Sparroween, LLC v. Tp. of West Caldwell, 452 N.J. Super. 329 (App. Div. 2017)
Nov 14, 2017
OUTCOME: The Appellat Division affidrmed because the ordinance is valid and is not superseded by the Smoke-Free Act.
Plaintiffs appeal from an April 18, 2016 order that dismissed their prerogative writs action and denied their request to invalidate a municipal smoking ordinance. Plaintiffs primarily argue that the Ne...w Jersey Smoke-Free Air Act (the Smoke-Free Act), N.J.S.A. 26:3D-55 to -64, supersedes the municipal ordinance.
Trusts
In re Trust Under Agreement of Vander Poel, 396 N.J.Super. 218 (App. Divi. 2007)
Oct 17, 2007
OUTCOME: The trial court's judgment was affirmed.
A settlor established a trust in 1950 under New Jersey law with her son as income beneficiary for life and a gift of the remainder to his "issue." Two years later the son married a woman with a ten-yea...r-old daughter, appellant, and three natural children resulted from that marriage. The son inquired into adopting appellant as a minor, but was unable to do so because the family was then living abroad. Later he adopted appellant as an adult, some thirteen years after the settlor's death. The appellate court held that while an adopted child would equally participate in a remainder class gift to "issue," an adult adoptee could not so inherit from a "stranger to the adoption." The concept of equitable adoption, while providing a judicial remedy in the case of a child, was inapplicable to an adult adoptee. The record indicated that the settlor's probable intention was not to include an adopted child in the remainder gift to her son's issue. Thus, appellant was not entitled to share in the trust remainder.
Litigation
United States v. Castro, 66 Fed. Appx. 331 (3d Cir. 2003)
Apr 23, 2003
OUTCOME: The appellate court affirmed the conviction and the sentence.
Defendant conspired with three others to kidnap a drug dealer. On appeal, defendant challenged the sentence enhancement. The appellate court rejected defendant's contention that he was unaware of any w...eapon used in the abduction, as defendant could not renege on the stipulations that were part of the plea agreement. Contrary to defendant's further claim, it was not necessary that he personally possessed, used, or displayed a gun in the crime given the evidence that his co-conspirators had a gun in connection with the offense and that he was aware of it. Even without the stipulation, the finding that a gun was used was not clearly erroneous, as defendant admitted to being present at the kidnapping; the victim asserted that, during the abduction, he was hit twice with a gun; and there was evidence that, on the way to the kidnapping, defendant told his co-conspirators about two weapons that they were going to use. Striking the victim with the gun qualified as a dangerous weapon being used within the meaning of § 2A4.1(b)(3). Finally, the record was insufficient to resolve on direct appeal defendant's additional claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, which was not raised below.
