Notice ofAppeal, we will refer to her in this opinion as “EugenieMartin.” PER CURIAMEugenieMartinfiledapetitionwiththeDivisionofWorkers’Compensationagainstheremployer,VisitingAngelsSolutions, Inc. (Visiting Angels), seeking workers’ compensationbenefits for an injury she suffered in a motor vehicle accident.Visiting Angels contested Martin’s claim, arguing she was not inthe course of her employment at the time of the accident.TheJudgeofCompensationconductedanevidentiaryhearingtodetermine this threshold jurisdictional issue.After considering Martin’s testimony and the testimony ofher employer Peter Broskie, the director and owner of VisitingAngels, the Judge of Compensation found Martin was not withinthe scope of her employment at the time of the accident, anddismissedherpetition.Thisdispositivefindingwassubstantially based on the Judge of Compensation’s assessment ofthe witnesses’ credibility.Martinnowappealstheorderdismissingherpetition,arguing the Judge of Compensation failed to provide a reasonedexplanation to support his decision, and misapplied the “specialmission” exception we discussed in Nemchick v. . . .

September 23, 2014 Read More