NJ Courts’ Authority to Override Prosecutor Recovery Court Objections

Submitted by New Jersey Criminal Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark

Question Presented
Identify the New Jersey court rule and case law in support of a motion to order a defendant into recovery court over the objection of a County Prosecutor’s Office.

Response:
The New Jersey court rule and case law support a motion to order a defendant into Recovery Court over the objection of a County Prosecutor’s Office by establishing judicial authority to review prosecutorial decisions and the criteria for determining whether such objections constitute a “patent and gross abuse of discretion.” Recovery Court eligibility and admission criteria are governed by judicial policy, and courts have the authority to override prosecutorial objections when they fail to align with established guidelines or subvert the goals of the program. Relevant statutes and case law provide a framework for challenging prosecutorial objections and demonstrate the judiciary’s role in ensuring fairness and adherence to the principles underlying Recovery Court. Judicial Authority Over Recovery Court Admission Recovery Court is a judicially created program developed under the New Jersey Supreme Court’s constitutional authority to administer the courts and establish rules governing court practice and procedure. This authority is rooted in Article VI, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the New Jersey Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court exclusive power to administer the courts and execute policies through directives and manuals (State v. Matrongolo, 479 N.J.Super. 8 (2024))[1]. Recovery Court eligibility criteria are expressed through directives issued by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and the Recovery Court Manual, making the program a subpart of the criminal part of the Law Division (State v. Matrongolo, 479 N.J.Super. 8 (2024))[1]. The judiciary’s authority to review prosecutorial decisions is well-established. Courts may intervene when a prosecutor’s objection to Recovery Court admission constitutes a “patent and gross abuse of discretion.” This standard, codified in  N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14, is derived from the principles governing Pretrial Intervention (PTI) programs and has been expressly adopted for Recovery Court admissions (State v. Hester, 357 N.J.Super. 428 (2003))[2]. Judicial review ensures that prosecutorial decisions align with the goals of Recovery Court, which include addressing addiction and reducing recidivism through treatment (State v. Matrongolo, 479 N.J.Super. 8 (2024))[1]. Criteria for Overriding Prosecutorial Objections To challenge a prosecutor’s objection to Recovery Court admission, the defendant must demonstrate that the objection constitutes a “patent and gross abuse of discretion.” This standard requires showing that the prosecutorial decision clearly subverts the goals of Recovery Court, such as providing treatment for addiction and promoting public safety (State v. Hester, 357 N.J.Super. 428 (2003))[2]. Courts have emphasized that this standard is stringent, and prosecutorial decisions will rarely be overturned unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or fail to consider relevant factors ( State v. Litton, 155 N.J.Super. 207 (1977))[3]. In State v. Hester, the court applied the “patent and gross abuse of discretion” standard to a prosecutor’s objection to Drug Court admission. The judge found that the prosecutor failed to consider the defendant’s addiction and the need for treatment, instead labeling the defendant a “street-level dealer” without reference to his addiction. The court concluded that the prosecutor’s decision was arbitrary and failed to acknowledge the rehabilitative goals of the program (State v. Hester, 357 N.J.Super. 428 (2003))[2]. Similarly, in State v. Jones, the trial court admitted the defendant into Recovery Court over the State’s objection, finding that the defendant was both clinically and legally eligible for the program. The appellate court upheld this decision, emphasizing the judiciary’s role in ensuring fairness and adherence to Recovery Court criteria (State v. Jones, 481 N.J.Super. 271 (2025))[4]. Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Discretion The judiciary’s power to review prosecutorial discretion in Recovery Court admissions is consistent with its authority in PTI cases. In  State v. Leonardis, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that courts have ample authority to review prosecutorial decisions where there is a showing of “patent and gross abuse of discretion.” This principle ensures that prosecutorial decisions are not arbitrary and align with the goals of diversion programs ( State v. Leonardis, 73 N.J. 360 (1977))[5]. Similarly, in  State v. Litton, the court emphasized that judicial review exists to check only the most egregious examples of injustice and unfairness in prosecutorial decisions ( State v. Litton, 155 N.J.Super. 207 (1977))[3]. The judiciary’s role as gatekeeper to Recovery Court is further supported by the Drug Court Manual, which emphasizes the need to consider public safety, the defendant’s clinical eligibility, and the recommendations of substance abuse evaluators and prosecutors. Drug Court judges retain discretion to deny admission to legally eligible defendants if the prosecutor’s objections are supported by valid legal or clinical reasons (State v. Harris, 466 N.J.Super. 502 (2021))[6]. Legislative and Judicial Framework for Recovery Court While Recovery Court is rooted in legislative enactment as a sentencing option, its administration and eligibility criteria are governed by judicial policy. The New Jersey Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to fashion the criteria for admission into Recovery Court, ensuring that the program operates in accordance with its rehabilitative goals ( State v. Meyer, 192 N.J. 421 (2007))[7]. This framework allows courts to override prosecutorial objections when they fail to consider relevant factors or subvert the program’s objectives. In conclusion, the judiciary’s authority to review prosecutorial objections to Recovery Court admission is grounded in constitutional, statutory, and case law principles. Courts may order a defendant into Recovery Court over the objection of a County Prosecutor’s Office when the objection constitutes a “patent and gross abuse of discretion” and fails to align with the program’s rehabilitative goals. Relevant case law, such as State v. Hester and State v. Jones, demonstrates the judiciary’s role in ensuring fairness and adherence to Recovery Court criteria.

The above response is AI-generated and may contain errors. It should be verified for accuracy.

Sources (18)
1. State v. Matrongolo (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. • July 03, 2024 • 479 N.J.Super. 8 • 318 A.3d 368)
…III. Recovery Court is not a creature of the Legislature, but of the judiciary, and was developed in accordance with the Court’s “exclusive authority under the New Jersey Constitution to administer the courts” and “execute( ) its policies through the Administrative Office of the Courts” (AOC). Meyer, 192 N.J. at 430, 930 A.2d 428 (citing N.J. Const. art. VI, S 2, P 3 and In re P.L. 2001, Chapter 362, 186 N.J. 368, 381-82, 895 A.2d 1128 (2006)). While Recovery Court is a sentencing option, and thus rooted in legislative enactment, it is “a subpart of the criminal part of the Law Division,” and its eligibility criteria are a matter of judicial policy expressed through AOC Directive and the Manual. Meyer, 192 N.J. at 430-31, 930 A.2d 428; see also Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 2.1 on R. 1:1-1 (2024) (discussing the Court’s authority over practice and procedure of the courts)….

…The substance abuse epidemic occurring in our communities, and the crime attendant to the disease of addiction led, in part, to the creation of Recovery Court, a judicial program “which combats the hopelessness of addiction with the hopefulness of treatment.” State v. Harris, 466 N.J. Super. 502, 510, 247 A.3d 890 (App. Div. 2021). Through “a highly specialized team process within the existing Superior Court structure,” the Recovery Court judge, attorneys, probation representatives, and treatment professionals “work together to support and monitor a participant’s recovery.” Admin. Off. of the Cts., N.J. Statewide Recovery Court Manual (Jan. 2022) 3-4 (2022 Manual). Our Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the positive role of Recovery Court in improving the lives of its participants and the community. See State v. Meyer, 192 N.J. 421, 429-30, 930 A.2d 428 (2007) and State v. Clarke, 203 N.J. 166, 174, 1 A.3d 607 (2010)….

…While Recovery Court is a sentencing option, and thus rooted in legislative enactment, it is a subpart of the criminal part of the Law Division, and its eligibility criteria are a matter of judicial policy expressed through Directive of the Administrative Office of the Court (AOC) and the Recovery Court Manual….

2. State v. Hester (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. • February 13, 2003 • 357 N.J.Super. 428 • 815 A.2d 543)
…On June 27, 2002, the judge “overrule(d) the rejection,” and found that the State committed a “patent and gross abuse of prosecutorial discretion” in rejecting defendant’s application. He applied the standard used in evaluating the State’s decisions on admissions to the Pretrial Intervention Program (“PTI”), although he “question(ed) the application of this standard” with respect to the Drug Court program because PTI dealt with pretrial diversion from prosecution. In finding a “patent and gross abuse of discretion,” the judge noted that defendant’s prior convictions were symptomatic of his drug addiction. The judge concluded that defendant’s prior conviction for distribution of a “small amount of CDS” was motivated by his need to generate income to purchase drugs for his own consumption and not “strictly for profit.” He determined that the State was incorrect in labeling defendant a “street level dealer” without reference to his addiction. The judge found that defendant’s possession of fifty bags of cocaine in this case was not conclusively for sale because the record indicated that an addict could consume such amounts and the defendant was supported by his mother, with whom he lived. The judge further found that the prosecutor failed to acknowledge that defendant’s prior behavior, including his non-compliance with probation, was caused by relapse to drug use. The judge also concluded that the State neglected to consider the need to help solve defendant’s addiction in opposing his admission for treatment. The judge felt defendant had reached “rock bottom” and was committed to the program. There was support for the judge’s conclusions in Melahn’s report and the comments of Ms. Brennan….

…However, the Drug Court program and the ability to impose a specific sentence is a legislative matter, see, e.g., State v. Des Marets, 92 N.J. 62, 77-81, 455 A.2d 1074 (1983) (upholding Graves Act legislation preventing suspended sentences), and the question before us relates to the legislative intent concerning the availability of the disposition or sentence alternative. The Statement accompanying the 1999 amendments to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 declared that the “patent and gross abuse of discretion . formulation codifies the current standard of review used to determine whether a prosecutor inappropriately refused to join the defendant’s application under current law.” Statement, Senate Bill No. 1253, State of New Jersey, 208th Legislature; Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee Statement with Committee Amendments, December 2, 1999; Senate Law and Public Safety Committee Statement with Committee Amendments, January 25, 1999. The “patent and gross abuse of discretion” standard was well known to the Legislature in light of the history of PTI and, in any event, the meaning of the phrase was well-established in our case law, and was expressly adopted in this context….

…For prosecutor’s denial of application for entry into drug court program to rise to patent and gross abuse of discretion, it must be shown that prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert goals underlying drug court program; thus, prosecutor’s decision to reject applicant will rarely be overturned. N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14….

…Defendant, who was charged with various drug offenses, appealed from rejection of his application to drug court program. The Superior Court, Law Division, Morris County, overruled rejection, accepted defendant’s guilty plea, and sentenced defendant to drug court program. State appealed. The Superior Court, Appellate Division, Stern, P.J.A.D., held that prosecutor’s decision to deny defendant’s application for admission into drug court program did not constitute patent and gross abuse of discretion. Remanded….

3. State v. Litton (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. • December 20, 1977 • 155 N.J.Super. 207 • 382 A.2d 664)
…In reviewing prosecutor’s refusal to consent to admission of a defendant into county pretrial intervention program, great deference should be given judgment of prosecutor, whose refusal to consent may, where appropriate, be based solely on nature of offense charged, and review is available to check only most egregious examples of injustice and unfairness. R. 3:28….

…To show abuse of discretion by prosecutor in refusing consent to admission of a defendant into county pretrial intervention program, defendant has heavy burden and must show, clearly and convincingly, compelling reasons justifying his admission and that prosecutor acted in grossly arbitrary or capricious manner amounting to patent and gross abuse of discretion. R. 3:28….

…Application of defendant, who was charged with open lewdness, for admission into county pretrial intervention program was denied by the program director based on prosecutor’s objection. The Bergen County Court granted defendant’s motion for order of admission into program, and prosecutor appealed. The Superior Court, Appellate Division, Antell, J. A. D., held that prosecutor’s refusal to consent to defendant’s admission into program was not clearly and convincingly shown by defendant to be arbitrary and capricious. Reversed….

4. State v. Jones (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. • March 20, 2025 • 481 N.J.Super. 271 • 333 A.3d 1212)
…I. On April 12, 2023, after he resolved the second Essex County case, defendant sought admission to Recovery Court with respect to his charges in the Morris County case. The State objected and contended defendant was legally ineligible to enter Recovery Court because he: (1) was a danger to the community contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a)(9), who could not be adequately supervised; (2) demonstrated “no nexus between (his) criminal offenses and an addiction,” such that Recovery Court would not “reduce the likelihood that (he) will thereafter commit another offense”; and (3) was subject to a custodial sentence, which the State contended was more appropriate under the circumstances. Despite the State’s objection, after submitting to mandated substance abuse evaluations, defendant was deemed clinically eligible with a recommendation of intensive outpatient treatment….

[[…Background: In prosecution for burglary and related crimes arising from a robbery of a car dealership, defendant sought admission to Recovery Court. The Superior Court, Law Division, Morris County, Robert M. Hanna, J.S.C., concluded defendant was both clinically and legally eligible for Recovery Court and admitted him over the State’s objection. State appealed.

Holdings: The Superior Court, Appellate Division, Natali, J.A.D., held that: statutory provision rendering certain applicants ineligible for Recovery Court referred to a weapons offense for which an applicant sought admission to Recovery Court and any firearms offense that remained pending at time defendant sought admission, and defendant did not have a pending firearms charge when he sought admission into Recovery Court, supporting trial court’s decision to admit him….]{custom-style=“plain-black-char-style”}](https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I57dc3110061a11f0b90a996bc8dce2fb/View/FullText.html?listSource=WebsiteInternal&list=All&transitionType=AIAssistantSearch&contextData=%28sc.Default%29&relevantPortionId=I57dc3110061a11f0b90a996bc8dce2fb-synopsis-0-0-0&relevantPortionXPath=%2F%2Fn-docbody%5B1%5D%2Fdecision%5B1%5D%2Fcontent.block%5B1%5D%2Fsynopsis%5B1%5D%2Fsynopsis.body%5B1%5D%2Fsynopsis.section%5B1%5D%2Fsynopsis.background%5B1%5D%2Fsynopsis.background.body%5B1%5D%2Fpara%5B1%5D%2Fparatext%5B1%5D#co_anchor_I57dc3110061a11f0b90a996bc8dce2fb-synopsis-0-0-0)

…II. Recovery Court is not a creature of the Legislature, but of the judiciary, and was developed in accordance with the Court’s “exclusive authority under the New Jersey Constitution to administer the courts” and “execute( ) its policies through the Administrative Office of the Courts” (AOC). State v. Meyer, 192 N.J. 421, 430 (930 A.2d 428) (2007) (citing N.J. Const. art. VI, S 2, P 3 and In re P.L. 2001, Chapter 362, 186 N.J. 368, 381-82 (895 A.2d 1128) (2006)). While Recovery Court is a sentencing option, and thus rooted in legislative enactment, it is “a subpart of the criminal part of the Law Division,” and its eligibility criteria are a matter of judicial policy expressed through AOC Directive and the (Recovery Court) Manual. Meyer, 192 N.J. at 430-31 (930 A.2d 428); see also Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 2.1 on R. 1:1-1 (2024) (discussing the Court’s authority over practice and procedure of the courts). ((alterations in original) (citations reformatted).)…

…While Recovery Court is a sentencing option, and thus rooted in legislative enactment, it is a subpart of the criminal part of the Law Division, and its eligibility criteria are a matter of judicial policy expressed through Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) Directive and the Recovery Court Manual….

5. State v. Leonardis (Supreme Court of New Jersey. • May 31, 1977 • 73 N.J. 360 • 375 A.2d 607)
…Supreme Court’s rule-making power includes the power to order the diversion of a defendant into pretrial intervention where either the prosecutor or program director arbitrarily fails to follow the guidelines in refusing to consent to diversion, and conversely, where the director or prosecutor would subvert the goals of the program by approving diversion, meaningful judicial review must also be cognizable; furthermore, courts have ample authority under their adjudicatory powers to review prosecutorial decisions where there is a showing of patent and gross abuse. R. 3:28; Const.1947, art. VI, S II, par. 3….

6. State v. Harris (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. • February 18, 2021 • 466 N.J.Super. 502 • 247 A.3d 890)
…VI. The determination that a defendant is legally eligible for Drug Court via Track Two does not lead inexorably to his or her admission. See Clarke, 203 N.J. at 176, 1 A.3d 607 (“Under the second track, the applicant must convince the judge that a probationary sentence under the general sentencing provisions of the Code of Criminal Justice is appropriate.”); see also Figaro, 462 N.J. Super. at 579, 228 A.3d 466 (noting the trial court must decide “whether a probationary sentence is appropriate”). Drug Court judges serve as the gatekeepers to the program and are responsible not only for linking deserving candidates to treatment services but also for promoting public safety and ensuring the continued effectiveness of the program by only admitting qualified candidates. Under either track, the sentencing judge retains discretion to deny admission to a legally eligible defendant after considering the recommendations of the substance abuse evaluator and the prosecutor, the Drug Court Manual-which emphasizes the need to consider danger to the community-and the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors that must be applied and weighed in all sentencing proceedings….

7. State v. Meyer (Supreme Court of New Jersey. • September 19, 2007 • 192 N.J. 421 • 930 A.2d 428)
…The New Jersey Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to fashion the criteria for admission into Drug Court….

…IV. Last, to the extent that it can be read to conflict with both the Drug Court Manual and this opinion, we specifically disapprove of State v. Matthews, 378 N.J.Super. 396, 402, 875 A.2d 1050 (App.Div.), certif. denied , 185 N.J. 596, 889 A.2d 443 (2005), which was partly relied on by the State. In Matthews, the defendant, who was charged with multiple third- and fourth-degree crimes, applied for admission into the drug court program. Id. at 398, 875 A.2d 1050. The prosecutor objected to defendant’s admission, apparently based on his prior conviction for an offense similar to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a (prohibiting distribution and possession with intent to distribute CDS). Id. at 398, 401-02, 875 A.2d 1050. The trial court concluded that the prosecutor’s objection was not a patent and gross abuse of discretion under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14c and denied the defendant’s application for enrollment in the drug court program. Id. at 398, 875 A.2d 1050. The court sentenced the defendant to three consecutive five-year terms, which included three consecutive parole disqualifiers of two-and-one-half years. Ibid. The Appellate Division affirmed. Ibid….

8. State v. Baynes (Supreme Court of New Jersey. • April 01, 1997 • 148 N.J. 434 • 690 A.2d 594)
…Prosecutor’s denial of defendant’s application for admission into Pretrial Intervention (PTI) program, based on prosecutor’s stated policy of denying admission into PTI to any defendant charged with possession of controlled dangerous substance within 1,000 feet of school zone, was “clear error in judgment”; 1987 Comprehensive Drug Reform Act did not indicate intent prescribed to it by prosecutor, and prosecutor’s office was only prosecutor’s office in state to have adopted policy that simple possession offense makes defendant ineligible for admission into PTI. N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10, subd. a(1), 2C:43-12, subd. e….

9. State v. Clarke (Supreme Court of New Jersey. • July 21, 2010 • 203 N.J. 166 • 1 A.3d 607)
…I .A .State v. Clarke. On February 1, 2009, Clarke responded to the prosecutor’s objection letter, contesting each one of the claims. Clarke next filed an appeal to the prosecutor’s rejection of his Drug Court application. A hearing before the Drug Court was held on April 6, 2009. In a written decision, the Drug Court judge began his analysis by setting forth the criteria for admission to the Drug Court program. The judge noted that defendant’s multiple prior convictions for second-degree offenses required the prosecutor’s approval for admission under the first track. Further, the judge explained that…

…III .A. Prior to the Drug Court’s determination of defendant’s application for admission to the Drug Court program, the assistant prosecutor or the substance abuse evaluator may oppose the application for either legal or clinical reasons. Manual, supra, at 26. In that event, the prosecutor or the evaluator must set forth in writing his or her findings and reasons for rejecting the application. Ibid. Thereafter, the applicant has fourteen days to file a motion with the Criminal Division Manager’s Office, seeking a review of that rejection after which a hearing date will be set. Id. at 26-27….

10. State v. Leonardis (Supreme Court of New Jersey. • July 21, 1976 • 71 N.J. 85 • 363 A.2d 321)
…Although prosecutors exercise discretion in determining whether to consent to admission of a defendant to PTI program, court cannot sanction a decisional process which might yield ad hoc or arbitrary determinations. R. 3:28….

11. State v. Brooks (Supreme Court of New Jersey. • November 25, 2002 • 175 N.J. 215 • 814 A.2d 1051)
…To succeed in challenging the denial of application for entry into a pretrial intervention (PTI) program, a defendant must prove clearly and convincingly that a prosecutor’s decision was a patent and gross abuse of his discretion. N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12; R. 3:28….

12. State v. Lopes (Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Criminal Part, Bergen County. • September 01, 1995 • 289 N.J.Super. 460 • 673 A.2d 1379)
…Consistent with concept of enhanced deference to prosecutor’s decision whether to admit defendant into pretrial intervention (PTI) program, judicial review of prosecutor’s decision exists to check only most egregious examples of injustice and unfairness. N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12; R. 3:28….

13. Directive 06-22. Criminal Justice Reform–Speedy Trial– Guidance Articulated by the Supreme Court in State v. Marcus S. Mackroy-Davis (A-43-21) (decided June 27, 2022) (NJ Directives Dir. 06-22)
…We granted defendant’s motion for leave to appeal on February 8, 2022. 250 N.J. 107 (2022). We also granted leave to appear as amicus curiae to the Attorney General, the County Prosecutor’s Association of New Jersey (CPA), the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey (ACDL), and the Public Defender and American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU), who submitted a joint brief….

14. Directive 05-21. Motions to Reopen Pretrial Detention Hearings–In the Matter of the Request to Release Certain Pretrial Detainees ( _ N.J. _ (2021)) (NJ Directives Dir. 05-21)
…On December 4, 2020, the Office of the Public Defender and the ACLU jointly applied to this Court to enter an Order to Show Cause. Movants seek two types of relief: The Court asked movants to present legal authority in support of their position. Shortly after they submitted written arguments, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause. The Attorney General and the County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey (CPA) submitted briefs in opposition on December 30, 2020….

15. 2C:35-14. Rehabilitation program for person with a substance use disorder subject to a presumption of incarceration or a mandatory minimum period of parole ineligibility;  special probation;  mandatory commitment to residential treatment facilities;  sentencing considerations;  expungement (NJ ST 2C:35-14)
…m. (1) The Superior Court may order the expungement of all records and information relating to all prior arrests, detentions, convictions, and proceedings for any offense enumerated in Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes upon successful discharge from a term of special probation as provided in this section, regardless of whether the person was sentenced to special probation under this section, section 2 of P.L.2012, c. 23 (C.2C:35-14.2), or N.J.S.2C:45-1, if the person satisfactorily completed a substance use disorder treatment program as ordered by the court and was not convicted of any crime, or adjudged a disorderly person or petty disorderly person, during the term of special probation. The provisions of N.J.S.2C:52-7 through N.J.S.2C:52-14 shall not apply to an expungement pursuant to this paragraph and no fee shall be charged to a person eligible for relief pursuant to this paragraph. The court shall grant the relief requested unless it finds that the need for the availability of the records outweighs the desirability of having the person freed from any disabilities associated with their availability, or it finds that the person is otherwise ineligible for expungement pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection. An expungement under this paragraph shall proceed in accordance with rules and procedures developed by the Supreme Court….

16. 2C:43-12. Statewide pretrial intervention program;  admission criteria;  time for referral;  denial and appeal;  program monitoring (NJ ST 2C:43-12)
…a. Public policy. The purpose of N.J.S.2C:43-12 through N.J.S.2C:43-22 is to effectuate a Statewide program of Pretrial Intervention. It is the policy of the State of New Jersey that supervisory treatment should ordinarily be limited to persons who have not previously been convicted of any criminal offense under the laws of New Jersey, or under any criminal law of the United States, or any other state when supervisory treatment would: (1) Provide applicants, on an equal basis, with opportunities to avoid ordinary prosecution by receiving early rehabilitative services or supervision, when such services or supervision can reasonably be expected to deter future criminal behavior by an applicant, and when there is apparent causal connection between the offense charged and the rehabilitative or supervisory need, without which cause both the alleged offense and the need to prosecute might not have occurred; or (2) Provide an alternative to prosecution for applicants who3) Provide a mechanism for permitting the least burdensome form of prosecution possible for defendants charged with “victimless” offenses, other than defendants who were public officers or employees charged with offenses that involved or touched their office or employment; or…

17. 3. Supreme Court, rules;  admission to practice law;  discipline of persons admitted (NJ CONST Art. 6, § 2, ¶ 3)
…3. The Supreme Court shall make rules governing the administration of all courts in the State and, subject to the law, the practice and procedure in all such courts. The Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction over the admission to the practice of law and the discipline of persons admitted….

18. State v. K.S. (Supreme Court of New Jersey. • January 08, 2015 • 220 N.J. 190 • 104 A.3d 258)
…III. In considering and evaluating information bearing upon a defendant’s admission into Pretrial Intervention, prosecutors are granted broad discretion to determine if a defendant should be diverted. Wallace, supra, 146 N.J. at 582, 684 A.2d 1355; State v. Dalglish, 86 N.J. 503, 509, 432 A.2d 74 (1981). This discretion arises out of “the fundamental responsibility of prosecutors for deciding whom to prosecute.” Dalglish, supra, 86 N.J. at 509, 432 A.2d 74. Accordingly, to overturn a prosecutor’s decision to exclude a defendant from the program, the defendant must “clearly and convincingly” show that the decision was a “patent and gross abuse of . discretion.” Wallace, supra, 146 N.J. at 582, 684 A.2d 1355 (citing State v. Leonardis, 73 N.J. 360, 382, 375 A.2d 607 (1977))….

Administrative decisions and guidance (3)
1. Majofsky v. Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office (February 18, 1994 • 94 N.J.A.R.2d (CRT) 77 • 1994 WL 183607)
…Office of Administrative Law State of New Jersey PAULA D. MAJOFSKY, COMPLAINANT, V. MERCER COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE, RESPONDENT. Civil Rights OAL Docket No. CRT 1079-92 Agency…

…General, for complainant (Robert J. Del Tufo, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney) Harry Parkin, County Counsel, for respondent MASIN, ALJ: The following footnote references are…

…Paula Demansky, was employed as an investigator for the Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office, between August 14, 1986 and September 25, 1989. She contends that she left that office under circumstances which arose due to the existence of a…

…the time of her employment which limited assignments to the Office’s Rape Task Force (RTF) and Rape Task Force on-call…

2. IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS RIORDAN, CITY OF VINELAND. (May 17, 2024 • 2024 WL 3863179)
…Office of Administrative Law State of New Jersey IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS RIORDAN, CITY OF VINELAND. Civil…

…City) Police Department (VPD or respondent), challenges the sustained charges identified in the October 21, 2022, Final Notice of Disciplinary Action…

…respondent’s FNDA with the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:14-202…

…2023, and March 20, 2023. See January 17, 2023, Prehearing Order. On December 16, 2022, an application was made to consolidate…

3. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Petitioner, v. SJS SANITATION COMPANY, INC., ET AL., Respondents. (June 08, 2001 • 2001 WL 34596233)
…Office of Administrative Law State of New Jersey NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Petitioner, v. SJS SANITATION COMPANY, INC…

…of the Initial Decision and entry of a final agency order in accordance with N.J.A.C. 1:3-18.6 Respondents have…

…request. Because there has been a full hearing before the Office of Administrative law and the parties have presented extensive exceptions…

…the Borough ofFolsom to haul residential waste to the Atlantic County Utilities Authority (“ACUA”) where SJS tipped the waste. The ACUA…

Practical Law (3)
1. Commencing a Lawsuit: Drafting the Complaint (NJ) (Practice notes • Maintained)
A Practice Note explaining how to draft the complaint and prepare the other case-initiating documents in civil actions filed in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, Civil Part (including in Complex Business Litigation Program actions) and in non-foreclosure actions in the Chancery Division, General Equity Part. This Note explains how to draft and structure the caption and body of the complaint, demand a jury trial, and comply with New Jersey pleading standards. It also explains how to prepare the other case-initiating documents, including the summons and civil Case Information Statement (CIS), and the significance of the court-issued Track Assignment Notice. This Note also covers the entire controversy doctrine and the certification about other actions and liable persons.

…Counsel may use the form civil action summons located on the New Jersey Courts website as a fillable PDF or in Appendix XII-A to the New Jersey Court Rules. The summons is from the State, signed in the name of the Superior Court Clerk, and directed to the defendant ( N.J. R. 4:4-2). The summons also contains the court name, the plaintiff’s name, and the name and address of the plaintiff’s attorney (or pro se plaintiff) ( N.J. R. 4:4-2…

…The summons may be issued by the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s attorney, or the clerk of the court ( N.J. R. 4:4-1). Counsel typically prepare the summons and sign it in the name of the clerk of the Superior Court ( N.J. R. 4:4-1 and 4:4-2). The clerk’s name is located on the Superior Court Clerk’s Office page of the New Jersey Courts website….

…While some practitioners routinely name fictitious parties, counsel should name fictitious defendants when an identifiable defendant exists, but counsel cannot discover that defendant’s actual identity after reasonable diligence (see Baez, 453 N.J. Super. at 437-38). Plaintiffs most commonly use this procedure in personal injury and medical malpractice actions….

…A summons notifies the defendant that the plaintiff commenced an action against it and specifies the date by which the defendant must respond. The plaintiff drafts a separate summons to each defendant commanding an appearance and answer to the complaint. ( N.J. R. 4:4-2.) The plaintiff serves the summons with the complaint but does not file the summons with the court ( N.J. R. 4:4-3(a))….

2. New Jersey Rule Amendments: Overview (Practice note: overview • Maintained)
A Practice Note summarizing the key procedural amendments to the New Jersey Court Rules, the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct, and the New Jersey Rules of Evidence for counsel practicing in the New Jersey Supreme Court; the Superior Court, Appellate Division; the Superior Court, Law Division, Civil Part, including in the Complex Business Litigation Program; and the Superior Court, Chancery Division, General Equity Part in non-foreclosure actions only. This Note covers the New Jersey Supreme Court’s omnibus rule amendment orders effective on September 1, 2024 and September 1, 2023. It also includes the Supreme Court’s key rule amendments made during the 2023-2024 court term, commonly called off-calendar amendments.

…A Practice Note summarizing the key procedural amendments to the New Jersey Court Rules, the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct, and the New Jersey Rules of Evidence for counsel practicing in the New Jersey Supreme Court; the Superior Court, Appellate Division; the Superior Court, Law Division, Civil Part, including in the Complex Business Litigation Program; and the Superior Court…

…The New Jersey Supreme Court (Supreme Court) generally amends the New Jersey Court Rules, the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct, and the New Jersey Rules of Evidence in an omnibus rule amendment order each year. The omnibus order is effective on September 1. The Supreme Court…

…The Supreme Court amended N.J. R. 4:58-4 to remove subsection (b)(2) ( 2024 Omnibus Order at 32). This subsection addressed offers of judgment in actions with multiple defendants where the plaintiff seeks a joint and several judgment against only some defendants ( N.J. R. 4:58-4(b)(2); see Legal Update, 2022-2023 Court Term Rules Update (NJ): Multiple Defendants)….

…For more on New Jersey courts, see Practice Note, State Court Structure (NJ). For flowcharts depicting the hierarchy and jurisdiction of the New Jersey courts, see New Jersey Court Hierarchy and Jurisdiction Flowcharts….

3. Commencing a Lawsuit: Filing and Serving the Complaint (NJ) (Practice notes • Maintained)
A Practice Note explaining how to file and serve a summons, complaint, and other case-initiating documents for a civil suit in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, Civil Part (including in the Complex Business Litigation Program) and in a non-foreclosure action in the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division, General Equity Part. This Note describes how to properly electronically file (e-file) an action using eCourts Civil and the procedure for paper filing, if an exception to mandatory e-filing applies. This Note also sets out the steps for serving process on defendants both within and outside of New Jersey, emphasizing the importance of timely and proper service to establish jurisdiction. It addresses various methods of service, such as personal delivery, mail, and publication, and provides guidance on serving different types of defendants, including individuals, corporations, and government entities. It also covers how to prepare and file a proof of service.

…Personal service. The plaintiff accomplishes personal service by hand delivering process to the defendant or the defendant’s representative. Personal service is the primary way to obtain personal jurisdiction over defendants located in New Jersey (see Serving Individuals in New Jersey and Serving Private Organizations in New Jersey). The plaintiff may also use hand delivery to personally serve defendants…

…The plaintiff must serve an individual or organization outside of New Jersey when the defendant evades personal service in the state or counsel cannot serve the defendant within the state. After a diligent effort and inquiry reveals that the plaintiff cannot personally serve a defendant within New Jersey, the plaintiff may serve the defendant within or outside of the United States….

…Mail. The plaintiff may use mail service instead of personal service to serve a defendant present in New Jersey in some circumstances with limitations (see Optional Mailed Service (in Lieu of Personal Service) and Substitute Service by Mail (If Personal Service Fails)). The plaintiff may also use mail to serve individuals and entities located outside of New Jersey (see Serving Individuals and Organizations Outside of New Jersey)….

…The plaintiff may serve a defendant as provided by law ( N.J. R. 4:4-4(b)(2)). For example, a plaintiff may obtain personal jurisdiction over a nonresident driver involved in an automobile accident in New Jersey by making substitute service on the New Jersey Director of Motor Vehicles ( N.J.S.A. 39:7-2(b))….

Additional secondary sources (3)
1. § 9:8. Attorney discipline—Sample attorney discipline brief (New Jersey Practice Series TM • 40 N.J. Prac., Appellate Practice and Procedure § 9:8 (2d ed.))
This matter comes before the Court under Rule 1:20-16(a) for an independent review of a determination of the Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) recommending the disbarment of Respondent. Respondent maintains that the decision of the DRB was not in accordance or consistent with well-established New Jersey disciplinary precedents, was not based upon a complete consideration of the record and under the facts of this case, is unduly harsh, punitive and inequitable. The following sections will detail the basis for these arguments. This matter initially came before the DRB on motion for final discipline under Rule 1:20-13(c). On February 2, 2018, Respondent was served with an accusation in the Superior Court, Law Division, Monmouth County, charging him with a single count of falsifying records (4th degree) under N.J.S.A. 2C:21-4(a). Respondent immediately entered a plea of guilty to the accusation and consistent with the plea and sentence agreement that had been previously negotiated with…

…The matter has been deemed by this Court of one of great significance and has been the subject of a number of studies and reports, including the Contempt of Court Working Group and the Supreme Court Municipal Court Practice Committee reports of February 1, 2017 and August 30, 2017. (…

…g) Involvement by Supervising Members of the Judiciary —As reflected in the February 2, 2018 plea colloquy, the prosecutor learned that Respondent had been summoned to a meeting with both the municipal court presiding judge (PJ) and this Court’s representative, the county assignment judge on March 7, 2014….

…DRB Decision of September 17, 2019, page 4. It should be noted that the Rules of Court in effect during this time mandated that contempt sanctions imposed under Rule 1:2-4 be payable to the State of New Jersey or the adverse party, not the municipality….

…Respondent was also subject to eighteen (18) visits per year (two (2) yearly visits for each of his nine (9) courts) by either his vicinage PJ or Monmouth County Municipal Division Manager during which time he would be observed while conducting a court session….

2. Chapter II. Specific Civil Actions (Guralnick’s New Jersey Family Law Annotated • N.J. Family Law Ann. P Ch. 26 III Part V Ch. II)
Except for UIFSA proceedings pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:4–30.124 to 2A:4-30.201, a summary action for support may be brought by either the party entitled thereto, an assistance agency or a party seeking to establish that party’s support obligation provided no other family action is pending in which the issue of support has been or could be raised.

…All Notices Applicable to All Orders and Judgments That Include Child Support Provisions. The judgment or order shall include notices stating: if support is not paid through immediate income withholding, the child support provisions of an order or judgment are subject to income withholding when a child support arrearage has accrued in an amount equal to or in excess of the amount of support…

…Definitions.(1) “Suspension of judicial enforcement” means that no bench warrant will issue, the case will not be listed for enforcement action, and no relief to litigant proceedings will be instituted by the Probation Division for the child support provision of an order until further order of the court. (2) “Suspension of administrative enforcement” means that no automatic judgment shall be entered, and no state tax return, federal tax return, Financial Institution Data Match, lottery winnings or Child Support…

…When a party or attorney must prepare a formal written judgment or order pursuant to a judicial decision that includes alimony, maintenance or child support or medical support provisions to be administered by the Probation Division, the court shall, on the date of the hearing, record the support and health insurance provisions on a Temporary Support Order using the form prescribed by the Administrative Director of the Courts…

…All orders which include payment of child support, or spousal support in conjunction with child support on the same order, shall be entered onto the statewide automated child support enforcement system, and presumptively deemed payable to the New Jersey Family Support Payment Center, and supervised by the Probation Division, unless the court…

3. LIABILITY FOR PROSECUTORIAL MISDEEDS: IS WRIGHT RIGHT FOR NEW JERSEY? (Rutgers Law Review • 55 Rutgers L. Rev. 641)
In July 2001, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided Wright v. State and held that under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act (“NJTCA”), the State may be held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of county prosecutors when prosecutors and subordinates investigate and enforce New Jersey’s criminal laws. Furthermore, the court held that the State must defend and indemnify these alleged wrongdoers. This vicarious liability issue had been unsettled until Wright was decided. There is a line of cases that holds the particular county vicariously liable for the prosecutorial officials’ tortious acts. There is also a line of cases that holds that the State could be liable in certain circumstances. This Note will discuss the potential positive and negative ramifications the Wright decision will have on the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office in terms of future liability, defense and indemnification costs. In addition, this Note will trace history of vicarious liability and the…

…In July 2001, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided Wright v. State [FN1] and held that under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act (“NJTCA”), [FN2] the State may be held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of county prosecutors when prosecutors…

…Furthermore, removal of county prosecutors is governed by section 52:17B-110 of the New Jersey Code: In addition to any and all methods now provided by law for the removal from office of a county prosecutor, a county prosecutor…

…Whenever the Attorney General shall have superseded a county prosecutor as aforesaid, the county prosecutor, the assistant county prosecutors and other members of the staff of the county prosecutor shall exercise only such powers and perform such duties as are required of them by the Attorney General….

…The following year in Michaels v. New Jersey, [FN81] the United States District Court for the District for New Jersey had another opportunity to hear a case regarding a county being liable under respondeat superior for the alleged tortious acts of a county prosecutor…

Current awareness (3)
1. COVID-19 roundup: Court closures and procedural changes (WESTLAW TODAY Covid-19 Briefing • 2020 WL 6304870)
Some courts around the country are starting to reopen amid the coronavirus pandemic, while others remain closed or have restrictions in place. Below is a roundup, updated weekly, of measures taken by federal and state courts.

…The rescinded order applied to applications to retain attorneys or other professionals; applications for professional compensation; applications for administrative claims; motions to redeem; trustees’ final reports in Chapter 7 cases; motions to approve compromises or settlements; Chapter 12 plans; motions to modify Chapter 12 or 13 plans; motions to incur debt or purchase real estate or a vehicle; motions to determine value, avoid a lien or set interest rate; motions…

…Pro se litigants with active cases before the court may submit all case filings via email to ProSe_ case_filings@cfc.uscourts.gov. Judges, special masters, the clerk of court and counsel of record for the United States may file electronically in pro se cases using the court’s electronic filing system….

…Under an Aug. 7 order that called the bar examination “a significant test of a candidate’s qualification to practice law,” the court ordered that provisional admission to the State Bar of Montana will not support admission to the Bar of the District Court under D. Mont. L.R. 83.1(b)(1)….

…Under a May 29 order from the Indiana Supreme Court, all laws, rules and procedures setting time limits for speedy trials in juvenile and criminal proceedings, public and mental health matters, judgments, support and other orders in criminal and civil matters were tolled through Aug. 14….

2. COVID-19 roundup: Court closures and procedural changes (WESTLAW TODAY Covid-19 Briefing • 2020 WL 6482601)
Some courts around the country are starting to reopen amid the coronavirus pandemic, while others remain closed or have restrictions in place. Below is a roundup, updated weekly, of measures taken by federal and state courts.

…The rescinded order applied to applications to retain attorneys or other professionals; applications for professional compensation; applications for administrative claims; motions to redeem; trustees’ final reports in Chapter 7 cases; motions to approve compromises or settlements; Chapter 12 plans; motions to modify Chapter 12 or 13 plans; motions to incur debt or purchase real estate or a vehicle; motions to determine value, avoid a lien or set interest rate; motions…

…Pro se litigants with active cases before the court may submit all case filings via email to ProSe_ case_filings@cfc.uscourts.gov. Judges, special masters, the clerk of court and counsel of record for the United States may file electronically in pro se cases using the court’s electronic filing system….

…Under an Aug. 7 order that called the bar examination “a significant test of a candidate’s qualification to practice law,” the court ordered that provisional admission to the State Bar of Montana will not support admission to the Bar of the District Court under D. Mont. L.R. 83.1(b)(1)….

…Under a May 29 order from the Indiana Supreme Court, all laws, rules and procedures setting time limits for speedy trials in juvenile and criminal proceedings, public and mental health matters, judgments, support and other orders in criminal and civil matters were tolled through Aug. 14….

3. COVID-19 roundup: Court closures and procedural changes (WESTLAW TODAY Covid-19 Briefing • 2020 WL 6589056)
Some courts around the country are starting to reopen amid the coronavirus pandemic, while others remain closed or have restrictions in place. Below is a roundup, updated weekly, of measures taken by federal and state courts.

…The rescinded order applied to applications to retain attorneys or other professionals; applications for professional compensation; applications for administrative claims; motions to redeem; trustees’ final reports in Chapter 7 cases; motions to approve compromises or settlements; Chapter 12 plans; motions to modify Chapter 12 or 13 plans; motions to incur debt or purchase real estate or a vehicle; motions to determine value, avoid a lien or set interest rate; motions…

…Pro se litigants with active cases before the court may submit all case filings via email to ProSe_ case_filings@cfc.uscourts.gov. Judges, special masters, the clerk of court and counsel of record for the United States may file electronically in pro se cases using the court’s electronic filing system….

…Under an Aug. 7 order that called the bar examination “a significant test of a candidate’s qualification to practice law,” the court ordered that provisional admission to the State Bar of Montana will not support admission to the Bar of the District Court under D. Mont. L.R. 83.1(b)(1)….

…Under a May 29 order from the Indiana Supreme Court, all laws, rules and procedures setting time limits for speedy trials in juvenile and criminal proceedings, public and mental health matters, judgments, support and other orders in criminal and civil matters were tolled through Aug. 14….