#SAMPLE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION APPELLATE NJ TRIAL#
The Appellate Division noted that the trial court judge did reject the defendant’s argument that the reconsideration motion was time barred by referring to the substantial delay caused by the change in venue. The overlay of the law of the case instructs courts to respect the rulings of a different judge during pendency of the given case “unless presented by substantially different evidence, new controlling authority, or a showing that the prior ruling was clearly erroneous.”.That plaintiff failed to successfully navigate “the narrow corridor of showing the prior decision was based upon a palpably incorrect or irrational basis where the prior judge failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence ”.Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the prior judge acted in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner.There is nothing new presented that had not been available to or presented to the prior judge when deciding the original motion.He was being asked to reconsider the decision of a co-equal member of the judiciary.
The Appellate Division noted that the basis for the Middlesex County judge’s denial of the prior judge’s order was that The plaintiff then filed an application with the Appellate Division for leave to appeal, which was granted. The Middlesex County judge heard the motion for reconsideration on Februand denied all the requested relief. For some unknown reason, while that motion was pending, the lawsuit was transferred from Mercer County and then to Middlesex County. In June 2020, the plaintiff filed his motion for reconsideration of these three aspects of the judge’s order. The original motion, addressing these issues, was decided on May 14, 2020. This case ended up in the Appellate Division on an interlocutory appeal (interlocutory means before the final conclusion of the case) to review the trial court’s decision to bar the turnover of use-of-force reports, denying leave to amend the complaint to add a civil conspiracy claim and bar a potential witness, Nestor Crespo, from testifying at trial because he failed to appear for a subpoenaed deposition.
At issue in this decision was the motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s order as to certain requests made during discovery. This case concerns a complaint by the plaintiff Alfred Lawson against the Borough of Bound Brook and numerous of its police officers alleging that he was physically beaten, at times while handcuffed, when arrested by the Bound Brook police officers. May 27, 2021), the Court addressed the “commonly misunderstood distinctions” between motions seeking reconsideration of final orders and motions seeking reconsideration of interlocutory orders. In the published Appellate Division decision of Lawson v.
0 kommentar(er)
