The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently agreed to review a decision by a trial judge in a civil case, Maida v. Kuskin, declining to recognize an order of a municipal court judge that a plea of guilty would not be evidential in any civil proceeding. The reason for the trial court’s ruling was that the defendant had not asked for the civil reservation in open court, although his lawyer had, later that day, sent a letter to the municipal judge asking for such reservation. Following the grant of interlocutory review, the Appellate Division reversed the trial judge, in essence holding that a liberal approach toward the grant of civil reservations was customary.
At first blush, this might seem like a rather routine matter not warranting Supreme Court consideration. But it is not. To a “victim” in a municipal court case, the grant of a reservation may have great importance in a future proceeding. Presumably, when a request for a reservation of rights is made in open court, the adversary party has an opportunity to object. Under R. 7:6-2(a)(1), the municipal judge has the discretion to decline the reservation, and if a request for the same is not made in open court, the opportunity to object obviously is lost.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
