CIVIL RESERVATION OF RIGHTS: APPLICATION OF MAIDA v. KUSKIN IN PERSONAL INJURY … ·...

CIVIL RESERVATION OF

RIGHTS: APPLICATION OF

MAIDA v. KUSKIN IN

PERSONAL INJURY ACTIONS

Hon. Harry D. Norton, Jr., JMC Municipal Court Judge in the Boroughs of Allendale, Upper Saddle River, Ho-Ho-Kus, and the Pascack Joint Municipal Court Norton, Murphy, Sheehy, Higgins, Vilachá & Corrubia, PC (Woodland Park)

Emily A. Kaller, Esq. Greenbaum Rowe Smith & Davis, LLP (Woodbridge)

Francisco J. Rodriguez, Esq. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Civil Trial Attorney Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, P.C. (Jersey City)

Aldo J. Russo, Esq. Lamb Kretzer LLC (Secaucus)

WCIV001516

© 2016 New Jersey State Bar Association. All rights reserved. Any copying of material herein, in whole or in part, and by any means without written permission is prohibited. Requests for such permission should be sent to NJICLE, a Division of the New Jersey State Bar Association, New Jersey Law Center, One Constitution Square, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901-1520.

Thank you for logging in – the webinar will begin shortly.

1. All Attendee phone lines are muted.

2. Questions may be submitted Via Chat on the right hand side of your screen.

Questions will be answered periodically during the presentation

Note: Attendees with dial up connections will see a slower response.

1. Type your question here.

3. See your messages here

2. Send

TO ACCESS SEMINAR MATERIALS, ATTENDANCE VERIFICATION AND CLE FORMS

PLEASE GO TO:

http://tcms.njsba.com/personifyebusiness/njicle/WebinarInformation.aspx

PLEASE FAX OR E-MAIL YOUR ATTENDANCE VERIFICATION FORM TO NJ ICLE

FAX: 732-249-1428

E-MAIL: [email protected]

CIVIL RESERVATION OF RIGHTS: Application of Maida V. Kuskin

In Personal Injury Actions

August 30, 2016

NJICLE

Emily A. KallerPartner, Litigation Department

Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP

[email protected]

Civil ReservationsMunicipal Court Rules provide in pertinent part:

• Except as otherwise provided by Rules 7:6-2, 7:6-3, and 7:12-3, the

court shall not, however, accept a guilty plea without first addressing

the defendant personally and determining by inquiry of the defendant

and, in the court’s discretion, of others, that the plea is made

voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the

consequences of the plea and that there is a factual basis for the

plea. . . . On the request of the defendant, the court may, at the

time of the acceptance of a guilty plea, order that the plea shall

not be evidential in any civil proceeding. . . . .

• New Jersey Court Rule 7:6-2(a)(1) (emphasis added).

© 2016 Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP7


New Jersey courts have recognized the informal nature of

municipal court proceedings and the myriad reasons why a

defendant might elect to plead guilty in municipal court.

• We note the . . . varied reasons why people plead guilty

without intending to incur the collateral consequences of

the plea; time constraints; inability to secure witnesses or

not wanting to disturb them for a small matter; unease

with court proceedings, etc.

• State v. LaResca, 267 N.J. Super. 411, 421 (App. Div.

1993) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

The New Jersey Supreme Courts has recognized that it is

fundamental that when a defendant pleads guilty pursuant

to a plea agreement, the terms of the agreement must be

fulfilled

• See State v. Kovack, 91 N.J. 476, 482 (1982).


• The standard for granting a defendant in municipal court a

civil reservation under Rule 7:6-2(a)(1) is a liberal one.

LaResca, 267 N.J. Super. at 420. As opposed to a plea in

Superior Court, the civil reservation will be granted unless

the State or a victim establishes good cause as to why a

civil reservation should not be granted.

• LaResca, 267 N.J. Super. at 421; but see, Kohrherr v.

Ferreira, 215 N.J. Super. 123, 127-28, 130-31 (App. Div.

1987) (holding that where request for civil reservation was

not requested until months after entry of plea, civil

reservation will not be granted).


• One purpose of the civil reservation is to avoid the

“unnecessary criminal trial of a defendant who fears that a

civil claimant will later use his plea of guilty as a

devastating admission of civil liability.”

Stone v. Keyport, 191 N.J. Super. 554, 558, (App. Div.

1983).


• A municipal court convictions for a non-indictable offense

is generally inadmissible in a civil action.

• N.J.R.E. 803(c)(22); Trisuzzi v. Tabatchnik, 285 N.J.

Super. 15, 25 (App.Div. 1995) (citing Eaton v. Eaton, 119

N.J. 628, 644, 575 A.2d 858 (1990)).

• If a civil reservation is granted, the guilty plea is deemed

inadmissible in a subsequent civil trial, however, if the

testimony in support of the factual basis is inconsistent

with the testimony and trial, the civil reservation will be

waived.

• Stone, 191 N.J. Super. at 558.


Facts of Maida v Kuskin

• Bruce and Marybeth Maida and their son were crossing a

street at an intersection in Red Bank when a sports-utility

vehicle approached the intersection driven by the

defendant Michael Kuskin.

• According to Maida, Kuskin slowed down to almost a

complete stop, then accelerated and struck plaintiff Bruce

Maida before leaving the scene of the accident.

• The Maida family walked a block to their home, where

Marybeth Maida called the police and reported the

accident.


Facts of Maida v Kuskin (cont’d)

• The responding police officer recorded that plaintiff stated

that he was not injured.

• Using the license plate number supplied by plaintiff's wife,

the police identified defendant as the driver of the vehicle

and issued a summons charging him with leaving the

scene of an accident resulting in injury to a person, in

violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-129, and with failure to report an

accident resulting in injury to a person, in violation of

N.J.S.A. 39:4-130.

• According to defendant Kuskin, he entered the

intersection but did not touch plaintiff. A verbal altercation

occurred relating to his proximity to plaintiff’s family,

plaintiff hit his car and defendant drove off.



• Defendant's attorney entered a guilty plea to failing to

report an accident resulting in injury to a person, in

violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-130 on behalf of defendant.

• Plaintiff did not speak during the proceeding but asserts

he was in Court during entry of defendant’s guilty plea.

• The defendant did not speak while the guilty plea was

being placed on the record. There was no factual

background for the guilty plea and no request for a civil

reservation made in open Court.

• Maida v. Kuskin, 221 N.J. 112, 118 (2015).



• That same date, defense counsel wrote to the Court

stating, "please be advised that a plea was entered today

and [I] would like to confirm that a civil reservation was

placed on the plea."

• The record does not indicate whether this letter was sent

to plaintiff. The Municipal Court certified disposition sheet

indicated, "civil reservation granted."

• The same day, the Municipal Court entered an order

providing "that the plea of guilty entered by the defendant

herein shall not be used or be evidential in any civil

proceeding." Maida v. Kuskin, 221 N.J. 112, 119 (2015).



• The Maidas subsequently brought a civil suit against defendant

Kuskin, for injuries that Bruce Maida sustained from the alleged

accident that required several surgeries and Marybeth Maida for the

emotional distress caused by witnessing the incident.

• The central dispute in the civil suit is whether an accident occurred

(as asserted by plaintiff) or, an altercation in the crosswalk (as

asserted by defendant).

• Plaintiff sought to introduce defendant’s guilty plea to the charge of

failing to report an accident as an admission that an accident

occurred. Plaintiff states that the civil reservation was procedurally

flawed because defendant did not request a civil reservation in open

court. Plaintiff asserts that had the request for a civil reservation been

made in open court, plaintiff would have objected to its entry.



• Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike the civil reservation

granted by the municipal court.

• The trial court struck the defendant’s civil reservation

reasoning that Rule 7:6-2(a)(1) required that a civil

reservation be requested in open court at the time of entry

of the guilty plea. Finding no request was made in open

court, the trial judge permitted use of the guilty plea at

trial.

• The Appellate Division reversed determining that Rule

7:6-2(a)(1) does not require that the request for a civil

reservation be made in open court at the time the guilty

plea is accepted.



• The Appellate Division suggested that the civil reservation

was a material aspect of the guilty plea that might warrant

permitting the defendant to withdraw his plea.

• In dicta, the Appellate Division noted there were other

reasons to exclude the guilty plea, including

• the absence of a factual basis provided by defendant,

• the prejudicial impact of any guilty plea, and

• the absence of probative value of the guilty plea to a

central issue in the case -- whether a motor vehicle

accident occurred at all.



Trial Attorneys of New Jersey (TANJ) argued for affirmance of the Appellate Division opinion, noting:

• Failure to recognize the civil reservation would have a significant impact on the trial bar and municipal court calendars, forcing municipal defendants to try cases rather than enter pleas to avoid an admissible guilty plea;

• Defendant’s will be reluctant to testify in their defense in the municipal court matter to avoid being exposed to cross-examination in the Municipal Court matter when there is a likelihood there will be a subsequent civil litigation.

• This factual issue should be decided by the jury in the Superior Court.



• The Supreme Court rejected the reasoning of the Appellate Division:

• “The Rule thus contemplates that the plea be made in open court, that the municipal court judge make a sufficient inquiry to conclude that any plea is knowing and voluntary, and that there be a factual basis for the plea. See ibid. . . . The necessity of providing a record that permits a municipal court judge to find that a guilty plea is knowing and voluntary and that there is factual support for the plea is intended to mirror the protections of Rule 3:9-2, which governs the entry of guilty pleas in Superior Court.”

Maida v. Kuskin, 221 N.J. 112, 123 (2015).



• The Supreme Court reaffirmed that:

1. a guilty plea to a traffic offense that occurs in open court must be

accompanied by a factual statement given by the defendant.

2. A person who pleads guilty to a traffic offense may request an

order that prevents admission of the plea in any civil proceeding

arising from the same occurrence that precipitated the motor

vehicle charge.

3. That request must occur in open court.

4. The prosecutor or a person injured in the motor vehicle accident

may object to such an order and demonstrate good cause to bar

entry of a civil reservation.



• The Supreme Court reaffirmed that: (cont’d)

5. If the prosecutor or the victim demonstrates good cause or the

charge to which a defendant pleads guilty does not arise out of

the same occurrence that is the subject of the civil proceeding, a

civil reservation order may not be entered.

6. A civil reservation should not be entered when the conduct

encompassed by the traffic offense bears no relation to any issue

in the subsequent civil proceeding.

7. If the guilty plea is entered without a court appearance, a

defendant may not be granted a civil reservation because this

would contravene the requirement that a civil reservation be

requested in open court contemporaneously with the entry of the

guilty plea.

Maida v. Kuskun, 221 N.J. 112, 127-28 (2015).



• The New Jersey Supreme Court noted that:

• “[T]he municipal court judge entered a civil reservation

order for a motor vehicle offense which would be

inadmissible in any civil proceeding based on the same

occurrence. Whether or not a person files the report

required by N.J.S.A. 39:4-130 bears no relevance to

whether the charged person operated a motor vehicle in a

negligent manner on the day of the alleged incident or

operated a motor vehicle at all.



• We expressly disapprove the Appellate Division ruling that

a civil reservation need not be requested

contemporaneously with the entry of the plea. We affirm,

however, because whether a [*129] person submits a

report of a motor vehicle accident timely, belatedly, or not

at all bears no relevance to the issue of negligent

operation of a motor vehicle. A guilty plea to that offense

is irrelevant to any issue in the civil proceeding and

inadmissible in the current civil proceeding.”

Maida v. Kuskun, 221 N.J. 112, 128-29 (2015).


Civil Reservation of Rights: Application of Maida v. Kuskin in

Personal Injury ActionsBy Francisco J. Rodriguez

JAVERBAUM WURGAFT HICKS KAHN

WIKSTROM & SININS, P.C.frodriguez&lawjw.com

Obligations of the Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Attorney relative to Municipal Court Proceeding

• Write to the municipal prosecutor and the municipalcourt clerk that you represent the victim, requestingnotice of all proceedings and that you object to anycivil reservation.

• Confirm the day before and morning of the appearancewhether it is still scheduled.

• Show up to Municipal Court and discuss objection tothe civil reservation with the prosecutor, who mayrefuse to offer the civil reservation as part of the plea.

• If there is a plea or testimony by the defendant, orderthe transcript.

What Constitutes “Good Cause” to Object to a Civil Reservation?

• Will the civil consequences of a guilty plea causedevastating financial harm to the defendant? State v.Tsilimidos, 364 N.J. Super. 454, 459-60 (App. Div. 2003).– Not the defendant’s insurance carrier.

• The purpose of R. 3:9-2 “is to avoid an unnecessarycriminal trial of a Defendant who fears that a civilclaimant will later use his plea of guilty as a devastatingadmission of civil liability.” Stone v. Keyport Boro.Police Dep't., 191 N.J. Super. 554, 558 (App.Div.1983);State v. La Russo, 242 N.J. Super. 376, 379(App.Div.1990).

What MAY Constitute “Good Cause” to Object to a Civil Reservation?

• Will the Defendant be unavailable to testify atdeposition or trial in the civil case (the out ofstate defendant)?

• Is the nature of the civil case such that thecivil consequences of the plea would not bedevastating?– Damages small relative to the amount of

insurance or net worth?

– Damages capped?

Uses of the Judgment of Conviction and Factual Basis despite a Civil

Reservation• Depositions

– The Judgment of Conviction and Factual Basis canbe used with cross-examination of the Defendant.

• Discovery Sanctions

– Did Defendant serve Certified InterrogatoryAnswers to give Deposition testimony 180 degreesthe opposite of the factual basis?

In the Absence of a Civil Reservation, what can be used at Civil Trial?

• N.J.R.E. 803(c)(22) only permits in a civil casethe introduction into evidence of a Judgmentof Conviction of an Indictable Offense forpurposes of supporting any fact essential tosustain the Judgment of Conviction.

• However, a Defendant may be confronted forimpeachment purposes with the factual basis.Maida.

THE END

By Francisco J. Rodriguez

JAVERBAUM WURGAFT HICKS KAHN

WIKSTROM & SININS, P.C.frodriguez&lawjw.com

The webinar has ended.

The program handbook, relevant CLE forms and additional materials for this program can be accessed at:

http://tcms.njsba.com/personifyebusiness/njicle/WebinarInformation.aspx

Please hang up your telephone now.

110 A.3d 867 (2015)221 N.J. 112

Bruce MAIDA, Marybeth Maida, Marybeth Maida, per quod and Christopher Maida, a minor, by his guardian ad litem, MARYBETH MAIDA, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.Michael KUSKIN and Gary S. Kuskin, Defendants-Respondents.

Nos. A-50 September Term 2013, 073429.

Argued November 10, 2014.Decided March 19, 2015.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

*870 Steven P. Haddad, Jersey City, argued the cause for appellants (Mr. Haddad and Maggiano, DiGirolamo & Lizzi, attorneys).

870

Richard J. Mirra argued the cause for respondents (Hoagland, Longo, Moran, Dunst & Doukas, attorneys; John C. Simons, New Brunswick, of counsel).Gerald H. Baker, Hoboken, argued the cause for amicus curiae New Jersey Association for Justice (Javerbaum, Wurgaft, Hicks, Kahn, Wikstrom & Sinins, attorneys).Aldo J. Russo, Livingston, argued the cause for amicus curiae New Jersey Defense Association (Lamb Kretzer, attorneys).Emily A. Kaller argued the cause for amicus curiae Trial Attorneys of New Jersey (Greenbaum Rowe Smith & Davis, attorneys; Ms. Kaller>, John D. North, Iselin, and Harry D. McEnroe, Newark, on the brief).Judge CUFF (temporarily assigned) delivered the opinion of the Court.In this appeal we address the municipal court practice known as the "civil reservation." A civil reservation permits the municipal court judge, at the request of a defendant, to order that a guilty plea shall not be evidential in any related civil proceeding.Here, defendant pled guilty to failing to report an accident. The transcript of the municipal court session contains no mention of a civil reservation. Following the municipal court session, defendant's attorney wrote a letter to the municipal court judge "to confirm that a civil reservation was placed on the plea." There is no record whether defendant's attorney sent a copy of this request to plaintiffs' attorney, who attended the municipal court proceeding. That day, the municipal court entered an order directing that defendant's guilty plea "shall not be used or be evidential in any civil proceeding."We take this opportunity to reiterate that the plain language of Rule 7:6-2(a)(1) requires the request for a civil reservation to be made in open court and contemporaneously with the municipal court's acceptance of the guilty plea. We also emphasize that a defendant must provide the factual basis to the offense to which he is pleading guilty and state that he is guilty and wishes to plead guilty to the offense. In addition, due to the prevalence of guilty pleas to traffic offenses in municipal court, we take this opportunity to review the use of municipal court guilty pleas and the factual statements provided in support of those pleas in civil actions.Here, the request for the civil reservation was not made contemporaneously with the guilty plea or in open court. To the extent the Appellate Division held that a defendant may request a civil reservation after he has left municipal court, we disavow that ruling. Nevertheless, the guilty plea in this case is inadmissible in the civil proceeding. Whether a

872

person reports an accident or files the report out of time has no relevance to the issue of whether he operated a motor vehicle negligently. *871 Moreover, if a report had been filed, N.J.S.A. 39:4-130 expressly bars the admission of any statement made in such report in a civil or criminal proceeding for any purpose.

871

I.The charge to which defendant Michael Kuskin[1] pled guilty arose from an incident on Sunday, March 28, 2010. Plaintiffs Bruce and Marybeth Maida and their son Christopher were crossing a street at the intersection of Harding Road and Hudson Avenue in Red Bank. Plaintiffs assert that a sport-utility vehicle approaching the intersection slowed down to almost a complete stop as they progressed across the marked crosswalk. Then, the vehicle accelerated and struck plaintiff Bruce Maida.[2] Defendant, the driver of the vehicle, did not exit the vehicle and left the scene shortly thereafter.The Maida family walked a block to their home, where Marybeth Maida called the police to report the accident. The responding police officer recorded that plaintiff stated that he was not injured. Using the license plate number supplied by plaintiff's wife, the police identified defendant as the driver of the vehicle and issued a summons charging him with leaving the scene of an accident resulting in injury to a person, contrary to N.J.S.A. 39:4-129, and with failure to report an accident resulting in injury to a person, contrary to N.J.S.A. 39:4-130.On May 13, 2010, defendant's attorney entered a guilty plea on defendant's behalf to failing to report an accident resulting in injury to a person, contrary to N.J.S.A. 39:4-130. The following is the complete transcript of the guilty plea proceeding:

[THE COURT:] Next.[PROSECUTOR:] Next matter is on page 4 of Your Honor's traffic calendar, Michael Kuskin. [Defense counsel] and Bruce Maida.[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Good morning, Your Honor.[PROSECUTOR:] Your Honor, with respect to this particular matter, the 39:4-130 is going to be a guilty plea. 108, 33, Judge.[3]

Mr. Maida was notified to be here. The victim's bill of right[s] has been met, Judge. It's going to be a directed verdict of not guilty, if Your Honor please.[THE COURT:] That's fine. Okay, counsel, thank you.[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Thank you, Your Honor.[THE COURT:] Is he able to pay that this morning?[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Yes, Your Honor.[THE COURT:] Okay, good, go to the window and take care of it.[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Thanks very much, Your Honor, have a nice day.

Although defendant did not utter a single word during this proceeding and the transcript makes no reference to plaintiffs' counsel, it is undisputed that both plaintiffs' counsel and defendant were present.After the municipal court session, defendant's attorney wrote a letter to the municipal court stating, "please be advised that a plea was entered today and [I] would like to confirm that a civil reservation *872 was placed on the plea." The record does not indicate whether this letter was sent to plaintiff or his attorney. The certified disposition sheet of the

municipal court states, "civil reservation granted." That day, the municipal court entered an order providing "that the plea of guilty entered by the defendant herein shall not be used or be evidential in any civil proceeding."

II.On June 27, 2011, the Maidas filed a complaint seeking compensatory damages from the March 2010 incident. Plaintiffs claimed that Bruce Maida suffered serious injuries requiring multiple surgical procedures and that Marybeth Maida suffered severe and permanent emotional distress as a result of witnessing the accident. Defendant filed an answer denying that he was negligent. In response to an interrogatory, defendant asserted that "there was no accident."Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike the civil reservation granted by the municipal court. After initially denying the motion, the trial court granted it following submission of a motion for reconsideration. The trial court opined that the civil reservation authorized by Rule 7:6-2(a)(1) must be requested in open court at the time of entry of the guilty plea. Finding that did not occur in this case, the trial judge permitted use of the guilty plea at trial.In an unpublished opinion, the Appellate Division reversed. The panel determined that Rule 7:6-2(a)(1) does not require that the request for a civil reservation be made in open court at the time the guilty plea is accepted. Surmising that the civil reservation was a material aspect of the guilty plea, the panel suggested that the trial judge should have permitted defendant to withdraw his plea. In addition, the panel held that a civil reservation should be granted as a matter of course any time after entry of a plea unless there is an objection.In dicta, the panel observed that there were other reasons to exclude the guilty plea, including the absence of a factual basis provided by defendant, the prejudicial impact of any guilty plea, and the absence of any probative value of this guilty plea to a central issue in this case — whether a motor vehicle accident occurred at all.This Court granted plaintiffs' petition for certification. Maida v. Kuskin, 217 N.J. 50, 84 A.3d 600 (2014). We also permitted the New Jersey Association for Justice, the New Jersey Defense Association, and the Trial Attorneys of New Jersey to appear as amici curiae.

III.Plaintiffs argue that the request for a civil reservation must occur in open court after acceptance of the guilty plea. Plaintiffs state that their position is consistent with the plain language of Rule 7:6-2(a)(1) and permits the victim to hear, respond, object, and present reasons why the request is unfair or unjust. Plaintiffs contend that the Appellate Division opinion disregards the plain language of the Rule and ignores the rights and interests of victims.Defendant argues that the requirements of Rule 7:6-2(a)(1) were fully satisfied. Even assuming that the victim received no notice of the request for the civil reservation, defendant contends that the lack of notice did not deprive the municipal court of the authority to grant the belated request. Defendant asserts that the civil reservation was an essential element of his plea, that he expected the request to be granted as a matter of course, and that he *873should be able to withdraw the guilty plea if he does not receive it.

873

Amicus curiae New Jersey Association for Justice (NJAJ) contends that victims of automobile accidents are entitled to the protection afforded to them by the New Jersey Constitution. Therefore, NJAJ urges that all guilty pleas must be taken in conformity with the Rules of Court Governing the Courts of the State of New Jersey (Rules). In municipal court, NJAJ asserts that the municipal court judge must address the defendant personally and determine that the plea is made voluntarily with a full understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea. Defendant must set forth a factual basis during the proceeding, which the court must determine is sufficient to support the plea. Any request for a civil reservation must occur in open court at the time the court accepts the guilty plea. Finally, NJAJ

urges that a victim's right to notice of a plea and to object to the issuance of a civil reservation is thwarted by the belated request for and grant of the civil reservation that occurred in this case.Amicus curiae Trial Attorneys of New Jersey (TANJ) argues for affirmance of the Appellate Division opinion. It argues that the opinion is supported by case law and a reversal will have a significant impact on the trial bar and municipal court calendars. TANJ also requests that this Court consider clarifying the court rule to provide that, when accompanied by a civil reservation, neither the plea nor the factual basis for the plea is admissible in a civil action.Amicus curiae New Jersey Defense Association (N.J.D.A.) urges that the position taken by plaintiffs and NJAJ will result in the virtual elimination of the municipal court's ability to administer justice. Furthermore, a "bright line" standard currently exists in Rule 7:6-2(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 39:5-52. N.J.D.A. emphasizes that N.J.S.A. 39:5-52 requires that the victim of a motor vehicle accident be notified of the prosecution of traffic offenses only upon the request of the victim. The statute also permits the victim to consult with the prosecutor prior to the dismissal of any case against a defendant or resolution of plea negotiations. Furthermore, N.J.D.A. contends that Rule 7:6-2(a)(1) does not require that a defendant provide the factual basis to support the plea.

IV.A.Defendant pled guilty to one of the 2,607,893 non-DWI traffic cases filed in the municipal courts of this State in 2010.[4]The Rules, specifically Part 7, address all facets of municipal court practice. Rule 7:6 addresses arraignment, pleas and plea agreements, and guilty pleas by mail in non-traffic cases. The sheer magnitude of the number of non-DWI traffic offenses filed and processed by the municipal courts underscores the need to resolve these cases efficiently while still abiding by the procedures adopted by the Court.Rule 7:6-2(a)(1) permits a municipal court judge to accept a guilty plea, but the judge may

not ... accept a guilty plea without first addressing the defendant personally and determining by inquiry of the defendant and, in the court's discretion, of others, that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea and that there is a factual basis for the plea.

*874 If a civil complaint has been filed or one is anticipated, "[o]n the request of the defendant, the court may, at the time of the acceptance of a guilty plea, order that the plea shall not be evidential in any civil proceeding." R. 7:6-2(a)(1).

874

The Rule thus contemplates that the plea be made in open court, that the municipal court judge make a sufficient inquiry to conclude that any plea is knowing and voluntary, and that there be a factual basis for the plea. See ibid.Furthermore, any request to bar the use of a guilty plea in a civil proceeding must be made in open court at the time of the plea. Guilty pleas that do not follow this basic structure are subject to reversal. See State v. Colon, 374 N.J.Super.199, 210-12, 863 A.2d 1108 (App.Div.2005) (describing municipal court proceeding as "irregular" in part due to entry of guilty plea without factual basis or ascertainment of defendant's understanding of consequences of plea); State v. Martin, 335 N.J.Super. 447, 450-52, 762 A.2d 707 (App.Div.2000) (vacating judgment of conviction based on entry of guilty plea with no factual basis and without advising defendant of right to appeal and time requirements for doing so). The necessity of providing a record that permits a municipal court judge to find that a guilty plea is knowing and voluntary and that there is factual support for the plea is intended to mirror the protections of Rule 3:9-2, which governs the entry of guilty pleas in Superior Court. Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 2.1 on R. 7:6-3(a)(1) (2014).[5]

In municipal court, a defendant may request an order that the plea not be evidential in any civil proceeding. R. 7:6-2(a)(1). The order is entered as a matter of course unless the prosecutor or the victim objects.[6] State v. LaResca, 267 N.J.Super. 411, 421, 631 A.2d 986 (App. Div.1993). If the prosecutor or victim objects to a civil reservation or non-evidential order, the objecting party must show good cause for withholding the order. Ibid. This procedure differs from the Superior Court procedure where a defendant who requests a civil reservation following a guilty plea must establish good cause for entry of such an order. R. 3:9-2.Although arising in the context of a guilty plea entered pursuant to Rule 3:9-2 in Superior Court, State v. Haulaway, Inc., 257 N.J.Super. 506, 608 A.2d 964 (App.Div.1992), provides some guidance on what constitutes good cause to support entry or denial of a civil reservation. In Haulaway, the corporate defendant pled guilty to a single count of theft by deception and the individual defendant pled guilty to misconduct by a corporate officer and falsifying records. Id. at 507, 608 A.2d 964. The defendants entered those pleas knowing that the State would object to entry of a civil reservation order. Id. at 508, 608 A.2d 964. Later, the defendants sought a civil reservation to prevent the State from using their guilty pleas in a proceeding to bar them from future participation *875 in the waste disposal industry. Ibid.The Appellate Division determined that good cause did not exist to support a civil reservation because the defendants pled guilty with knowledge that the State might object to a no-civil-use order and without conditioning their plea on the entry of such an order. Id. at 508-09, 608 A.2d 964. Therefore, the panel vacated the orders. Ibid. Similarly, when a defendant offered no reason to support his request for a civil reservation to his guilty plea to harassment, the trial judge properly denied the request, although the court suggested that good cause may exist if the defendant contends that the civil consequences of a guilty plea could cause devastating financial harm. State v. Tsilimidos, 364 N.J.Super.454, 459-60, 837 A.2d 373 (App.Div.2003).

875

B.The civil reservation practice derives from the ability to offer a party's own statement against him. The admission of the fact of a criminal or quasi-criminal conviction and any statements made by a defendant at the time of a guilty plea to a criminal offense or a quasi-criminal charge, including a traffic violation, is grounded in N.J.R.E. 803(b)(1). The rule provides that "[a] statement offered against a party which is ... the party's own statement" is not excluded by the hearsay rule. N.J.R.E. 803(b)(1).This Court addressed the admissibility of a guilty plea to careless driving in a subsequent civil proceeding in Eaton v. Eaton, 119 N.J. 628, 575 A.2d 858 (1990). There, the driver of a car involved in a single-car accident was charged with and pled guilty to careless driving without an appearance in municipal court. Id. at 633-34, 575 A.2d 858. The passenger in the car died from injuries suffered in the crash. Id. at 632, 575 A.2d 858. In the ensuing wrongful death action, the driver contended that her guilty plea to careless driving was not admissible in the civil action. Id. at 643, 575 A.2d 858. This Court disagreed. Ibid. The Court discussed the admissibility of the guilty plea to a traffic offense as follows:

A party's admission may be used as affirmative substantive evidence against that party. [N.J.R.E. 803(b)(1)]; Stoelting v. Hauck, 32 N.J. 87, 106 [159 A.2d 385] (1960). Consistent with that premise, evidence of a defendant's guilty plea is admissible as an admission in a civil action. Kellam v. Akers Motor Lines, 133 N.J.L. 1, 3 [42 A.2d 261] (E. & A.1945); Mead v. Wiley Methodist Episcopal Church,23 N.J.Super. 342, 349-50 [93 A.2d 9] (App.Div.1952); see IV Wigmore on Evidence § 1066 at 82 n. 7 (1972) (Wigmore). In particular, guilty pleas to traffic offenses are admissible in civil suits to establish liability arising from the same occurrence. Kellam, supra, 133 N.J.L. at 3 [42 A.2d 261]; Liberatori v. Yellow Cab Co., 35 N.J.Super. 470, 476-77 [114 A.2d 469] (App.Div.1955); see also cases cited in Wigmore, supra, § 1066 at 82 n. 7. By contrast, a record of conviction for a non-indictable offense is inadmissible in such an action. See N.J.S.A. 2A:81-12; Burd v. Vercruyssen, 142 N.J.Super. 344, 353 [361 A.2d 571] (App.Div.1976); Mead, supra, 23 N.J.Super. at 351 [93 A.2d 9]. Unlike a party who has pled guilty, one who has unsuccessfully contested an offense has not admitted his or her guilt.

[Id. at 643-44, 575 A.2d 858.]The Court proceeded to emphasize, however, that a guilty plea is only evidence of negligence and certainly "not conclusive proof[] of the facts underlying the offense." Id. at 644, 575 A.2d 858. The party who entered the guilty plea may *876 contest the admitted fact "[b]ecause such a plea is entered without litigation of the underlying facts." Ibid.Furthermore, "[a]s with other admissions[,] the party who has entered the plea may rebut or otherwise explain the circumstances surrounding the admission." Ibid.

876

In other words, absent a properly entered civil reservation, a person who enters a guilty plea to a traffic offense may be confronted with the factual basis for it in a civil action arising from the same occurrence that triggered the issuance of the motor vehicle charge. If a person contested the charge, a conviction following a trial is not admissible because the contesting defendant never admitted his guilt. Similarly, a guilty plea to or a finding of guilt of a non-traffic, non-indictable charge is not admissible in civil proceedings because N.J.R.E. 803(3)(22) only permits, absent a civil reservation, admission of evidence of a final judgment of guilt only to an indictable offense. Moreover, care must be taken to determine whether the traffic charge to which a person pleads guilty is relevant to any issue in a civil action or even whether the Legislature authorized its use in any proceeding. Cf. State v. Lacey, 416 N.J.Super. 123, 126, 3 A.3d 591 (App.Div.2010) (rejecting contention that proceedings pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21 to -8.73 or N.J.S.A. 30:4C-1 to -40 are types of proceedings for which a civil reservation order may bar entry of guilty plea to fourth-degree child abuse), certif. denied, 205 N.J. 101, 13 A.3d 364 (2011).

C.Such an inquiry is critical in this case. Defendant was charged with violating N.J.S.A. 39:4-130, which requires a person involved in a motor vehicle accident in which someone is injured to file a written report within ten days of the accident. The report is forwarded to the Motor Vehicle Commission and the information contained in each report is "for the information of the commission." Ibid. Those required reports are not available to the public. Ibid. Neither the report nor any statement contained in the report is admissible in evidence in any subsequent proceeding for any purpose other than to establish the fact of submission of the report in any proceeding or action arising out of the accident. Ibid.Moreover, whether a person involved in a motor vehicle accident has filed or belatedly files the required report has "no probative relationship to the issue of negligence." Cobb v. Waddington, 154 N.J.Super. 11, 18, 380 A.2d 1145 (App.Div.1977), certif. denied, 76 N.J. 235, 386 A.2d 859 (1978). In short, the fact of filing, filing late, or not filing at all has no bearing on the issue of negligence in a subsequent civil proceeding and is inadmissible in any such proceeding.

V.A.In sum, a guilty plea to a traffic offense that occurs in open court must be accompanied by a factual statement given by the defendant. A person who pleads guilty to a traffic offense may request an order that prevents admission of the plea in any civil proceeding arising from the same occurrence that precipitated the motor vehicle charge. That request must occur in open court. The prosecutor or a person injured in the motor vehicle accident may object to such an order and demonstrate good cause to bar entry of such an order. If the prosecutor or the victim demonstrates good cause or the charge to which a defendant pleads guilty does not arise out of the same occurrence that is the subject of the civil proceeding, a *877 civil reservation order may not be entered. Such an order also should not be entered when the conduct encompassed by the traffic offense bears no relation to any issue in the subsequent civil proceeding. Finally, if the guilty plea is entered without a court appearance, as permitted by the Guidelines, a defendant may not pursue a civil reservation order. Such an order would contravene the requirement that a civil reservation be requested in open court contemporaneously with the entry of the guilty plea.

877

B.The municipal court proceeding in this appeal suffered from several flaws. Contrary to Rule 7:6-2(a)(1), defendant pled guilty to a motor vehicle charge without providing a factual basis. That omission precluded the municipal court from determining whether the plea was knowing and voluntary and whether it was factually supported. The civil reservation order should not have been entered after the close of the municipal court proceedings. A request must be made in open court and contemporaneously with the plea. Any other procedure frustrates the ability of a victim of a motor vehicle accident to object to the entry of such an order.Moreover, the municipal court judge entered a civil reservation order for a motor vehicle offense which would be inadmissible in any civil proceeding based on the same occurrence. Whether or not a person files the report required by N.J.S.A. 39:4-130 bears no relevance to whether the charged person operated a motor vehicle in a negligent manner on the day of the alleged incident or operated a motor vehicle at all.We expressly disapprove the Appellate Division ruling that a civil reservation need not be requested contemporaneously with the entry of the plea. We affirm, however, because whether a person submits a report of a motor vehicle accident timely, belatedly, or not at all bears no relevance to the issue of negligent operation of a motor vehicle. A guilty plea to that offense is irrelevant to any issue in the civil proceeding and inadmissible in the current civil proceeding.

VI.The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed, as modified.For affirmance as modified — Chief Justice RABNER and Justices LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, FERNANDEZ-VINA, SOLOMON and Judge CUFF (temporarily assigned) — 6.Not participating — Justice PATTERSON.Opposed — None.[1] All references to defendant in this opinion are to Michael Kuskin.[2] All references to an individual plaintiff in this opinion are to Bruce Maida.[3] The numbers refer to the fine and costs.[4] Municipal Court Statewide Statistics, New Jersey Judiciary (2015), http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/mcs/caseloadstatistics.htm (last visited Mar. 11, 2015).[5] A prosecutor may submit a Request to Approve Plea Agreement signed by the prosecutor and the defendant in lieu of a personal appearance with the approval of the municipal court judge. Guidelines for Operation of Plea Agreements in the Municipal Courts of New Jersey, Guideline 3 (Guidelines). In addition, except as otherwise provided in the rule, in all cases involving non-traffic and non-parking offenses, a defendant may submit a guilty plea by mail when a municipal court judge is satisfied that a personal appearance by the defendant would constitute an undue hardship. R. 7:6-3(a).[6] A victim of a motor vehicle accident must be provided with timely advance notice of the date, place, and time of the defendant's initial appearance and submission of any plea agreement. N.J.S.A. 39:5-52(a)(2).

Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

www.greenbaumlaw.com

WOODBRIDGE OFFICE, 99 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH, ISELIN, NEW JERSEY 08830, T: 732.549.5600 F: 732.549.188175 LIVINGSTON AVENUE, ROSELAND, NEW JERSEY 07068, T: 973.535.1600 F: 973.535.1698

Emily A. KallerPARTNER

Woodbridge Office99 Wood Avenue SouthIselin, New Jersey 08830T: 732.476.3352F: [email protected]

Departments

Litigation

Practice Groups

Banking, Business Financing& Creditors' Rights

Environmental

Education

Rutgers University School ofLaw, J.D., 1997, with highhonors

The New School for SocialResearch, B.A., 1994

Bar Admissions

New Jersey, 1997

New York, 1998

U.S. District Court, District ofNew Jersey, 1997

U.S. District Court, Easternand Southern Districts of NewYork, 2006

U.S. Court of Appeals, ThirdCircuit, 2008

Clerkships

Former law clerk to TheHonorable Freda L. Wolfson,United States District Court,District of New Jersey (1997 –

In litigation, it’s essential to consider all the options. It’simportant to recognize that being right is not necessarilythe most significant factor. I work with my clients todevelop the litigation strategy that works best for them.

Ms. Kaller's practice focuses on commercial litigation. She has experiencein the prosecution and defense of financing, credit and other bankingmatters, contract disputes including those arising under licensing andasset sale agreements, environmental contamination contributionactions, and complex litigation. Her experience also encompasses classaction litigation in matters involving consumer claims and allegedsecurities fraud. Ms. Kaller has represented clients in both state andfederal courts, including appellate practice before the New JerseySupreme Court, Appellate Division and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.Her work in chancery practice includes estate litigation, claims forinjunctive relief in business disputes, shareholder disputes and restrictivecovenants.

HONORS & AWARDS

● Named Professional Lawyer of the Year for 2013 by the MiddlesexCounty Bar Association and the New Jersey Commission onProfessionalism in the Law

● Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Rated AV® Preeminent (atrademark of Internet Brands, Inc.) (2008 – present)

● Listed in New Jersey Super Lawyers (a Thompson Reuters business)in the Business Litigation practice area (2015 – present)



1998)A description of the standard or methodology on which the accolades arebased can be found HERE. No aspect of this advertisement has beenapproved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

UNIQUELY NJ

● Member, New Jersey State Bar Association; Past Chair, Women in theProfession Section; Member, By-Laws and Resolutions Committee

● Appointed Member, New Jersey Supreme Court Committee onWomen in the Courts (2010 – 2012, 2012 – 2014, 2014 – 2016); ViceChair, Bar Education Subcommittee

● Secretary/Treasurer, Trial Attorneys of New Jersey; Chair, PublicPositions/Legislative Committee

● Member, Federal Bar Association of the State of New Jersey

● Member, Financial Women’s Association; Former co-Chair, NewJersey Committee (2010 – 2011)

● Chair, Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP Women's LeadershipForum

● Member, Rutgers Alumni Association

● Member, New School for Social Research Alumni Network

PRESENTATIONS & SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS

Moderator, Shoemaker’s Children Syndrome – What Lawyers and LawFirms Need to Know About Law Firm Policies Addressing Gender Bias inthe WorkplaceSponsor: New Jersey State Bar Association Annual Meeting, May 2016

Speaker, Beyond the Glass Ceiling: Glass DoorsSponsor: New Jersey State Bar Association Annual Meeting, May 2016

Panelist, Civil Litigation In A Civil Law StateSponsor: New Jersey State Bar Association Mid-Year Meeting, November2015

Moderator and Speaker, The Intersection of Gender and Race: A Programto Explore Gender and Racial Bias in the LawSponsor: New Jersey State Bar Association Annual Meeting, May 2015

Emily A. Kaller (Cont.)



Moderator and Speaker, Women Who Have Smashed the Glass Ceiling – A Can’t Miss Program to HelpYou Get Your Clients and Yourselves to the Pinnacle of Success, Taught By Women Who Did ItSponsor: New Jersey State Bar Association Annual Meeting, May 2015

Panelist, Family Law Matters Involving LGBT Litigants – Promoting Fairness in the LawSponsor: New Jersey State Bar Association Annual Meeting, May 2015

Panelist, Is It Because I’m ____ - How Do YOU Fill in the Blank?Sponsor: New Jersey State Bar Association Annual Meeting, May 15, 2014

Panelist, Gender Bias in the Private and Corporate Law Office Environment and How to Avoid ItSponsor: New Jersey State Bar Association Annual Meeting, May 15, 2014

Panelist, Hot Tips for Hot LitigatorsSponsor: New Jersey State Bar Association Annual Meeting, May 14, 2014

Moderator, Social Media Chatter at Work: Do’s and Don’tsSponsor: Sobel & Co.'s Executive Women's Breakfast Program, September 18, 2013

Panelist, Recognizing and Addressing Gender Bias and Its Effect on LGBT Litigants and Attorneys in theCourts, the Litigation Process and the Law PracticeSponsor: New Jersey State Bar Association Annual Meeting, May 16, 2013

Speaker, Responding to Federal Investigations and Handling Electronically Stored Information inInvestigationsSponsor: New Jersey State Bar Association Women in the Profession and Criminal Law Sections, February12, 2013

Panelist, Ladies’ DaySponsor: Rutgers University School of Law - Newark Women’s Law Forum, November 27, 2012

Speaker, Gender Bias in the Legal ProfessionSponsor: Middlesex County Bar Association, October 17, 2012

Moderator, Guidance from the Bench-Practical Advice from a Panel of Women JudgesSponsor: New Jersey State Bar Association Annual Meeting, May 17, 2012

Speaker, Recognizing and Addressing Gender Bias in the Litigation Process: What Lawyers and CourtsNeed to KnowSponsor: New Jersey State Bar Association Annual Meeting, May 17, 2012




Presenter, Management & Leadership 101 for Lawyers- The Best Tips & Techniques for Managing OtherLawyers & Fine Tuning Leadership Skills that Will Enhance Your SuccessSponsor: ExecSense Webinar, July 19, 2011

PUBLICATIONS & ALERTS

Law Requiring Posting of Updated Gender-Equity Notice Is Now In Effect in New JerseyGreenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP Client Alert, January 2014


Harry D. Norton, Jr. E-mail: [email protected] Harry is the senior member of our litigation team. A graduate of Lafayette College (B.A. 1974) and Seton Hall University (J.D. 1977), he is admitted to practice in the state and federal courts of New Jersey and New York and before the Supreme Court of the United States. Following law school, Harry served as Law Secretary to Hon. John L. Ard, J.A.D. and in the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office as Chief of the Trial Section. In addition to his private practice, Harry serves as a Municipal Court Judge in the Boroughs of Allendale, Upper Saddle River, Ho-Ho-Kus, and the Pascack Joint Municipal Court. He is Special Counsel to the Borough of Ramsey. Harry has served as an Arbitrator for the American Arbitration Association, the Superior Court of New Jersey, and the United States District Court. He is also recognized as a Rule 1:40 Qualified Mediator and is frequently appointed by the Court to mediate complex commercial disputes. He served as a Trustee for the New Jersey Institute of Local Government Attorneys. He has also served by appointment of the Supreme Court as a Volunteer III Investigator for the Office of Attorney Ethics. He has served on the Faculty of the National Business Institute presenting "Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Law in New Jersey." He has lectured at both the New Jersey State Bar Association Annual Meeting in Atlantic City and the Mid-Year Meeting in Rome, Italy as a panelist on the program known as “Hot Topics for Civil Litigators.” He is a member of the Bergen and Passaic County Bar Associations and has served as Chair of the District XI Ethics Committee. He is also an active member of the American Bar Association's Automobile Law Committee. Harry is a recipient of the Bergen County Bar Foundation's prestigious Lawyer Achievement Award. He has also been designated as an AV Preeminent Attorney by Martindale Hubbell and received the designation of a Super Lawyer in the area of Personal Injury Defense. Harry's practice areas include insurance defense, litigation of personal injury protection and reimbursement claims, defense of Title 59 defendants, defense of uninsured and underinsured claims, and investigation and prevention of insurance fraud on behalf of various insurance carriers.

mailto:[email protected]?subject=New%20E-mail%20via%20your%20website%20NortonMurphyLaw.com

FRANCISCO J. RODRIGUEZ

PARTNER

Javerbaum Wurgaft

Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins, P.C.

Jersey City Office

35 Journal Square, Suite 525

Jersey City, NJ 07306

Phone: (201) 876-8930

Fax: (201) 876-8931

Being certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Civil Trial Attorney, Francisco J. Rodriguez has

represented clients in a broad spectrum of personal injury matters including medical malpractice, nursing home

malpractice, mass torts, Federal Tort Claims Act cases, and automobile accidents. He was named as a New

Jersey Super Lawyer Rising Star from 2006 to 2008. He was then named a New Jersey Super Lawyer from

2009 to the present. He was the president of the New Jersey Association for Justice, which is New Jersey

premier association for educating lawyers to be better trial attorneys and advocates for the right to a trial by

jury and for the rights of consumers. On June 10, 2016, Mr. Rodriguez was sworn in for a three-year term as

a National Governor for the American Association of Justice representing the New Jersey Association for

Justice.

During the course of his career, Mr. Rodriguez has successfully represented children who have suffered brain

damage from obstetrical malpractice and blindness from neonatal malpractice, and patients who have been

injured due to other forms of hospital, physician and nursing errors, including the failure to timely diagnose

breast, prostate, rectal, colon, and lung cancer, the performance of unnecessary surgeries, and surgical mistakes

. He has represented many patients who have suffered spinal and neurological injuries from surgery. He has

obtained compensation for patients in nursing homes and rehabilitation facilities with pressure sores, medication

overdoses and broken bones. Mr. Rodriguez has helped many clients in need receive significant monetary

compensation, having obtained tens of millions of dollars in compensation for his clients.

Mr. Rodriguez has also successfully represented clients who have been injured in significant motor vehicle cases,

having achieved a multi-million dollar award for a woman who was a passenger in a limousine struck by a tractor

trailer.

Mr. Rodriguez wrote the appellate briefs in Jump v. Facelle, 275 A.D.2d 345, 712 N.Y.S.2d 162 (App. Div.

2d Dep’t 2000), which is the most cited case on proving proximate causation in New York State.

Mr. Rodriguez has been certified by the New Jersey Supreme Court as a civil trial attorney since 2007. He

was also appointed by the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey to the New Jersey Supreme Court

Board on Attorney Certification – Civil Trial Law Certification Committee in 2012, where he continues to

oversee the certification of attorneys for civil trial practice. The New Jersey Supreme Court also appointed him

to the Supreme Court Committee on Model Civil Jury Charges in 2011, where he had helped to revise the

many instructions that judges give to juries in civil cases. He was also appointed to the New Jersey Supreme

Court’s Working Group on Business Litigation in 2013. The United States District Court for the District of

New Jersey appointed Mr. Rodriguez to serve on two Merit Selection Panels to make recommendations to the

District Court for the hiring of three United States Magistrate Judges. Finally, in 2010 he was appointed to

be Co-Liaison Counsel for the Yaz, Yasmin and Ocella litigation by the New Jersey Superior Court.

Additionally, Mr. Rodriguez lectures multiple times per year on civil practice issues for various bar organizations

including the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education, the New Jersey Association for Justice, and

the American Association for Justice.

While attending New York University School of Law, he was the Executive Editor of the Review of Law and

Social Change. After graduating from Law School, he joined Goldsmith Ctorides & Rodriguez, where he was a

partner until he joined Javerbaum Wurgaft in 2015.

Born in Camaguey, Cuba, Mr. Rodriguez came to the United States with is parents as a young child and grew

up in Paterson, New Jersey. He has a B.A. cum laude in political science from Rutgers College and graduated

from New York University School of Law. He has been admitted to the bars of New Jersey, New York and the

United States District Court for the Districts of New Jersey, Southern District of New York and Eastern

District of New York. He is fluent in Spanish. Mr. Rodriguez resides in Hackensack, New Jersey with his wife

and daughter, and has volunteered in city government as a long-time member of the Zoning Board of

Adjustment and Local Assistance Board. He is a member of Christ Church in Hackensack.

Presentations & Publications

Publications

Howard S. Richman & Francisco J. Rodriguez, Using the Internet to Win Your Next

Medical Negligence Case, 11 ATLA PROF. NEG. REP. 137 (1996).

Francisco J. Rodriguez, A Lawyer’s Battles with the HMOs, THE VERDICT at 18 (April

1998).

Lee S. Goldsmith & Francisco J. Rodriguez, Medical Malpractice, in GENERAL PRACTICE

IN NEW YORK (West 1998).

Francisco J. Rodriguez, Automobile Insurance Reform: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing, The

Verdict at 31 (January 1999).

Presentations

Co-Moderator, Medical Malpractice Mock Trial, presented at New Jersey Association for Justice Meadowlands

Seminars, East Rutherford, New Jersey, November 2014.

The Latest on Proving Proximate Causation in Medical Malpractice Cases, presented in Medical Malpractice

Update, Institute for Continuing Legal Education, November 2014.

Top Ten in Torts in Personal Injury Program, presented at NJAJ Boardwalk Convention, Atlantic City, NJ,

April 2014.

Co-Moderator, Medical Malpractice, presented at New Jersey Association for Justice Boardwalk Seminars,

Atlantic City, New Jersey, April 2014.

Plaintiff’s Perspective, presented in Litigation Survival Guide, sponsored by Medical Society of New Jersey,

Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences University, Lawrenceville,

New Jersey, November 23, 2013.

How do I handle this?, presented in Medical Malpractice, at New Jersey Association for Justice Meadowlands

Seminars, East Rutherford, New Jersey, November 15, 2013.

Co-Moderator, Medical Malpractice, presented at New Jersey Association for Justice Meadowlands Seminars,

East Rutherford, New Jersey, November 15, 2013.

The Latest on Applegrad. What’s Discoverable and What Isn’t, presented in Medical Malpractice Update,

Institute for Continuing Legal Education, November 2, 2013.

Trying to Make Sense Out of Model Jury Charge (Civil), 5.50E, and “But For” and “Substantial Factor”

Causation Issues after Koseoglu v. Wry, McLean v. Liberty Health, and Flood v. Aluri-Vallabhaneni, presented in

Medical Malpractice Update, Institute for Continuing Legal Education, November 2, 2013.

Medical Records: Exposing Fraud in Doctor Medical Records – Does that really happen?, presented in

Litigation at Sunrise, New Jersey Association for Justice Meadowlands Seminars, East Rutherford, New Jersey,

November 15, 2013.

Pre-Trial Med Mal Settlement Techniques, presented in Insider’s Guide to Settling Personal Injury Cases,

New Jersey Association for Justice Meadowlands Seminars, East Rutherford, New Jersey, November 13, 2013.

Co-Moderator: Insider’s Guide to Settling Personal Injury Cases, New Jersey Association for Justice

Meadowlands Seminars, East Rutherford, New Jersey, November 13, 2013.

Special Considerations in Hiring the Right Expert, presented in Litigation at Sunrise, New Jersey Association

for Justice Meadowlands Seminars, East Rutherford, New Jersey, November 15, 2012.

Co-Moderator, Medical Malpractice the Nursing Home Case, New Jersey Association for Justice Meadowlands


Co-Moderator, Medical Malpractice Live Trial-Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy, New Jersey Association for

Justice Meadowlands Seminars, East Rutherford, New Jersey, November 14, 2012.

Preparing for Battle: Cross-Examination of the Defendant, presented in Trial Examinations 101, New Jersey

Association for Justice Boardwalk Convention, April 27, 2012.

Does the U.S. Get Charitable Immunity?, presented in Medical Malpractice 2012, presented at New Jersey

Association for Justice Boardwalk Convention, Atlantic City, NJ, April 27, 2012.


April 26, 2012.

Co-Moderator, Nuts and Bolts of Medical Malpractice, presented in New Jersey Association for Justice, Four

Concurrent Seminars, Edison, New Jersey, February 18, 2012.

Co-Moderator, Medical Malpractice Across the USA, New Jersey Association for Justice Meadowlands


Co-Moderator, Medical Malpractice Mock Trial, New Jersey Association for Justice Meadowlands Seminars,

East Rutherford, New Jersey, November 10, 2011.

Co-Moderator, Medical Malpractice 2011, presented at NJAJ Boardwalk Convention, Atlantic City, NJ, April

15, 2011.

Apparent Authority after Cordero in Medical Malpractice 2011, presented at NJAJ Boardwalk Convention,

Atlantic City, NJ, April 15, 2011.


April 14, 2011.

Co-Moderator, New Jersey Association for Justice, Four Concurrent Seminars: Nuts and Bolts of Medical

Malpractice, Edison, New Jersey, February 26, 2011.

Malpractice Across America, Co-Moderator, New Jersey Association for Justice Meadowlands Seminars,

November 11, 2010.

Medical Malpractice Mock Trial, Co-Moderator, New Jersey Association for Justice Meadowlands Seminars,

November 10, 2010.

Medical Malpractice 2010: Co-Moderator, presented at NJAJ Boardwalk Convention, Atlantic City, NJ, April

23, 2010.

Fictitious Name Practice in Medical Malpractice 2010, presented at NJAJ Boardwalk Convention, Atlantic

City, NJ, April 23, 2010.


April 22, 2010.

Co-Moderator, New Jersey Association for Justice, Four Concurrent Seminars: Medicine for Lawyers, Edison,

New Jersey, February 27, 2010.

Malpractice Across America, Co-Moderator, New Jersey Association for Justice Meadowlands Seminars,

November 13, 2009.

Medical Malpractice Mock Trial, Co-Moderator, New Jersey Association for Justice Meadowlands Seminars,

November 12, 2009.

Medical Malpractice 2009: Co-Moderator, presented at NJAJ Boardwalk Convention, Atlantic City, NJ,

April 24, 2009.

Closing the Loop: Evaluating the Neonatal Care, presented at NJAJ Boardwalk Convention, Atlantic City,

NJ, April 24, 2009.

Courtroom Storytelling with Jim M. Perdue, Sr., Esq.: Moderator, presented at NJAJ Boardwalk

Convention, Atlantic City, NJ, April 24, 2009.

Top Ten in Torts, presented at NJAJ Boardwalk Convention, Atlantic City, NJ, April 23, 2009.

Co-Moderator, New Jersey Association for Justice, Four Concurrent Seminars: Medicine for Lawyers, Edison,

New Jersey, February 21, 2009.

Legal Corner: Hispanic Bar Association of New Jersey and Galaxy Towers Video Presentation of Medical

Malpractice, January 14, 2009.

Dealing with the Surge in Nursing Home Litigation, With a Special Presentation on Pressure Ulcers, for the

New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education (ICLE). This seminar will be held on Thursday, December

4th, 2008 at 5:00 p.m.

Malpractice Across America, Co-Moderator, ATLA-NJ Meadowlands Seminars, October 18, 2008.

Medical Malpractice Mock Trial, Co-Moderator, New ATLA-NJ Meadowlands Seminars, October 17, 2008.

Missing & Altered Medical Records: TNT in the Courtroom, presented at NJAJ Boardwalk Convention,

Atlantic City, NJ, May 2, 2008.

Top Ten in Torts, presented at ATLA-NJ Boardwalk Convention, Atlantic City, NJ, May 1, 2008.

Cross-examination of the Defense Expert Radiologist, presented at ATLA-NJ Meadowlands Seminars, October

20, 2007.

Sleeping with the Enemy: Using the Defense Expert to Your Advantage, presented at ATLA-NJ Boardwalk

Convention, Atlantic City, NJ, April 27, 2007.

Top Ten in Torts: Clark v. UMDNJ, presented at ATLA-NJ Boardwalk Convention, Atlantic City, NJ, April

26, 2007.

Careers in the Law (Panelist), presented for Hispanic Bar Association of New Jersey Law School Mentorship

Program, Rutgers Law School, Camden, NJ, November 18, 2006.

Sleeping with the Enemy: Using the Defense Expert as Your Expert, presented at ATLA-NJ Four Concurrent

Seminars: Hot Tips in Torts, Pines Manor, Edison, NJ, October 28, 2006.

The Revised Jury Charge Regarding the Alteration and Destruction of Records, presented at ATLA-NJ

Boardwalk Convention, Atlantic City, NJ, April 28, 2006.

Refusal of Life Support, presented at Law & Medicine, Fordham University School of Law, February 23,

2006.

New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education Skills and Methods Course-Civil Trial Preparation at

Seton Hall Law School, Newark, New Jersey, October 17, 2005.


Seton Hall Law School, Newark, New Jersey, November 16, 2004.

Futility & Brain Death, presented at Law & Medicine, Fordham University School of Law, March 4, 2004.

Refusal of Life Support, presented at Law & Medicine, Fordham University School of Law, February 5,

2004.


Seton Hall Law School, Newark, New Jersey, November 25, 2003.

Litigating the Emergency Room Malpractice Case, presented at ATLA-NJ Boardwalk Convention, Atlantic

City, NJ, April 25, 2003.

How to Evaluate Lien Claims and Claims of Subrogation Rights Related to Health Insurance Policies, present

at Hispanic Bar Association of NJ Seminars in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, May 2002.

The Raging Mouse: Discovery through the Internet, presented at ATLA Winter Convention, New Orleans,

La., February 2001 and in updated form at ATLA Summer Convention, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, July 2001.

Medicine & the Law, Fordham University School of Law – Guest Lecturer 2/5/98, 2/12/98, 4/2/98,

1/14/99, 1/21/99, 1/28/99, 4/1/99, 4/15/99, 4/19/00.

Know Your Healthcare Rights, Coalition of Concerned Legal Professionals 1998, 1999, 2000

Bar Admission

New Jersey 1995

New York 1996

ALDO J. RUSSO

Partner

[email protected]

201-798-0400 ext. 205

Aldo J. Russo practices in the areas of insurance coverage, defense

litigation, products liability, employment discrimination, real estate and

public entity/government law. He has represented a number of insurance

carriers and municipalities in both State and Federal Court and has been

licensed to practice law since 1992. He is licensed by the State of New

Jersey, the United States District Court for New Jersey and the United

States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Aldo has extensive experience

both at the trial and appellate levels. He has argued before the New Jersey

Supreme Court, successfully arguing the case of Proformance Insurance

Co. V Jones, 185 NJ 406 (2005), which held that a business pursuits

exclusion may limit the insurer’s liability to the statutory required minimum

limits of coverage. Aldo is also certified by the Supreme Court of New

Jersey as a Certified Civil Trial Attorney.

Prior to merging with Lamb Kretzer, LLC, Aldo was the managing partner at

Russo & Della Badia, LLC. from 2000-2012 and an associate for O’Toole &

mailto:[email protected]

Couch from 1992-2000. Aldo graduated from Seton Hall University in 1988,

where he received a B.A. in Political Science. He received his Juris Doctorate

from Quinnipiac University School of Law on 1991. He began his career

serving as a law clerk for the Honorable Gerald B. Hanifan, J.S.C. from 1991-

1992.

Aldo is a member of the New Jersey State Bar Association, Essex County Bar

Association, Morris County Bar Association. Trial Attorneys of New Jersey

and the New Jersey Defense Association where he currently holds the

position of Director and co-chairs the public entities committee. In addition to

his professional responsibilities, Aldo has served as a youth basketball and

lacrosse coach and Athletic Director of CYO basketball for his church. Aldo is

also a member of the Florham Park Volunteer Fire Department.

CIVIL RESERVATION OF RIGHTS: APPLICATION OF MAIDA v. KUSKIN IN PERSONAL INJURY … ·...

Documents

Transcript of CIVIL RESERVATION OF RIGHTS: APPLICATION OF MAIDA v. KUSKIN IN PERSONAL INJURY … ·...