01-2- 8792 Lumumba v. N.J. Dep’t of Corr., App. Div. (per curiam) (8 pp.) Appellant, an inmate in the New Jersey State Prison, appealed from the decision of the New Jersey Department of Corrections upholding a hearing officer’s finding that he had committed 16 disciplinary infractions. The panel reversed and remanded, finding that because one hearing officer had conducted the confrontation proceeding, during which the senior investigator who had reported each of the alleged prohibited acts testified in response to appellant’s written questions and another hearing officer replaced him and rendered the decisions on each of the disciplinary charges, a new hearing was required, because the confrontation proceeding took place outside the decision maker’s presence. At the new hearing, all the evidence would be submitted to the same hearing officer, who would make the required findings of fact and conclusions, including those relating to the investigator’s credibility, based on the evidence presented.
07-2-8816 Emerita Urban Renewal L.L.C. v. N.J. Court Servs. L.L.C.,App. Div. (per curiam) (8 pp.) Defendants New Jersey Court Services L.L.C. and Jay Itkowitz appealed from an order granting summary judgment and awarding plaintiff Emerita Urban Renewal L.L.C. $1,911,877.12, including $17,325 for the cost of electronically stored information (ESI) discovery requests by defendants. New Jersey Court Services entered into a 15-year lease of commercial office space with 744 Elroy Urban Renewal Investors L.L.C. Itkowitz agreed to personally guarantee the payment of rent. Both the lease and the personal guarantee provided for the imposition of court costs and attorney fees in the event that nonpayment necessitated a rent collection lawsuit. The lease further prohibited waiver, alteration or amendment by custom or practice unless it was in writing, signed by the landlord. Defendants paid rent for the first seven years of the lease; however, defendants failed to pay rent in 2007 and again beginning in December 2009, continuing through February 2013, at which point defendants vacated the leased premises. 744 Elroy filed a complaint against defendants. Plaintiff bought the property from 744 Elroy and took assignment of the pending litigation. During discovery, defendants served Emerita with a request to produce certain documents. Emerita moved for a protective order, which the trial court denied. The court ultimately ordered plaintiff to produce internal emails to support defendant’s asserted waiver defense. Plaintiff continued to resist production, but ultimately complied. Plaintiff contracted the production work to a technology vendor, which provided the discovery services at a cost of $17,325. On appeal, defendants argued that plaintiff’s claims were precluded or alternatively, defendants had demonstrated a material question of fact requiring further testimony and evidence. The appellate panel disagreed and affirmed the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff. Further, because the parties clearly contemplated that defendants would assume the costs of litigation required to collect delinquent rents, the panel found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding ESI costs to plaintiff.
