Removal From Sex Offenders List – Additional Offenses

May 30, 2017 · Posted in Blog · Comment 

Written by: lauren billings

DOES COMMISSION OF ANY OFFENSE BAR REMOVAL FROM MEGAN’S LAW SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION UNDER 2C:7-2(f) AFTER 15 YEARS OR DOES THIS ONLY APPLY TO COMMISSION OF ADDITIONAL SEX OFFENSES?

A very competent and thorough NY attorney recently approached us with an interesting question. He had a client on the N.J. Registry and on the NY Registry for Megan Law Sex Offenses. He wanted to apply in NY to have his risk level reduced from 2 down to 1 however, thought it would be helpful to have him first removed from the NJ Registry as more then 15 years had passed. However, the client had became homeless for a short period of time and failed to register and was convicted in 2011 in NY for failure to register. The issue was whether the term “offense” in 2C:7-2(f) mean another “sex offense” or any “offense.” Read more

MOTOR VEHICLE SUSPENSIONS FOR VIOLATIONS COMMITTED DURING PROBATION PERIOD

May 20, 2017 · Posted in Blog · Comment 

Written by: lauren billings

The New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles schedules the suspension of drivers who commit motor vehicle offenses while they are on probation. The authority for doing so comes from N.J.S.A. 39:5-30 and 39:5-30.10. Drivers whose licenses are restored after a suspension under N.J.A.C. 13:19-10.2, who are officially warned after an administrative hearing, and persons who successfully complete a Commission Driver Improvement Program or Probationary Driver are subject to suspension if within one year they commit any motor vehicle violations. Read more

NJ Driver Unaware He Was Driving Without Insurance

May 15, 2017 · Posted in Blog · Comment 

Written by: Randolph Wolf

DRIVING WITHOUT INSURANCE UNDER 39:6B-2 WHEN DRIVER OF CAR IS NOT THE OWNER AND DOES NOT KNOW THE CAR IS UNINSURED, PROPER REQUIREMENTS TO CANCEL AUTO INSURANCE POLICY IN NEW JERSEY, AND DEFENDING CHARGE OF 39:3-40 DRIVING WITH SUSPENDED REGISTRATION

We recently appeared in the Colts Neck Municipal Court representing a young man charged with driving without insurance under 39:6B-2 and driving a car with a suspended registration under 39:3-40. These are both serious violations. The uninsured ticket carries with it a fine of between $300 and $1000, community service, and a one year license suspension. The driving with a suspended registration carries with it a fine of $500 and a 6 month suspension of license.
Read more

Telecommunications Law- NJ Superior Court Issues Opinion on Services Provided by Verizon

April 9, 2017 · Posted in Blog · Comment 

Written by: Randolph Wolf

It is not often that the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey issues an opinion of interest in Telecommunications Law. Last week it did so. As one of the few firms in New Jersey that practices Telecommunications Law, we like to keep our clients up to date.

The issue is whether certain specified services provided by Verizon should be reclassified as competitive rather than ILEC. BPU entered the order based on a settlement between the Board staff and Verizon after an contested hearing. Division of Rate Counsel then appealed to the Appellate Division.

Verizon originally submitted a request to BPU in 2007, covering all the services that it provided that were not yet designated as competitive. In 2008 that was settled (the settlement included not just Verizon but other ILEC’s), and all but four services were reclassified as competitive. The four services not reclassified were for (1) residential basic exchange service; (2) single-line business basic exchange service; (3) non-recurring charges for residential service connection and installation; and (4) residential directory assistance services. As to these, the Board continued to exercise authority to regulate the rates and terms of service, while providing that there would be further hearings to determine if these could be re-designated.

BPU issued an order in 2011 to initiate the additional hearings, which began in 2012. In 2013 CenturyLink (formerly Embarq) and Rate Counsel reached a settlement preserving the status as to all but directory assistance; the Board approved this Order. Subsequently, in May of 2015, the Board staff and Verizon reached a proposed settlement. Under it, Verizon’s four remaining regulated services be reclassified as competitive services, subject to a five-year transition period and several conditions. Those conditions included that (1) the services would have rate caps for five years; (2) existing service quality standards would continue to apply to certain services for three years and, thereafter, the Board would determine whether those quality standards would continue for the remaining two years; (3) the rate for Verizon’s Life Line services would not increase during the five-year transition period; (4) Verizon would continue to offer social program and services for disabled and low-income customers; (5) Verizon would undertake certain obligations, including reporting on the number of residential basic exchange service lines and single-line business exchange lines; and (6) Verizon would continue to be governed by applicable statutory and administrative requirements. The 2015 Stipulation also provided that the Board could, pursuant to its statutory authority, investigate the classification of telecommunications services should competitive conditions change in the future. The Board sought comments, which came from various sources, most prominently Rate Counsel, which opposed the settlement that the data from the 2012 hearings was stale and that in the interim the market had become less competitive. Verizon submitted comments disputing this. The Board accepted the settlement by order on June 5, 2015.

On Rate Counsel’s appeal, the App Div affirmed the BPU order. It noted that when reviewing administrative agency decision its scope of review was limited. Thus, it accepted findings of fact as long as they had some support in the record; and they defer to a degree to the administrative agency’s assessments of fact and law, due to the agency’s greater familiarity with both. Applying those standards, it found no basis to overturn the Board’s decision. The Board properly considered each of the three factors defined in NJ’s Telecommunications Act of 1992 with regard to such reclassifications, which provides that the Board shall develop standards of competitive service which, at a minimum, shall include evidence of ease of market entry; presence of other competitors; and the availability of like or substitute services in the relevant geographic area.” The Board considered the number of CLEC’s operating in the state, together with alternatives such as cable and wireless, as establishing these. Further, it held that the Board did consider the public interest, noting that the 1992 Act showed a preference for competition and with it less regulation.

The Appellate Division is:

A-4769-14T2
IN THE MATTER OF THE BOARD’S INVESTIGATION REGARDING THE RECLASSIFICATION OF INCUMBENT LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIER SERVICES AS COMPETITIVE
(BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES)

Name Change for Client on Work Visa – DMV / SAVE

March 13, 2017 · Posted in Blog · Comment 

Written by: lauren billings

Client from India who is Legal Resident on work visa cannot renew NJ Driver’s License because the name on the Federal SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program Database System) and the Department of Motor Vehicles do not match.

Our firm was recently hired to help a citizen of India here on a work visa renew his NJ Driver’s License.  The problem arose because the federal Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program Database System (SAVE) has a programming error.  Due to the way the name appears on a passport from India, the SAVE database merges the person’s first and middle name into a single first name. The SAVE database is a component of the Department of Homeland Security that was created “as a fast, secure and efficient verification service for federal, state and local benefit-granting agencies to verify a benefit applicant’s immigration status or naturalized/derived citizenship.” Read more

Restraining Orders: Proving Intent to Harass

December 13, 2016 · Posted in Blog · Comment 

Written by: Randolph Wolf

New Jersey Restraining Orders: Proving Intent to Harass

If you are the defendant in a restraining order case who is being charged with harassment, it is vital that you contact an experienced New Jersey restraining order attorney to discuss your case. The criminal charge of harassment is quite broad and nature and, as a result, is often alleged by the plaintiffs in restraining order contexts.

New Jersey case law, however, requires that the defendant have acted with an actual intent to harass in this context. Many times, the defendant’s alleged harassing conduct was not done with an actual intent to harass the plaintiff, but instead was done for some other reason. As such, the plaintiff’s failure to prove that the defendant acted with an intent to harass can be a winning defense in many of these cases. Read more

DWI vs DUI in New Jersey

December 8, 2016 · Posted in Blog · Comment 

Written by: Randolph Wolf

New Jersey DWI/DUI FAQs

The DWI attorneys at the Law Office of Randolph H. Wolf have been representing defendants charged with DWI/DUI for over more than 25 years. We know not only the law, but also how the system works and we use our knowledge and experience to help protect your rights and fight for you to achieve the best possible outcome.

The following are some of the most commonly asked DWI questions.  Read more

Restraining Orders for Out of State Defendants

November 26, 2016 · Posted in Blog · Comment 

Written by: Randolph Wolf

NJ Restraining Orders: Do New Jersey Courts Have Personal Jurisdiction Over an Out-of-State Defendant? 

Often times, victims of domestic violence flee their home state in order to escape the violence of their alleged perpetrators.  In these instances, the State of New Jersey does protect victims of domestic violence who come to New Jersey looking for refuge from their alleged abusers.  In this regard, New Jersey’sPrevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. § 2C:25-17 to -35, permits fleeing victims of domestic violence to file for a protective order in a place where the plaintiff resides or is sheltered at the time of the filing.  See N.J.S.A. § 2C:25-28 (“[A] plaintiff may apply for relief under this section in a court having jurisdiction over the place where the alleged act of domestic violence occurred, where the defendant resides, or where the plaintiff resides or is sheltered.”)  Read more

New Jersey Bail Reform

November 16, 2016 · Posted in Blog · Comment 

Written by: Randolph Wolf

New Jersey Bail Reform – Major Changes Effective January 1, 2017

On January 1, 2017, substantial changes to the processing of criminal cases in New Jersey will go into effect. Although the changes made under New Jersey’s criminal law reform will affect almost all aspects of a New Jersey criminal case, the focus in particular will be on the following two areas of criminal law in New Jersey: (1) pretrial release and bail; and (2) the right to a speedy trial. Read more

Out of State DWI Convictions May Count Towards Priors

October 4, 2016 · Posted in Blog · Comment 

Written by: Randolph Wolf

Out of State DWI Convictions May Count Towards Priors When Charged with Violating N.J.S.A.2C:10-26 (Fourth Degree Operating a Motor Vehicle During a DWI Suspension)

Just recently, in State v. Luzhak, the New Jersey Appellate Division construed N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26, fourth degree operating a motor vehicle during a license suspension stemming from DWI, to apply to DWI convictions from anywhere in the United States. In that case, the defendant, who had two prior DWI convictions, one from 2013 in Maryland and the other from 2010 in New Jersey, was issued a motor vehicle summons in Woodbridge for driving with a suspended license in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:3-40.

The defendant was subsequently indicated for fourth-degree operating a motor vehicle during a second license suspension stemming from a DWI, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b). The defendant thereafter filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the 2013 DWI conviction in Maryland did not qualify as a predicate DWI conviction pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b). The defendant’s argument was essentially that, since N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b) did not specifically reference license suspensions due to out-of-state DWI convictions, the statute should be interpreted to specifically require previous license suspensions pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, New Jersey’s DWI statute.

The Appellate Division first reviewed the legislative history regarding N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26 and noted that the Senate intended to impose

“criminal penalties for persons whose [drivers’] licenses are suspended for certain drunk driving offenses and who, while under suspension for those offenses, unlawfully operate a motor vehicle.”

The court also noted that the law was prompted by reports of fatal or serious accidents caused by those with multiple DWI convictions, who continued to drive with suspended licenses. In addition, the court further noted that prior decisions have held that out-of-state convictions for an offense equivalent to a DWI were to be considered as a prior offense for enhanced sentencing purposes on a subsequent DWI conviction.

Using this analysis, in addition to New Jersey’s strong public policy against drunk driving, the court held that N.J.S.A.2C:40-26(b) contemplated convictions for DWI or its equivalent in foreign jurisdictions — even those jurisdictions which are not a party state in the Interstate Driver License Compact. In short, what this means is that DWI convictions from anywhere in the United States can expose you to the criminal penalties as set forth in N.J.S.A.2C:40-26, a fourth-degree crime. Those penalties include a mandatory 180 day county jail sentence in addition to up to two years of license suspension on top of the already existing suspension.

Despite the Appellate Division’s decision, other defenses may remain. For example, if we are able to establish that your out-of-state DWI conviction was based exclusively upon a violation of a proscribed blood alcohol concentration of less than 0.08%, then that conviction may not count against you as a prior DWI conviction. If you have been charged with violating N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26, contact the DWI attorneys at the Law Office of Randolph H. Wolf today. We will review your case for possible defenses to this charge. Call us today at (732) 741-4448 for a free consultation.

Next Page »

This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. [ Sitemap ]