03-2-6873 Fort Lee Surgery Center Inc. v. Proformance Insurance Company , App. Div. (Fisher, J.A.D.) (7 pp.) The Alternative Procedure for Dispute Resolution Act (APDRA), N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-1 to -30, declares that, following a trial court’s judgment, confirming, modifying or correcting an award, “[t]here shall be no further appeal or review,” N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-18(b). Notwithstanding, it has been recognized that appellate courts retain supervisory jurisdiction to ensure that trial courts limit their review of arbitration awards to the circumstances authorized by N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-13. Here, the court held that so long as a trial court rationally articulates that correction of an award is required by one of the grounds set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-13, appellate courts are not free to intervene even when believing the trial court was mistaken in correcting the award. Any broader view of appellate jurisdiction would eviscerate N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-18(b) and conflict with the Legislature’s expressed desire, in enacting APDRA, to eliminate appellate review. [Decided Feb. 22, 2010.] [Digested at page 42.]
CONDEMNATION — JUST COMPENSATION
44-2-6862 N.J. Schools Construction Corp. v. Lopez , App. Div. (Parrillo, J.A.D.) (24 pp.) In this condemnation action instituted by the former New Jersey Schools Construction Corporation (now New Jersey Schools Development Authority), we hold that the value of improvements to the property, made after the defendant-owner received a “Notice of Interest” (NOI) letter from the agency, are included in setting just compensation, where there was no proof that these improvements were constructed for the sole purpose of enhancing the condemnation award. Also, absent any indicia of imminent condemnation, the owner who failed to disclose his receipt of the NOI letter to the local zoning board, before which variance approvals were pending, did not engage in bad faith. As a threshold issue, we held that a consent order of settlement that expressly reserves the right to appeal an interlocutory order and provides that the judgment would be vacated if the interlocutory order were reversed on appeal is appealable under Rule 2:2-3. [Decided Feb. 19, 2010.] [Digested at page 43.]
