1. NJ can suspend NJ driving privilege for NY DWI if NJ was person's home state at time of arrest. DiPopolo v NJ Motor Vehicle CommissionUnreported App. Div. DOCKET NO. A-2805-12T2 Decided February 3, 2014
2. Interlock needs to be imposed after refusal despite that the DWI warnings did not mention interlock. State v. McGrath, Unreported App. Div Docket A-2929-12T4
3. Next Community Events
4. Welcome Summer Law Students
5. If You are Hurt in an Accident, We Can Help
1. NJ can suspend NJ driving privilege for NY DWI if NJ was person's home state at time of arrest
Appellant appeals from the final decision of respondent New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC) to deny his request for a hearing and suspend his New Jersey driver's license for 3650 days pursuant to the Interstate Driver License Compact (the Compact), based on his out-of-state (New York) conviction of driving while intoxicated (DWI). Appellant raises an issue of law with respect to the proper interpretation and application of N.J.S.A. 39:5D-4, contending that he was not subject to suspension of his New Jersey driver's license pursuant to the Compact because New Jersey was not his "home State" at the time of conviction. It is the driver's status as a New Jersey licensee, not resident, that governs the MVC's authority to suspend a driver's license pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:5-30(a). Here, New Jersey issued the driver's license appellant held at the time of the offense and had the power at that time to suspend or revoke it. Thus, New Jersey fits within the Compact's definition of a "home State." The appellate panel holds that the surrender of a New Jersey driver's license after committing an out-of-state DWI offense but before conviction does not deprive New Jersey of its home-State status under the Compact. It is the driver's status as a New Jersey licensee at the time of the offense, not the time of conviction that governs the MVC's authority to suspend a driver's license pursuant to the Compact. There is sufficient credible evidence in the record as a whole supporting the MVC's decision to suspend appellant's New Jersey driver's license for 3650 days. No evidentiary hearing was required.
Source NJ Law Journal Daily Briefing - 02/04/2014. a member benefit of the NJ State Bar Association. To join the NJSBA, go to www.njsba.com or contact NJSBA Member Services at 732-249-5000. For full text of opinions, contact NJ Law Journal
2. Interlock needs to be imposed after refusal despite that the DWI warnings did not mention interlock. State v. McGrath, UnreportedApp. Div Docket A-2929-12T4
After a trial de novo in the Law Division, defendant appeals from his conviction for refusing to submit to a chemical breath test. Defendant argues the conviction should be reversed because the officer read the April 2004 version of the standard statement under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2(e), which omitted mention that, if convicted, the court would be required to order installation of an ignition interlock device. The municipal court found defendant guilty of refusal, but found him not guilty of DUI. As a third or subsequent offender, the court suspended defendant's driving privileges for ten years; required that he attend the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center for forty-eight hours; ordered installation of the ignition interlock until one year after restoration of driving privileges; and imposed monetary fines and penalties. The Law Division judge found defendant guilty anew and re-imposed the sentence of the municipal court, except the court did not require an ignition interlock, because defendant was not noticed of any interlock device when the statement was read. The appellate panel affirms based on the Supreme Court's subsequent decision in State v. O'Driscoll. The panel concludes that the omission of the ignition interlock requirement in the 2004 statement was not material in this case where defendant would not have likely felt more impelled to give a breath sample if the standard statement read had advised him that, if convicted, he would be required to install an ignition interlock. The panel remands for correction of the sentence to require the ignition interlock. Source NJ Law Journal Daily Briefing 2/24/14
3. Next Community Events
Wills and Estate Planning- Free Seminar
Wednesday June 18
12:15-1:00 PM and also
5:00-5:45 PM
Location: Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen, 2053 Woodbridge Ave, Edison, NJ 08817
COST: Free if you pre-register.Complimentary materials provided at 12:00 sharp. This program is limited to 15 people. Please bring a canned food donation, which will be given to the St. James Food Bank located on Woodbridge Avenue in Edison, NJ. Please email us if you plan on attending or if you would like us to email the materials.
SPEAKER: Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.
(Author- Answers to Questions About Probate)
The NJ Probate Law made a number of substantial changes in Probate and the administration of estates and trusts in New Jersey.
Main Topics:
1. The New Probate Law and preparation of Wills
2. 2014 changes in Federal Estate and Gift Tax exemption
3. NJ Inheritance tax $675,000
4. Power of Attorney
5. Living Will
6. Administering the Estate/ Probate/Surrogate
7. Question and Answer
COMPLIMENTARY MATERIAL: Brochures on Wills, "Answers to Questions about Probate" and Administration of an Estate, Power of Attorney, Living Wills, Real Estate Sales for Seniors, and Trusts.
To attend email VercammenLaw@Njlaws.com
4. Welcome Summer Law Students
Kenneth Vercammen and Associates welcomes the following summer law students who are workings on Public Defender matters, community seminars, and are updating the Public Defender's Criminal Article Blog:
Jillian Spielman, going into her third year at New York Law School
Joseph Son, going into his second year at New England Law School
Latchmi Michele Budhram, going into her third year at New England Law School
Andrew J. McCarten, going into his second year at University of Miami Law School
Conor Hennessey going into his second year at Rutgers- Newark School of Law
5. If You Are Hurt In An Accident, We Can Help
If you are hurt in a car, slip and fall or other type of accident, please call us. We are dedicated to providing the highest quality of legal representation to accident victims. We represent accident victims only - Not insurance companies. We Will fight for your rights and try to resolve your claim as fast as possible, with the goal being to obtain the maximum compensation for you. We offer a free, no-obligation consultation
| 
