.

Legal Updates for New Jersey Public Entity & Civil Rights

County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey Not a Public Entity and Not Subject to the Open Public Records Act

Presented by the Public Entity & Civil Rights Litigation Practice Group

December 28, 2022

by Matthew J. Behr

The plaintiff, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU), served the County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey (CPANJ) with a request to produce documents pursuant to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA). The CPANJ responded that it was not a public agency and, therefore, not subject to the dictates of OPRA. The ACLU filed an action to declare that CPANJ is a public entity and, consequently, had to respond to the OPRA request. The trial judge granted CPANJ’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, holding that CPANJ was not a public agency under OPRA and not subject to the common law right of access. The ACLU appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the decision (A-2572-20).

In support of its motion to dismiss, CPANJ described itself as a non-profit society organized pursuant to Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code, which covers business leagues. It is a private association comprised of county prosecutors and has as its goal the promotion of the orderly administration of criminal justice within the state and the fair and effective enforcement of the constitution and laws of this state through cooperation of all law enforcement agencies. The goals are not binding upon any of its members, and the organization does not assume the responsibilities of any member’s individual duties. It also does not fulfill a purpose or perform the duties of the prosecutors’ offices and membership is not required.

The court accepted these arguments and found that the CPANJ was not a political subdivision subject to the OPRA. The counties did not directly create CPANJ, distinguishing this from Fair Share Hous. Ctr., Inc. v. New Jersey State League of Municipalities, 207 N.J. 489 (2011), which found that the League was an instrumentality created by a combination of political subdivisions and, thus, a public entity subject to the OPRA. Moreover, the court found that county prosecutors’ law enforcement functions are independent of the counties they operate in and it cannot be assumed that the counties played any role in creating CPANJ. Moreover, CPANJ was not created pursuant to any state law. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions concerning this case or other issues that pertain to OPRA or the common law right of access. 
 

The material in this law alert has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2022 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.