David Lesch

RECENT APPELLATE COURT DECISION ALERT FOR ALL MATRIMONIAL LAWYERS KIRSHNER V. KIRSHNER, NYS3d, 2024 WL 3168022 (2nd Dept. 2024) Decided June 26, 2024 Points of Interest in the Decision with Respect to Businesses: - No marital waste with respect to purchase of a car wash sold at a loss during the pendency of the action. - Separate funds used to purchase a pharmacy deemed to be commingled in a joint checking account and therefore marital. Many other financial issues are covered in this decision including: awarding of attorney fees, credit for one-half of state tax refund, interpretation of prenup agreement and distribution of retirement accounts. Tons of issues in this case and well worth the read. If you missed this one you can find it here:https://lnkd.in/eCaZTRwi

13

🚨 New NJ Appellate Division Decision – Criminal Law 🚨 On August 20, 2024, the NJ Appellate Division decided State of New Jersey v. Christopher W. Barclay, which clarified that the New Jersey Wiretap Act does not require written prosecutorial approval for consensual interceptions. Case Summary: Christopher Barclay's convictions for aggravated sexual assault and endangering the welfare of a child were challenged because the recorded phone call with the victim, which was consented to under the NJ Wiretap Act, lacked written approval from the prosecutor. Barclay argued that this made the recording inadmissible. However, the court held that the NJ Wiretap Act does not mandate written approval, affirming the denial of his post-conviction relief. Legal Takeaways: The NJ Wiretap Act allows consensual interceptions with prior prosecutorial approval but does not specify that it must be in writing. The court emphasized that statutory text does not impose a writing requirement, and previous cases like State v. Parisi and State v. K.W. support this interpretation. Impact: This decision highlights the importance of understanding the nuances of the NJ Wiretap Act in criminal defense cases. Read the Full Decision Here: https://lnkd.in/eKq4aAJR Stay informed with regular legal updates from our team of former prosecutors at the Bianchi Law Group. Follow us for insightful commentary and legal analysis on criminal defense, domestic violence, and municipal court cases. Need legal assistance or looking to refer a case? Don’t hesitate to call us 24/7 at (862) 315-7929. #FormerProsecutors #CriminalDefense #DomesticViolence #DWI #DUI #NJ #NewJersey 🛡️ TEAM OF FORMER PROSECUTORS 🛡️ Robert (Bob) Bianchi, ESQ., NREMT) David Bruno, Esq. Danielle Esposito, Esq. Christopher A. Eaton, Esq. Paul A. Di Lella, Esq. Tricia Howarth Margolis Esq. Christina Hall, Esq. Maura Lynch Robert Esnes Alessandro Amato

4

3 Comments

Tips for New Judges

1

🚨 Historic New Supreme Court Order: A Turning Point for New Jersey DWI Cases 🚨  On February 23, 2024, a groundbreaking shift occurred in New Jersey’s legal landscape. Chief Justice Stuart Rabner signed a historic order that revokes Guideline 4, lifting the longstanding prohibition against plea bargaining in DWI cases. This landmark decision aligns with the recent amendments to New Jersey's DWI law, signaling a transformative moment for the state's judicial approach to DWI prosecutions. Guideline 4’s history traces back to concerns over municipal court abuses, leading to its implementation in 1990 to ban plea deals in DWI cases. Its withdrawal follows the 2024 amendment to N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, which permits plea agreements based on prosecutors' recommendations, challenging the guideline's constitutionality under the separation of powers doctrine. This change not only reflects a significant policy shift but also addresses the evolving professionalism within municipal courts, aiming to enhance judicial efficiency and prosecutorial discretion in handling DWI cases. The Supreme Court's decision to withdraw Guideline 4, in respect of legislative intent and in the interest of comity, marks a pivotal moment in New Jersey's pursuit of a balanced legal process. You Can Read Chief Justice Rabner's Court Order in Full Here- https://lnkd.in/eux4qdwm Stay informed with regular legal updates from our team of former prosecutors at The Bianchi Law Group. Follow us for insightful commentary and legal analysis on criminal defense, domestic violence, and municipal court cases. Need legal assistance or looking to refer a case? Don't hesitate to call us 24/7 at (862) 315-7929. Under New Jersey Court Rule 1:39-6, our partners, Bob and Dave, can return referral fees to attorneys on criminal law cases as we are certified criminal trial attorneys by the New Jersey Supreme Court. #FormerProsecutors #CriminalDefense #DomesticViolence #DWI #DUI #NJ #NewJersey #Lawyer #Attorney #Law #Legal No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of #NewJersey  🛡️ TEAM OF FORMER PROSECUTORS 🛡️ Robert (Bob) Bianchi, Esq. David Bruno, Esq. Danielle Esposito, Esq. Christopher A. Eaton, Esq. Paul A. Di Lella, Esq. Tricia Howarth Margolis Esq. Christina Hall, Esq. Maura Lynch Robert Esnes Alessandro Amato

15

8 Comments

Motions for reconsideration are used in New Jersey under the right circumstances. A motion for reconsideration is a legal document filed after a court decision that allows parties to ask the judge to reconsider the outcome of a case. However, they cannot be used just because a party disagrees with the Judge’s decision. Motions for reconsideration can only be filed if there is a clear demonstration that the judge’s decision has fallen into a specified category of error. The grounds for which these motions can be filed and granted are very specific, and extremely narrow.  Learn more about which circumstances are applicable and rely on an experienced attorney at our firm for assistance with all of your family court needs, including a motion for reconsideration.

1

Finding Harmony in Conflict: Leverage the Dynamics Connecting Mediation and Arbitration in Family Law

1