01-3-3779 In the Matter of the Application of J.D. to Purchase a Handgun , Law Div. — Camden Cy. (Natal, J.S.C.) (15 pp.) This arose from the appeal of the denial of an application for a firearm permit. The seminal issue is whether a court, after becoming aware that a firearm applicant has a prior psychiatric diagnosis and commitment that has been expunged, may inquire into whether the applicant has overcome the psychiatric disability that would ordinarily accompany the diagnosis. Put differently, this issue requires a determination of the extent to which the beneficiary of an expungement order can rely on the benefit of the order. [Decided Feb. 2, 2009.] [Digested at page 50.]
CONSTRUCTION — ARBITRATION
43-2-3754 Schadrack v. K.P. Burke Builder, L.L.C. , App. Div. (Sabatino, J.A.D.) (34 pp.) A de novo standard of judicial review applies to contentions that the arbitration of a construction lien claim violated the statutory requirements of the Construction Lien Law (CLL), N.J.S.A. 2A:44A-1 to -38. However, using that review standard, we are satisfied that the CLL arbitrations in these two related cases did not sufficiently, if at all, transgress the statute so as to require forfeiture of the respective contractors’ liens. Specifically, in Schadrack v. LED , we conclude that the arbitrator’s acceptance and consideration of supplemental documents from the lienor, over the homeowners’ objection, did not violate the terms of the CLL and instead was a matter within the arbitrator’s discretion under the Rules of the American Arbitration Association. We also find that the lienor’s misidentification on the lien form of the corporate name of the project’s general contractor was a de minimus error that did not require forfeiture. In Schadrack v. Burke , we conclude that the lienor’s untimely service of a request for arbitration was inconsequential because the homeowners failed to demonstrate the material prejudice required under the CLL’s service provision, N.J.S.A. 2A:44A-7, to warrant forfeiture. Section 7′s requirement of proof of material prejudice is not nullified by § 5(c) of the CLL, N.J.S.A. 2A:44-5(c), that generally calls for strict compliance with statutory requirements in residential lien cases. [Decided May 8, 2009.] [Digested at page 49.]
