FALL 2024 LEGISLATIVE REPORT

For your information, helpful websites:

www.njleg.state.nj.us/ the New Jersey Legislature’s site; enables you to find bills by subject and track where any proposed bill is in the process.

www.judiciary.state.nj.us/ the New Jersey judiciary site; includes a legislative news site that lists new laws by subject (e.g., family, criminal), bills on the Governor’s desk and legislative updates. There is also a report opinions site where recent New Jersey Supreme Court and Appellate division opinions are posted.

www.ca3.uscourts.gov. The United States Court of Appeals (Third Circuit) discontinued issuing printed Slip Opinions. They are now available free of charge through the Court’s website as noted.

Please take note that there were Amendments to the Following Court Rules and RPC effective September 1, 2024:
1:5-2; 1:11-2; 1:43; 2:11-4; 4:3-1; 4:10-2; 4:14-7; 4:19-1(renumbered); 4:19-2 (new); 4:21-A-5; 4:21-A6; 4:22-1; 4:58-4; 4:86-7A; 4:86-12; 6:4-3; 6:4-6; 6:5-2; 6:6-6; 6:7-2; 6:8; 8:6-1; Appendix II-A; Appendix XIA(1); Appendix XI-L; Appendix XI-M; Appendix XI-O; Appendix XI-P; Appendix XI-Q;

RPC 4.2 has been amended as a result of the decision in the matter of In re Robertelli, 248 N.J. 293 (2021) which concerned discipline of a lawyer whose paralegal communicated with a represented party through Facebook. This RPC 4.2 (“Communication with Represented by Counsel”), has been amended to be effective September 1, 2024:

A lawyer shall not engage in a prohibited communication through the acts of another. See RPC 8.4(a) (a lawyer may not violate any of the ethics rules “through the acts of another”).

Communications that are intended to gain access to non-public social media postings of a represented party fall within the prohibition of this Rule.

PENDING FEDERAL LEGISLATION OF INTEREST

Kids Online Safety Act (“KOSA”) (S.1409) and Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (S. 1418)

On July 30, 2024, the United States Senate passed (91 – 3 vote) two bi-partisan bills dealing with Internet safety and regulation of content that are intended to protect children in their use of the internet and social media platforms.

The Kids Online Safety Act establishes a duty of care for online platforms and requires them to activate the most protective settings for minors by default, with options to protect their information, disable addictive product features and opt-out of personalized algorithmic recommendations.

Supporters of the bills believe that these legislative measures will have some degree of impact upon the effects of online bullying and exposure to sensitive content on young people. KOSA is supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Federation of Teachers, the NAACP and other groups. Microsoft, X and Snap support the bill.

The Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act bans online companies from collecting personal information from users under 17 years old without their consent. It bans targeted advertising to children and teens and creates a feature that will permit parents and children to eliminate personal information online. The bill also establishes a Youth Marketing and Privacy Division at the FTC.

Opponents of each bill have various bases for their objections. First, there are those who take issue with the bills on First Amendment grounds and who believe that the bills represent an overreach to address mental health issues suffered by minors. Second, as KOSA will open websites to liability for causing children mental distress and therefore open them to government investigation and litigation, they find this to be governmental overreach.

Other opponents claim that KOSA will prevent online platforms with affirming or life-saving information from reaching youngsters who could benefit from content that might be deemed by some as objectionable. A prior version of KOSA would have allowed States Attorney General to enforce KOSA, which prompted certain groups to object to KOSA on the grounds that this would result in the censorship of information regarding LGBTQ or reproductive issues.

The bills must now be voted on in the House. If passed, they go to President Biden for signature. President Biden has indicated support for the bills.

Sampling of Reported Decisions

Constitutional Law

Hyman v. Rosenbaum Yeshiva of N. Jersey No. A-11-23 (New Jersey Supreme Court) (Approved for Publication).

Facts: Plaintiff Shlomo Hyman was an instructor at the Rosenbaum Yeshiva. After complaints emerged about his inappropriate conduct with students, the Yeshiva terminated him. The Yeshiva sent notification of his termination to the Board, parents of current students, and published details of the termination on social media. Mr. Hyman sued, claiming that the dissemination of the details of his termination caused him financial harm, as his reputation and employment prospects were adversely impacted. The trial court dismissed his complaint based upon the “ministerial exception” to tort claims and Plaintiff appealed; the Appellate Division upheld the trial court’s ruling based upon the ministerial exception to tort claims, as Plaintiff conceded that he was a religious minister and that his claims arose from Defendant’s decision to terminate his employment.

Held: In a per curium decision, the court affirmed the appellate division’s holding. However, the court was divided over whether further discovery was required in the case to properly determine justiciability. A concurring opinion was filed by Justice Patterson (joined by Justice Solomon and Justice Fasciale). Justic Pierre-Louis filed a dissenting opinion (joined by Chief Justice Rabner and Justice Noriega) arguing that the defamation claim did not inherently implicate religious autonomy and that limited discovery should be allowed to determine the claims’ justiciability.

Family Law

Jitan v. Jitan No. A-2832-22 (App. Div. August 1, 2024)
(Not approved for publication).

Facts: The parties were married for 29 years and divorced in 2016. A Marital Settlement Agreement was executed at the time of divorce and incorporated into the JOD. The terms of settlement included a provision requiring the husband to pay wife $6,000 per month in alimony. The husband’s medical license was suspended in 2021 due to a criminal conviction, and he stopped paying alimony.

Defendants filed a motion seeking a termination of his alimony obligation due to his age (66) and the license suspension constituted a change in circumstances. The trial court found that defendant’s criminal conduct resulting in the license suspension did not warrant a termination of the obligation as it would allow him to profit from his criminal activity and imposed a constructive trust on his assets. It also included an IRA among the assets to be used to satisfy the alimony arrears.

Held: The court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. The Appellate Division agreed with the trial court decision regarding the alimony obligation and reversed on the IRA issue, as the IRA was erroneously included as part of the assets to be used to satisfy the arrears (it no longer existed).

Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings – Public Disclosure of Juvenile’s Identity

State in the Int. of M.P. No. A-0134-22 (App. Div. September 4, 2024) (Approved for Publication)

Facts: M.P. was 16 years old when he was arrested for taking a loaded handgun to school. There was no allegation that he threatened or harmed anyone with the gun. Per a negotiated plea agreement, he pled guilty to an offense, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun. Prior to going on the record at the disposition hearing, defense counsel advised the prosecutor that he would seek an order to prevent disclosure of the juvenile’s identity under N.J.S.A. 2A:4A60(a). The prosecutor replied that juvenile proceedings are sealed; this however is not the same as an order under N.JS.A. 2A:4A-60(a). Defense counsel did not request M.P.’s name be withheld from the public once the court went on the record. Two weeks later, the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office (MCPO) issued a press release on its website detailing M.P.’s name, school, hometown, offense, and disposition. After multiple articles were published in the media regarding M.P. and the offense, M.P. sought an order to withhold his name from the media and that the reporting media outlets delete his name form their published articles.

N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-69(f) provides that public disclosure is mandated where:

the offense, the adjudication and the disposition shall be disclosed to the public where the offense for which the juvenile has been adjudicated delinquent if committed by an adult, would constitute a crime of the first, second or third degree, or aggravated assault, destruction or damage to property to an extent of more than $500.00, unless upon application at the time of disposition the juvenile demonstrates a substantial likelihood that specific and extraordinary harm would result from such disclosure in the specific case. Where the court finds that disclosure would be harmful to the juvenile, the reasons therefor shall be stated on the record.

The court conducted a hearing to determine whether disclosing M.P.’s identity and the adjudication to the public violated N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-60(f) by causing him “substantial
likelihood” of “specific and extraordinary harm.”, the standard set by the Court in State in the Interest of K.B., 304 N.J. Super. 628, 701 A.2d 760 (App. Div. 1997). In “K.B.,” the court held that juveniles adjudicated delinquent who seek nondisclosure of their name under N.J.S.A. 2A:4A60(f) must demonstrate harm specific to their individual circumstances. The trial court assessed M.P.’s claims against the standard set in the K.B. matter and rejected M.P.’s claims that the K.B. decision was obsolete due to the growth of the Internet since that decision. M.P.’s appeal centered on whether the Court should revisit the K.B. decision and the standard set forth in that decision given the Internet’s expansive reach, which was less of a factor in 1997.

Held: Trial court properly exercised its discretion when it denied defendant juvenile’s request for nondisclosure of his name under N.J.S.A. § 2A:4A-60(f). All juveniles adjudicated delinquent faced possible rejection by colleges or employers; and the fact that the Internet might shine a brighter light on juvenile delinquency did not affect the court’s interpretation of § 2A:4A-60(f) and application of case law. Until the Legislature amends the statute, a juvenile adjudicated delinquent must navigate the consequences of their identity and history being permanently available and accessible online. Here, defendant did not show that the harm in the disclosure of his name was specific to him by exposing him to physical harm or impacting his mental health.