jnov motion in New Jersey

2023Our review of a trial judge's determination on a motion for JNOV, pursuant to Rule 4:40- 2(b), is "quite a mechanical one." Sons of Thunder v. Borden, Inc., 148 N.J. 396, 415 (1997) (quoting Dolson v. Anastasia, 55 N.J. 2, 5 (1969)).

2015We review the denial of a JNOV motion using the same standard as the trial court and thus consider "'whether the evidence, together with the legitimate inferences therefrom, could sustain a judgment in . . . favor of the party opposing the motion.'" Sons of Thunder, Inc. v. Borden, Inc., 148 N.J. 396, 415 (1997) (quoting Dolson v. Anastasia, 55 N.J. 2, 5-6 (1969)).

2023Our review of a trial judge's determination on a motion for JNOV, pursuant to Rule 4:40- 2(b), is "quite a mechanical one." Sons of Thunder v. Borden, Inc., 148 N.J. 396, 415 (1997) (quoting Dolson v. Anastasia, 55 N.J. 2, 5 (1969)).

2015We review the denial of a JNOV motion using the same standard as the trial court and thus consider "'whether the evidence, together with the legitimate inferences therefrom, could sustain a judgment in . . . favor of the party opposing the motion.'" Sons of Thunder, Inc. v. Borden, Inc., 148 N.J. 396, 415 (1997) (quoting Dolson v. Anastasia, 55 N.J. 2, 5-6 (1969)).

2023Smith v. Millville Rescue Squad, 225 N.J. 373, 397 (2016).

2023It is well settled that "[a]fter the jury has reached a verdict, we review a decision on a JNOV motion pursuant to Rule 4:40-2 under the same standard applied by the trial court." Conforti v. Cnty. of Ocean, 255 N.J. 142 , 162 (2023) (citing Smith v. Millville Rescue Squad, 225 N.J. 373, 397 (2016)).

2026Lodzinski, 246 N.J. at 358-59 (quoting State v. Josephs, 174 N.J. 44, 86 (2002)).

2023Co., 176 N.J. 366, 370 (2003).

2021Finally, because defendants did not appeal from the denial of its JNOV motion, we have no reason to consider it on appeal. 2 We decline to address NJDA's argument that the jury should not have been instructed as to defendants' noncompliance with 42 C.F.R. § 483.25 because this argument was not addressed by the parties, and "as a general rule, the [c]ourt 'does not consider arguments that have not been asserted by a party, and are raised for the first time by an amicus curaie.'" State in Interest of A.A., 240 N.J. 341 , 359 n.1 (2020) (quoting State v. J.R., 227 N.J. 393, 421 (2017)).

2003In analyzing those elements on the JNOV motion, the trial court was governed by the following standard: “[I]f, accepting as true all the evidence which supports the position of the party defending against the motion and according him the benefit of all inferences which can reasonably and legitimately be deduced *191 therefrom, reasonable minds could differ, the motion must be denied----” Estate of Roach v. TRW, Inc., 164 N.J. 598, 612 , 754 A.2d 544, 551 (2000) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original).

2003In analyzing those elements on the JNOV motion, the trial court was governed by the following standard: “[I]f, accepting as true all the evidence which supports the position of the party defending against the motion and according him the benefit of all inferences which can reasonably and legitimately be deduced *191 therefrom, reasonable minds could differ, the motion must be denied----” Estate of Roach v. TRW, Inc., 164 N.J. 598, 612 , 754 A.2d 544, 551 (2000) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original).