Recently decided appeals
(Jeffrey S. Mandel, Esq., appearing)
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Hensyn Inc. v. McCrae, _ N.J. Super. _ (App. Div. 2010).
(reprinted in Westlaw at 2010 WL 3834434)
Jeff represents a landlord who evicted a tenant based on a complaint of non-payment. While the tenant claimed that payment was made, Jeff prevailed at trial. The tenant's daughter (Elizabeth McCrae, "Esq."), pursued an appeal. On appeal, McCrae raised a litany of 'legal' issues.
The Appellate Division ruled in Jeff's favor.
Mazdabrook Commons HOA v. Kahn, _ N.J. Super. _ (App. Div. 2010) (reprinted in Westlaw at 2010 WL 3517030), on appeal to Supreme Court of New Jersey
To be supplied . . .
The Appellate Division affirmed the decision below in part, and reversed it in part. This matter is now on appeal in the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
State of New Jersey v. Baptiste, _ N.J. Super. _ (App. Div. 2010).
(reprinted in Westlaw at 2010 WL 3516863)
To be supplied . . .
The Appellate Division affirmed the decision below.
State of New Jersey v. Taylor, _ N.J. Super. _ (App. Div. 2010).
(reprinted in Westlaw at 2010 WL 1424405)
POINT I
THE COURT BELOW FAILED TO ELICIT AN ADEQUATE FACTUAL BASIS (NOT RAISED BELOW).
POINT II
THE COURT BELOW ERRED WHEN IT RELIED ON THE EMERGENCY AID EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE, AND WAIVER BY CONSENT TO DENY DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS MARIJUANA FOUND IN A BAG, WITHIN A BAG, IN A BABY SEAT AND A GUN FOUND UNDER A MATTRESS
POINT III
THE COURT IMPOSED AN EXCESSIVE SENTENCE THAT THIS COURT SHOULD VACATE AND REMAND FOR RESENTENCING (NOT RAISED BELOW).
Jeff also filed a reply brief in response to an argument raised by the State.
POINT I
RIDING ON A BICYCLE WITH YOUR CHILD ON THE HANDLEBARS IS NOT THE TYPE OF ABUSE AND NEGLECT THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAD IN MIND WHEN IT CRIMINALIZED CONDUCT THAT 'ENDANGERS THE WELFARE OF A MINOR'.
The Appellate Division affirmed the decision below.
[M.D.] v. [J.I.], _ N.J. Super. _ (App. Div. 2009).
To be supplied . . .
POINT I
WRITING "FUCK YOU, CAROL" IN WALMART IS NOT THE TYPE OF CONDUCT THAT WARRANTS THE ISSUANCE OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER.
POINT II
THE RESTRAINING ORDER IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT IS OVERLY-BROAD IN THAT IS BARS [J.I.] FROM ANY AND ALL LOCATION WHERE PLAINTIFF "MAY" BE FOUND.
The Appellate Division affirmed the decision below.
Browne v. Carver, _ N.J. Super. _ (App. Div. 2010)
(reprinted in Westlaw at 2010 WL 391820)
Jeff Mandel argued on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to grant a trial adjournment after plaintiff's expert's office indicated that the expert would be avialable for trial but thereafter the expert failed to appear or provide a date that he would appear that week for the trial. Lawyers seeking to retain Gautam Sehgal, M.D. as their expert should read this opinion. POINT I
JUDGE BROGAN ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE DENIED PLAINTIFFS' FIRST REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT ON THE FIRST TRIAL CALL.
The Appellate Division agreed and reversed Judge Brogan. The court began by stating that it "recognize[s] the difficulty attorneys have in coordinating trial dates with the schedules of witnesses". This statement alone makes lawyers in New Jersey so thankful that our appellate judges previously served as trial judges - and remember what it was like to be a lawyer. The court noted that "despite [trial counsel's] numerous inquiries, Dr. Sehgal's office did not get back to him with a confirmed date". Accordingly, the court found that Judge Brogan abused his discretion in refusing to grant an adjournment.
R.M. v. D.M., _ N.J. Super. _ (App. Div. 2009)
(reprinted in Westlaw at 2009 WL 4981203)
Jeff Mandel was retained to appeal a decision against Defendant. It was alleged that Defendant threatened to kill someone with a sword. Jeff Mandel argued to the Appellate Division that:
POINT I
DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY THAT THE COMPLAINANT WAS ALARMED, ANNOYED OR FELT THREATENED OR HARASSED.
POINT II
THE HE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE EITHER RECUSED HIMSELF OR SET FORTH ON THE RECORD THE NATURE OF HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ONLY IMPARTIAL WITNESS IN THIS CASE (PARTIALLY RAISED BELOW).
POINT III
THE COURT BELOW VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS, ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING DEFENDANT’S REASONABLE REQUEST FOR A FEW ADDITIONAL DAYS TO OBTAIN A LAWYER, AND ALSO ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY RELYING ON INADMISSIBLE AND UNAUTHENTICATED EVIDENCE.
POINT IV
THE TRIAL JUDGE’S LEADING QUESTIONS TO THE COMPLAINANT AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PRO SE DEFENDANT [D.M.] LEAD TO AN UNJUST RESULT (NOT RAISED BELOW).
Jeff prevailed in the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division agreed with Point I and REVERSED the decision against the Defendant.
Mohamed-Ali v. Middlesex Mgt., _ N.J. Super. _ (App. Div. 2009)
(reprinted in Westlaw at 2009 WL 395432)
Jeff Mandel was retained to appeal a decision against Plaintiff below. Jeff Mandel argued to the Appellate Division that:
POINT I
COURT RULE 1:21-1(C) BARS THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BELOW BECAUSE THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT DEFENDANT’S REPRESENTATIVE IN COURT WAS AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE LAW IN THIS STATE OR THAT HE SATISFIED ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO COURT RULE 1:21-1(C) (NOT RAISED BELOW).
POINT II
THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED HIS DISCRETION, AND DENIED PLAINTIFF DUE PROCESS, BY NOT PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO PRESENT HIS PROOFS, BY REFUSING TO ADJOURN THE TRIAL AFTER PLAINTIFF REPRESENTED THAT HE DID NOT RECEIVE REASONABLE NOTICE OF HIS TRIAL, AND BY REFUSING TO ADJOURN THE TRIAL AFTER PLAINTIFF REPRESENTED THAT HIS WITNESS LEFT COURT TO GO TO THE HOSPITAL.
POINT III
THE JUDGMENT BELOW IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (NOT RAISED BELOW).
Jeff prevailed in the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division agreed with Point I and REVERSED the decision against Mr. Mohamed-Ali.
State v. Neto, _ N.J. Super. _ (App. Div.), certif. denied 200 N.J. 206 (2009)
(reprinted in Westlaw at 2009 WL 1010958)
In this case, Jeff appealed the trial court's refusal to grant Mr. Neto post-conviction relief. Mr. Neto, while represented by a different attorney, plead guilty to a minor offense and received probation. His trial attorney failed to adequately inform him that, although the State sought no jail time, the offense was punishable with deportation by the Federal Government. Despite Mr. Neto completing probation, living a law-abiding life and raising his family here, the Federal Government detained him ten years later and now seeks to deport him. Jeff argued on appeal:
POINT I
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE [MR.] NETO WAS PROVIDED WRONG LEGAL ADVICE BY HIS ATTORNEY AND WAS NOT PROPERLY INFORMED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA.
A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Generally.
B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Guilty Plea.
1. Counsel Provided Paulo With Incorrect Legal.
Advice on the Issue of Deportation.
2. Inadequate Legal Advice Regarding Deportation.
3. Language Barrier.
C. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Motion to
Suppress (NOT RAISED BELOW).
D. Defendant’s application should not have been
declared time-barred.
The Appellate Division ruled in favor of the State. The Supreme Court of New Jersey denied the petition for certification. I even moved for reconsideration, which I had never before done before the Supreme Court, but this case presented one of the greatest injustices at the trial level, of which I was not counsel, that I have encountered in my career. This case raised similar issues to those argued by Jeff before the Supreme Court of New Jersey in State v. Nunez-Valdez, 200 N.J. 129 (2009) (see News, Supreme Court).
Sarkozy v. A.P. Green Indus., _ N.J. Super. _ (App. Div. 2009)
(reprinted in Westlaw at 2009 WL 2356676).
Jeff Mandel briefed, with a team of Day Pitney attorneys, several trial errors that, we asserted, cumulatively prejudiced the client and warranted a new trial. We also challenged the jury's award to the plaintiff as being excessive and against the weight of the evidence. We also alleged as error the jury's failure to allocate any liability to other defendants. We were not trial counsel, and were retained to pursue an appeal.
The Appellate Division upheld the jury award.
Corbett v. Corbett, _ N.J. Super. _ (App. Div. 2009)
(reprinted in Westlaw at 2009 WL 509952).
The trial court denied Mr. Corbett’s motion seeking visitation with his two sons. Mr. Corbett is in prison and due to be released in 2015. Jeff Mandel was retained to pursue an appeal. He argued on appeal:
POINT I
THE COURT BELOW ERRED IN DISMISSING
MR. CORBETT’S APPLICATION FOR VISITATION
WITHOUT A PLENARY HEARING AND BY RELYING
TOO HEAVILY ON MR. CORBETT’S INCARCERATION.
The Appellate Division ruled that Mr. Corbett was permitted to re-file his motion for visitation.
State v. Harper, _ N.J. Super. _ (App. Div. 2008)
(reprinted in Westlaw at 2008 WL 2548105)
In this case, Jeff Mandel was not trial counsel when Defendant Harper was convicted. The court below sentenced Defendant to six years in prison for allegedly selling drugs that weighed 0.36 grams (a dime weighs approx. 2.5 grams). Jeff was retained to appeal the conviction, and argued: POINT I
A REMAND IS NECESSARY FOR A HEARING ON WHETHER, UNKNOWN TO DEFENSE COUNSEL, THE STATE PROMISED LENIENCY IN EXCHANGE FOR THE BUYER'S TESTIMONY.
POINT II
IT IS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ALLOW THE STATE TO ELICIT EXPERT TESTIMONY FROM A NON-EXPERT ABOUT THE HABITS OF DRUG DEALERS, THE “GOING RATE” FOR DRUGS, AND BY PRESENTING A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION REGARDING [A WITNESS] BEING A “WELL-KNOWN BUYER” TO THE DEFENDANT (NOT RAISED BELOW).
POINT III
BEING FOUND NOT GUILTY OF POSSESSION, BUT GUILTY OF DISTRIBUTION, IS TOO INCONSISTENT TO SUSTAIN THE VERDICT (NOT RAISED BELOW).
POINT IV
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IMPOSING SIX YEARS IN PRISON IS EXCESSIVE FOR ALLEGEDLY SELLING $6 OF DRUGS WEIGHING 0.36 GRAMS (NOT RAISED BELOW).
The Appellate Division ruled in favor of the State, which made Jeff realize that even the esteemed judges of the Appellate Division are prone to mistakes.
Nguyen v. Troby Motors, _ N.J. Super. _ (App. Div. 2008)
(reprinted in Westlaw at 2008 WL 794947)
This case addressed the Consumer Fraud Act. We prevailed at the trial level and Defendant appealed. Jeff Mandel defended the appeal. The Appellate Division upheld our trial victory, but remanded to the trial court to clarify the record respecting our entitlement to attorneys’ fees for prevailing under the Consumer Fraud Act. On remand, the parties were able to negotiate an amicable resolution on the attorney fee issue.
Enron (Thrace) Exploration & Production BV v. Clapp, 378 N.J. Super. 8 (App. Div.),
certif. denied, 185 N.J. 392 (2005).
We were retained after Plaintiff obtained an $8 million judgment against our client in the United Kingdom and went to enforce that judgment in the United States. At issue was whether money judgments issued by courts in foreign nations could be filed in the United States (specifically, New Jersey) without a prior judicial determination recognizing the judgment and authorizing its enforcement in the United States. The court held that the Foreign Country Money-Judgment Recognition Act permitted the judgment to be filed without prior judicial approval.
This case is now cited in the packet of materials provided by the New Jersey Judiciary to attorneys and pro se litigants who wish to enforce a foreign judgment in New Jersey.
Bertani Promotional Displays v. Midwest Display, Inc., _ N.J. Super. _ (App. Div.), certif. denied, 192 N.J. 72 (2007)
(reprinted in Westlaw at 2007 WL 685505)
Plaintiffs, Bertani Promotional Displays and its principal, Anthony Bertani, sued our clients, defendants, Midwest Display, Inc., its president, and Clear Channel Entertainment, Inc. Plaintiffs alleged that our clients were liable for idea misappropriation and breach of contract. A Counterclaim was filed against Plaintiffs for breach of contract. Gregg Ilardi, also a former Pitney Hardin/Day Pitney attorney, did a wonderful job as lead counsel and the jury ruled in favor of our clients. Plaintiffs appealed. We opposed the arguments on appeal and, with respect to certain arguments, we argued that those arguments were procedurally waived by Plaintiffs. The Appellate Division agreed and ruled in our favor. Plaintiffs then sought certification before the Supreme Court of New Jersey. We prevailed on that too, as the Court denied Plaintiffs’ request for certification. This case is a great example of how defense counsel can take a Complaint and turn the entire case around through a Counterclaim and tenacious litigation.
State v. Drake, _ N.J. Super. _ (App. Div. 2007)
(reprinted in Westlaw at 2007 WL 3115772)
Jeff argued on this appeal that the sentence imposed was excessive.
The Appellate Division upheld the sentence.
State v. Holmes, _ N.J. Super. _ (App. Div. 2007)
(reprinted in Westlaw at 2007 WL 4372642)
In this case, Jeff Mandel was retained to pursue an appeal on Mr. Holmes' behalf. The Appellate Division agreed with Jeff's argument that certain evidence seized from a backpack in Mr. Holmes' car following a motor vehicle stop should have been suppressed because it constituted an unreasonable search and seizure. The Appellate Division, however, found sufficient evidence on other charges to sustain the sentence. Jeff argued on appeal:
POINT I
IN THIS DRUG PROSECUTION CASE, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE AN UN-REDACTED PHOTOGRAPH OF DEFENDANT WEARING A SHIRT THAT DEPICTED DRUGS AND AN INDIVIDUAL USING DRUGS.
POINT II
ONE CANNOT BE CONVICTED OF POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE A CDS WHEN THE STATE FAILS TO COMPLETELY TEST THE SUSPECTED CDS, ITS EXPERT FAILS TO SET FORTH A WEIGHT OF THE CDS, AND THE EXPERT CONCEDES THAT HE CANNOT PROVIDE A STREET VALUE FOR THE CDS WITHOUT KNOWING THE WEIGHT.
POINT III
THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A CLOSED BACKPACK LOCATED ON THE REAR SEAT OF THE DEFENDANT'S MOTHER'S AUTOMOBILE, WHICH DEFENDANT WAS OPERATING, VIOLATED ARTICLE I, PARAGRAPH 7 OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION.
POINT IV
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT DEFENDANT “POSSESSED” THE BACKPACK LOCATED IN THE BACK OF DEFENDANT'S MOTHER'S VEHICLE.
POINT V
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING AN EXTENDED SENTENCE.
POINT VI
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE LABORATORY RESULTS THAT WERE ADMITTEDLY INCOMPLETE AND FURTHER ERRED IN PERMITTING TESTIMONY ABOUT THE LABORATORY CERTIFICATES FROM SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE TECHNICIAN.
POINT VII
DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL BECAUSE THE STATE INTRODUCED HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL INFORMATION ABOUT DEFENDANT'S POTENTIAL LINK TO OTHER DRUG DISTRIBUTION.
POINT VIII
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING EXPERT TESTIMONY OF LIEUTENANT ROBERT BUNN.
POINT IX
THE POLICE LACKED A LEGAL BASIS TO VIEW THE CONTENTS OF THE VEHICLE BEING OPERATED BY DEFENDANT BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WAS REGISTERED OUT OF STATE.
It is generally poor pratice on appeal to raise this many issues, but the strategy and responsibilities when appealing a criminal conviction differ from the strategy employed in appealing a civil case. In fact, on post-conviction relief appeals, appellate counsel is required to raise all claims requested by the client.
Pending appeals
(Jeffrey S. Mandel, Esq., appearing)
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
State v. Holmes, _ N.J. Super. _ (App. Div. 2009).
Jeff represents a former New Jersey State Trooper wrongly convicted for violating the law.
Jeff prepared a brief on this case, and awaits oral argument.
Palisades Collection LLC v. Brown, _ N.J. Super. _ (App. Div. 2009).
To be supplied . . .
Oral argument took place, and Jeff is awaiting a ruling.
R.M. v. D.M., _ N.J. Super. _ (App. Div. 2009)
