prima facie claim in New Jersey

2026To establish a prima facie claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must satisfy the two-prong test established in Strickland. 466 U.S. at 687 ; see also State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987) (adopting the Strickland two- prong test in New Jersey).

2026The judge concluded defendant had failed to establish a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the two- pronged test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), and adopted by the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987).

2026On May 2, 2024, the PCR court issued a written opinion denying defendant's petition as barred for having failed to make a prima facie claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. 7 Applying the two-prong test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), the PCR court first determined that plea counsel's actions in defendant's case were neither objectively unreasonable nor deficient because plea counsel: (1) [had] spent months negotiating plea deals for defendant[]; (2) kept defendant[] and defendant[]'s family apprised of the status of the case; (3) communicated each plea offe

2026To establish a prima facie claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must satisfy the two-prong test established in Strickland. 466 U.S. at 687 ; see also State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987) (adopting the Strickland two- prong test in New Jersey).

2026"A prima facie case is established when a defendant demonstrates 'a reasonable likelihood that his or her claim, viewing the facts alleged in the light most favorable to the defendant, will ultimately succeed on the merits.'" State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013); (quoting R. 3:22-10(b)). "[T]o establish a prima facie claim, a [defendant] must do more than make bald assertions that he was denied effective assistance of counsel." Ibid. (quoting State v. Cummings, 321 N.J.

2026"A prima facie case is established when a defendant demonstrates 'a reasonable likelihood that his or her claim, viewing the facts alleged in the light most favorable to the defendant, will ultimately succeed on the merits.'" State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013); (quoting R. 3:22-10(b)). "[T]o establish a prima facie claim, a [defendant] must do more than make bald assertions that he was denied effective assistance of counsel." Ibid. (quoting State v. Cummings, 321 N.J.

2026"A prima facie case is established when a defendant demonstrates 'a reasonable likelihood that his or her claim, viewing the facts alleged in the light most favorable to the defendant, will ultimately succeed on the merits.'" State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013); (quoting R. 3:22-10(b)). "[T]o establish a prima facie claim, a [defendant] must do more than make bald assertions that he was denied effective assistance of counsel." Ibid. (quoting State v. Cummings, 321 N.J.

2026"A prima facie case is established when a defendant demonstrates 'a reasonable likelihood that his or her claim, viewing the facts alleged in the light most A-3352-23 16 favorable to the defendant, will ultimately succeed on the merits.'" Id. at 355 (quoting R. 3:22-10(b)). "[T]o establish a prima facie claim, a petitioner must do more than make bald assertions that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel." Ibid. (quoting State v. Cummings, 321 N.J.

2026Preciose, 129 N.J. at 462 . "[C]ourts should view the facts in the light most favorable to a defendant to determine whether a defendant has established a prima facie claim." Id. at 462- 63.

2026Preciose, 129 N.J. at 462 . "[C]ourts should view the facts in the light most favorable to a defendant to determine whether a defendant has established a prima facie claim." Id. at 462- 63.

2025State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339, 376 (2012). "[T]rial courts ordinarily should grant evidentiary hearings to resolve ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims if a defendant has presented a prima facie claim in support of" PCR.

2025Strickland, 466 U.S. at 700 . "[C]ourts are permitted leeway to choose to examine first whether a defendant has been prejudiced, and if not, to dismiss the claim without A-0331-23 9 determining whether counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient." State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339 , 350 (2012) (internal citation omitted). "[T]o establish a prima facie claim, a [defendant] must do more than make bald assertions that [they were] denied the effective assistance of counsel." State v. Cummings, 321 N.J.

2025To establish a prima facie claim, a defendant must present competent evidence, State v. Jones, 219 N.J. 298, 312 (2014), first establishing facts demonstrating counsel's handling of the matter "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688 .

2025State v. Jones, 219 N.J. 298, 311 (2014). "[I]n order to establish a prima facie claim, a petitioner must do more than make bald assertions that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel." Cummings, 321 N.J.

2019To establish a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must satisfy the two-pronged Strickland test as follows: First, [a defendant] must demonstrate that counsel made errors "so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment." An attorney's representation is deficient when it "[falls] below an objective standard of reasonableness." A-0704-18T3 12 Second, a defendant "must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense." A defendant will be prejudiced when counsel's errors are sufficiently seri

2018To establish a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must demonstrate the reasonable likelihood of succeeding under the test set forth in [Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ], and United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), which [our Supreme Court] adopted in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987). [Ibid.] Under the Strickland standard, a defendant must make a two- part showing, State v. O'Neil, 219 N.J. 598, 610 (2014), by demonstrating that trial counsel's performance was both deficient and prejudicial.

2021A defendant is only entitled to an evidentiary hearing when he "has presented a prima facie claim in support of post-conviction relief," State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 462 (1992), meaning that a defendant must demonstrate "a reasonable likelihood that his . . . claim will ultimately succeed on the merits." State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 158 (1997).

2021Super. 387, 401 (App. Div. 2013) (citing Marshall, 148 N.J. at 157-58 ). 5 A-3906-19 We conclude that, because defendant has failed to establish a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Judge Ryan did not abuse his discretion in denying defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing.

2026Thus, to establish a prima facie claim for a CEPA violation, a plaintiff must show that he or she: (1) "reasonably believed that his or her employer's conduct was violating either a law, rule, or regulation promulgated pursuant to law, or a clear mandate of public policy;" that (2) "he or she performed a 'whistle- blowing' activity described in N.J.S.A. 34:19–3[(c)];" that (3) "an adverse employment action was taken against him or her;" and (4) "a causal connection exists between the whistle-blowing activity and the adverse employment A-3834-23 9 action." Dzwonar v. McDevitt, 177 N.J. 451, 462

2026Thus, to establish a prima facie claim for a CEPA violation, a plaintiff must show that he or she: (1) "reasonably believed that his or her employer's conduct was violating either a law, rule, or regulation promulgated pursuant to law, or a clear mandate of public policy;" that (2) "he or she performed a 'whistle- blowing' activity described in N.J.S.A. 34:19–3[(c)];" that (3) "an adverse employment action was taken against him or her;" and (4) "a causal connection exists between the whistle-blowing activity and the adverse employment A-3834-23 9 action." Dzwonar v. McDevitt, 177 N.J. 451, 462

2025State v. Goodwin. 173 N.J. 583, 602 (2002) (holding that a defendant who fails to present a prima facie claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing).

2024State v. Goodwin, 173 N.J. 583, 602 (2002) (holding that a defendant who fails to present a prima facie claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is not entitled to evidentiary hearing).

2021To determine whether a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is present, the claim must be evaluated under the two - prong Strickland test, where "a reviewing court must determine: (1) whether A-4611-18 10 counsel's performance 'fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,' and if so, (2) whether there exists a 'reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional error, the result of the proceeding would have been different.'" State v. Castagna, 187 N.J. 293, 313-14 (2006) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 694 ) (internal citation omitted).

2021To determine whether a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is present, the claim must be evaluated under the two - prong Strickland test, where "a reviewing court must determine: (1) whether A-4611-18 10 counsel's performance 'fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,' and if so, (2) whether there exists a 'reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional error, the result of the proceeding would have been different.'" State v. Castagna, 187 N.J. 293, 313-14 (2006) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 694 ) (internal citation omitted).

2024Victor v. State, 203 N.J. 383, 408 (2010). "[T]o successfully assert a prima facie claim of age discrimination under the LAD, plaintiff must show that: (1) [he] was a member of a protected group; (2) [his] job performance met the 'employer's legitimate expectations'; (3) [he] was terminated; and (4) the employer replaced, or sought to replace, [him]." Nini v. Mercer Cnty.

2024Instead, the elements of the prima facie claim vary depending upon the particular cause of action." Victor v. State, 203 N.J. 383, 408 (2010).

2024CEPA also protects an employee who: [o]bjects to, or refuses to participate in any activity, policy or practice which the employee reasonably believes: A-0999-22 17 (1) is in violation of a law, or a rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law . . . ; (2) is fraudulent or criminal . . . ; or (3) is incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy concerning the public health, safety or welfare or protection of the environment. [N.J.S.A. 34:19-3(c)(1) to (3).] To establish a prima facie claim under CEPA, a plaintiff must plead facts to show: (1) he or she reasonably believed that his or he

2021To establish a prima facie claim under CEPA, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) he or she reasonably believed that his or her employer's conduct was violating either a law, rule[] or regulation promulgated pursuant to law, or a clear mandate of public policy; (2) he or she performed a "whistle[]blowing" activity described in N.J.S.A. 34:19-3(c); (3) an adverse employment action was taken against him or her; and (4) a causal connection exists between the whistle[]blowing activity and the adverse employment action. [Dzwonar v. McDevitt, 177 N.J. 451, 462 (2003); see also Lippman, 222 N.J. at 380

2026Thus, to establish a prima facie claim for a CEPA violation, a plaintiff must show that he or she: (1) "reasonably believed that his or her employer's conduct was violating either a law, rule, or regulation promulgated pursuant to law, or a clear mandate of public policy;" that (2) "he or she performed a 'whistle- blowing' activity described in N.J.S.A. 34:19–3[(c)];" that (3) "an adverse employment action was taken against him or her;" and (4) "a causal connection exists between the whistle-blowing activity and the adverse employment A-3834-23 9 action." Dzwonar v. McDevitt, 177 N.J. 451, 462

2026Thus, to establish a prima facie claim for a CEPA violation, a plaintiff must show that he or she: (1) "reasonably believed that his or her employer's conduct was violating either a law, rule, or regulation promulgated pursuant to law, or a clear mandate of public policy;" that (2) "he or she performed a 'whistle- blowing' activity described in N.J.S.A. 34:19–3[(c)];" that (3) "an adverse employment action was taken against him or her;" and (4) "a causal connection exists between the whistle-blowing activity and the adverse employment A-3834-23 9 action." Dzwonar v. McDevitt, 177 N.J. 451, 462

2021To satisfy the ascertainable loss prong of the prima facie standard, the plaintiff "must suffer a definite, certain and measurable loss, rather than one that is merely theoretical." Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543, 558 (2009).

2021To make a prima facie claim under the CFA, a plaintiff must establish three elements: "(1) unlawful conduct by defendant; (2) an ascertainable loss A-0379-20 31 by plaintiff; and (3) a causal relationship between the unlawful conduct and the ascertainable loss." Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543, 557 (2009) (citations omitted).

2024Cmty. Coll., 406 N.J.

2021Cmty. Coll., 406 N.J.

2022Where a defendant seeks to set aside a guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel, they must show: "(i) A-2296-20 4 counsel's assistance was not 'within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases'; and (ii) 'there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, [the defendant] would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial." State v. DiFrisco, 137 N.J. 434, 457 (1994) (alteration in original) (citations omitted). "[I]n order to establish a prima facie claim, a petitioner must do more than make bald assertions that [they were] d

2017Similarly, when a defendant claims ineffective assistance in connection with a guilty plea, he or she must show "(i) counsel's assistance was not 'within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases'; and (ii) 'that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, [the defendant] would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.'" State v. Nuñez-Valdéz, 200 N.J. 129, 139 (2009) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. DiFrisco, 137 N.J. 434, 457 (1994)). 6 A-3605-15T1 When a defendant raises a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel

2025Ibid. (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693 ). "[C]ourts are permitted leeway to choose to examine first whether a defendant has been prejudiced, . . . and if not, to dismiss the claim without determining whether counsel's performance was constitutionally deficient." State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339, 350 (2012) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ). "[T]o establish a prima facie claim, a [defendant] must do more than make bald assertions that [they were] denied the effective assistance of counsel." Cummings, 321 N.J.

2022Defendant must show that "counsel's performance was deficient," and that "there exists 'a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.'" State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 463-64 (1992) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ); see also State v. Allegro, 193 N.J. 352, 366 (2008).

2019Further, we note that defendant's trial counsel's questioning at the November 15, 1999 plea hearing in which he suggested that it was "possible" that defendant could be deported due to his lack of a green card does not reflect the fact that he was immediately deportable.6 As to the second Strickland prong, we conclude there was sufficient evidence in the record to establish a prima facie claim of prejudice, that is, as a result of the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant "would not have plead guilty and would have insisted on going to trial." Nunez-Valdez, 200 N.J. at 139 .

2017Similarly, when a defendant claims ineffective assistance in connection with a guilty plea, he or she must show "(i) counsel's assistance was not 'within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases'; and (ii) 'that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, [the defendant] would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.'" State v. Nuñez-Valdéz, 200 N.J. 129, 139 (2009) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. DiFrisco, 137 N.J. 434, 457 (1994)). 6 A-3605-15T1 When a defendant raises a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel

2024State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 421 (2004). 3 A defendant bears the burden of establishing a prima facie claim.

2024State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 421 (2004). 1 A defendant bears the burden of establishing a prima facie claim.

2024State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 542 (2013). "[I]n order to establish a prima facie claim, a petitioner must do more than make bald assertions that [she] was denied effective assistance of counsel." State v. Cummings, 321 N.J.

2024Super. 326 , 338 (App. Div. 2020); see also State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 540-41 (2013).2 A defendant bears the burden of establishing a prima facie claim for PCR.

2018That 25 A-1294-16T4 formulation of the second prong is an apt analogy to the second prong of McDonnell Douglas; any other interpretation would ratchet up the second prong in a termination case and upend the "complex evidentiary edifice" built by McDonnell Douglas. [Zive, 182 N.J. at 454-55 (citations omitted).] Having determined that plaintiff established a prima facie claim under the LAD, the remaining issue on summary judgment therefore focuses on whether defendant's asserted reason for firing plaintiff was pretextual.

2005The Court described this aspect of the prima facie test as imposing a burden that is "rather modest." Id. at 447 , 867 A. 2d 1133 .

2025However, "[w]here the trial court, undertakes to exercise such discretion, the court should ordinarily apply the prima facie standard to plaintiff's proofs, thus not weighing evidence or finding facts but only determining bare sufficiency." Kolczycki, 317 N.J.

2021At the proof hearing, "the court should ordinarily apply the prima facie standard to plaintiff's proofs, thus not weighing evidence or finding facts but only determining bare sufficiency." Kolczycki v. City of East Orange, 317 N.J.

2026Therefore, the judge concluded plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie claim of retaliation under the well-settled McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), framework.

2019The judge set out the four-part analysis—a "slightly adjusted" version of the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) test—and questioned whether plaintiff had established a prima facie claim that would warrant an inference of discrimination because his disciplinary offenses were so serious that he could not have been performing his job at a level that met his employers' expectations.

2022However, we have held that when a retainer agreement "meet[s] a prima facie test of fairness and reasonableness," and "the client utterly fails to come forward with anything of substance to rebut that prima facie showing," courts A-1411-20 17 should "defer to the parties' agreement and the fee charged thereunder . . . ." Gruhin & Gruhin, P.A. v. Brown, 338 N.J.

2021As we explained in Giarusso: [A]lthough the court has the power and authority to review the fairness of the agreement and the reasonableness of the fee charged, it should ordinarily defer to the parties' agreement and the fee charged thereunder if it appears . . . that they meet a prima facie test of fairness and reasonableness, the client utterly fails to come forward with anything of substance to rebut that prima facie showing, and no expert is produced to challenge the bill rendered as unreasonable. [Ibid. (quoting Gruhin, 338 N.J.

2025If a plaintiff demonstrates a prima facie claim, the burden of going forward, but not the burden of persuasion, "shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action." Ibid.

2025If a plaintiff demonstrates a prima facie claim, the burden of going forward, but not the burden of persuasion, "shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action." Ibid.

2025The defendant bears the burden of establishing a prima facie claim by alleging and A-1059-22 16 articulating specific facts that "provide the court with an adequate basis on which to rest its decision." Mitchell, 126 N.J. at 579 .

2025"A petitioner must establish the right to [PCR] by a preponderance of the credible evidence." Preciose, 129 N.J. at 459 (citing State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565, 579 (1992)). "[T]rial courts ordinarily should grant evidentiary hearings to resolve ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims if a defendant has presented a prima facie claim in support of" PCR.