abuse of discretion standard in New Jersey

2026Likewise, we "apply [a] deferential approach to a trial court's decision to admit expert testimony, reviewing it against an abuse of discretion standard." Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36, 53 (2015) (alteration in original) (citing Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Cmty. Corp., 207 N.J. 344 , 371- 72 (2011)); see also Correa v. Maggiore, 196 N.J.

2026We address selective issues for the sake of clarity. "[W]e apply [a] deferential approach to a trial court's decision to admit expert testimony, reviewing it against an abuse of discretion standard." Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Cmty. Corp., 207 N.J. 344, 371 (2011).

2026Super. 134, 146 (App. Div. 2010), but "review under the abuse of discretion standard the PCR court's determination to proceed without an evidentiary hearing," Brewster, 429 N.J.

2026"When determining the propriety of conducting an evidentiary hearing, the PCR court should view the facts in the light most favorable to the defendant." State v. Jones, 219 N.J. 298, 311 (2014) (citing State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 158 (1997)). "[W]e review under the abuse of discretion standard the PCR court's determination to proceed without an evidentiary hearing." State v. Brewster, 429 N.J.

2026"Appellate review of sentencing decisions is relatively narrow and is governed by an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Blackmon, 202 N.J. 283, 297 (2010).

2025"Legal conclusions drawn A-1395-23 8 from those facts are reviewed de novo." Ibid. (citing State v. Radel, 249 N.J. 469 , 493 (2022)). "[Our] review of sentencing decisions is relatively narrow and is governed by an abuse of discretion standard," State v. Blackmon, 202 N.J. 283, 297 (2010), limited to consideration of: (1) whether guidelines for sentencing established by the Legislature or by the courts were violated; (2) whether the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the sentencing court were based on competent credible evidence in the record; and (3) whether the sentence was neverth

2026Defendant also argues the trial court erred in not finding mitigating factor nine, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(9), "[t]he character and attitude of the defendant indicate that the defendant is unlikely to commit another offense." Defendant contends the court "disregarded [his] repeated remorse for his actions, his willingness to commence treatment, and the empirical evidence from two mental health evaluations." Appellate "review of a sentencing court's imposition of sentence is guided by an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Jones, 232 N.J. 308, 318 (2018).

2026Defendant also argues the trial court erred in not finding mitigating factor nine, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(9), "[t]he character and attitude of the defendant indicate that the defendant is unlikely to commit another offense." Defendant contends the court "disregarded [his] repeated remorse for his actions, his willingness to commence treatment, and the empirical evidence from two mental health evaluations." Appellate "review of a sentencing court's imposition of sentence is guided by an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Jones, 232 N.J. 308, 318 (2018).

2025"Appellate courts review sentencing determinations in accordance with a deferential standard." State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57, 70 (2014); see also State v. Torres, 246 N.J. 246 , 258 (2021) (Our review is guided by an abuse of discretion standard.).

2025We review a sentence under the abuse of discretion standard and affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court unless "'the application of the guidelines to the facts of [the] case makes the sentence clearly unreasonable so as to shock the judicial conscience.'" State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57, 70 (2014) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 364-65 (1984)); see also State v. Miller, 237 N.J. 15, 28 (2019) (explaining we review a trial court's sentencing determination under the abuse of discretion standard).

2025We review a sentence under the abuse of discretion standard and affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court unless "'the application of the guidelines to the facts of [the] case makes the sentence clearly unreasonable so as to shock the judicial conscience.'" State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57, 70 (2014) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 364-65 (1984)); see also State v. Miller, 237 N.J. 15, 28 (2019) (explaining we review a trial court's sentencing determination under the abuse of discretion standard).

2024An appellate court's review of a sentencing court's imposition of a sentence is guided by an abuse of discretion standard, which requires the sentence be affirmed so long as "'the trial judge follow[ed] the Code and the basic precepts that channel sentencing discretion,'" State v. Trinidad, 241 N.J. 425 , 453 (2020) (quoting State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49, 65 (2014)), and the sentence does not "shock the judicial conscience." Case, 220 N.J. at 65 (quoting State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 365 (1984)).

2026Appellate courts review the trial court's evidentiary ruling "under the abuse of discretion standard because, from its genesis, the decision to admit or exclude evidence is one firmly entrusted to the trial court's discretion." State v. Prall, 231 N.J. 567, 580 (2018) (quoting Est. of Hanges v. Metro.

2026Super. 392 , 453 (App. Div. 2022); see also State v. Prall, 231 N.J. 567, 580 (2018) (We "review the trial court's evidentiary rulings 'under the abuse of discretion standard because, from its genesis, the decision to admit or exclude evidence is one firmly entrusted to the trial court's discretion.'") (quoting Est. of Hanges v. Metro.

2025He maintains, "to a large degree, [his] substantial criminal history is the reason that all three aggravating factors were assigned significant, moderate, or heavy weight" and that "it was error to accord each so much weight when they share the same factual core." Therefore, defendant contends "the [eighteen]-year NERA sentence is manifestly excessive, particularly because defendant must serve nearly the entire sentence." In reviewing a sentencing decision, we must "decide[] whether there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion." State v. Bolvito, 217 N.J. 221, 228 (2014) (citation and inter

2020The abuse of discretion standard means we affirm unless "(1) the sentencing guidelines were violated; (2) the findings of aggravating and mitigating factors were not based upon competent credible evidence in the record; or (3) the application of the guidelines to the facts of the case shock[s] the judicial conscience." Ibid. (alterations in original) (quotations omitted).

2026U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449, 467 (2012).

2026A trial court's decision whether to vacate an order or final judgment under Rule 4:50-1 should also be given "substantial deference" and will not be reversed unless shown to be "a clear abuse of discretion." US Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449, 467 (2012).

2026Likewise, we "apply [a] deferential approach to a trial court's decision to admit expert testimony, reviewing it against an abuse of discretion standard." Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36, 53 (2015) (alteration in original) (citing Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Cmty. Corp., 207 N.J. 344 , 371- 72 (2011)); see also Correa v. Maggiore, 196 N.J.

2026An appellate court applies "[a] deferential approach to a trial court's decision to admit expert testimony, reviewing it against an abuse of discretion standard." Id. at 53 (alteration in original) (quoting Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Cmty. Corp., 207 N.J. 344, 371-72 (2011)).

2026"When determining the propriety of conducting an evidentiary hearing, the PCR court should view the facts in the light most favorable to the defendant." State v. Jones, 219 N.J. 298, 311 (2014) (citing State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 158 (1997)). "[W]e review under the abuse of discretion standard the PCR court's determination to proceed without an evidentiary hearing." State v. Brewster, 429 N.J.

2024However, "we review under the abuse of discretion standard the PCR court's determination to proceed without an evidentiary hearing." State v. Brewster, 429 N.J. Super. 387, 401 (App. Div. 2013) (citing Marshall, 148 N.J. at 157-58 ).

2026Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J.

2024On the other hand, we review a trial court's decision on a motion for reconsideration under an abuse of discretion standard, Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J.

2026We will reverse such a decision only if "it 'was not premised upon consideration of all relevant factors, was based upon consideration of irrelevant or inappropriate factors, or amounts to a clear error in judgment.'" McDaniel v. Lee, 419 N.J. Super. 482, 498 (App. Div. 2011) (quoting Masone, 382 N.J. Super. at 193 ).

2018We apply an abuse-of-discretion standard to the court's decision to impose sanctions for frivolous or vexatious litigation, see McDaniel v. Man Wei Lee, 419 N.J.

2026Thus, our review is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting final judgment. "[I] t has long been the law of New Jersey that an application to open, vacate or otherwise set aside a foreclosure judgment or proceedings subsequent thereto is subject to an abuse of discretion standard." United States v. Scurry, 193 N.J. 492, 502 (2008).

2026Defendant reprises the arguments raised in support of her motion to vacate the prior orders: her due process rights were violated; plaintiff failed to prove it was the holder of the note, lacked standing, and committed a fraud upon the court; the court erred in granting summary A-3800-23 6 judgment to plaintiff and dismissing her counterclaims, which alleged fraud and breach of contract. "[A]n application to open, vacate or otherwise set aside a foreclosure judgment or proceedings subsequent thereto is subject to an abuse of discretion standard." United States v. Scurry, 193 N.J. 492, 502 (200

2025"On appellate review, the court will apply an abuse of discretion standard to the sentencing court's explanation for its sentencing decision within the entire range." State v. Pierce, 188 N.J. 155 , 169- 70 (2006). "[T]he deferential standard of review applies only if the trial judge follows the [Criminal] Code and the basic precepts that channel sentencing discretion." Trinidad, 241 N.J. at 453 (quoting State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49, 65 (2014)).

2024An appellate court's review of a sentencing court's imposition of a sentence is guided by an abuse of discretion standard, which requires the sentence be affirmed so long as "'the trial judge follow[ed] the Code and the basic precepts that channel sentencing discretion,'" State v. Trinidad, 241 N.J. 425 , 453 (2020) (quoting State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49, 65 (2014)), and the sentence does not "shock the judicial conscience." Case, 220 N.J. at 65 (quoting State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 365 (1984)).

2026Further, we apply "'an abuse of discretion standard to decisions made by [the] trial courts relating to matters of discovery.'" C.A. by Applegrad v. Bentolila, 219 N.J. 449, 459 (2014) (alteration in original) (quoting Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Cmty. Corp., 207 N.J. 344, 371 (2011)).

2024"An appellate court applies 'an abuse of discretion standard to decisions made by [the] trial courts relating to matters of discovery.'" C.A. by Applegrad v. Bentolila, 219 N.J. 449, 459 (2014) (alteration in original) (quoting Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Cmty. Corp., 207 N.J. 344, 371 (2011)).

2026"We review the legal conclusions of a PCR judge de novo," State v. Reevey, 417 N.J. Super. 134, 146 (App. Div. 2010), but "review under the abuse of discretion standard the PCR court's determination to proceed without an evidentiary hearing," State v. Brewster, 429 N.J. Super. 387, 401 (App. Div. 2013). "[W]here . . . no evidentiary hearing was conducted," as here, "we may review the factual inferences the [trial] court has drawn from the documentary record de novo." State v. Blake, 444 N.J. Super. 285, 294 (App. Div. 2016) (citing State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 420-21 (2004)).

2026"We review the legal conclusions of a PCR judge de novo," State v. Reevey, 417 N.J. Super. 134, 146 (App. Div. 2010), but "review under the abuse of discretion standard the PCR court's determination to proceed without an evidentiary hearing," State v. Brewster, 429 N.J. Super. 387, 401 (App. Div. 2013). "[W]here . . . no evidentiary hearing was conducted," as here, "we may review the factual inferences the [trial] court has drawn from the documentary record de novo." State v. Blake, 444 N.J. Super. 285, 294 (App. Div. 2016) (citing State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 420-21 (2004)).

2026A. As a general rule, “the abuse of discretion standard applies in the appellate review of a trial court’s determination to admit or deny scientific expert testimony on the basis of unreliability in civil matters.” Accutane, 234 N.J. at 392 ; see also id. at 391 (“A reviewing court must apply an abuse of discretion standard to a trial court’s determination, after a full Rule 104 hearing, to exclude expert testimony on unreliability grounds.” (citing Hisenaj v. Kuehner, 194 N.J. 6, 12, 16 (2008)).

2022"Evidentiary rulings made by the trial court are reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard." State v. Scharf, 225 N.J. 547, 572 (2016) (citing Hisenaj v. Kuehner, 194 N.J. 6, 12 (2008)).

2026Our Supreme Court, in In re Accutane Litigation, "reaffirm[ed] that the abuse of discretion standard must be applied by an appellate court assessing whether a trial court has properly admitted or excluded expert scientific testimony in a civil case." 234 N.J. 340, 348 (2018).

2026Our Supreme Court, in In re Accutane Litig., "reaffirm[ed] that the abuse of discretion standard must be applied by an appellate court assessing whether a A-1299-24 15 trial court has properly admitted or excluded expert scientific testimony in a civil case." 234 N.J. 340, 348 (2018).

2022Under the abuse of discretion standard, the reviewing court will not disturb the trial court's ruling unless it "was so wide of the mark that a manifest denial of justice resulted." State v. Perry, 225 N.J. 222, 232 (2016) (quoting State v. Marrero, 148 N.J. 469, 484 (1997)).

2021Under the abuse of discretion standard, "an appellate court should not substitute its own judgment for that of the trial court, unless the trial court's ruling 'was so wide of the mark that a manifest denial of justice resulted.'" Id. at 385-86 (quoting State v. Marrero, 148 N.J. 469, 484 (1997)).

2024See Barr v. Barr, 418 N.J.

2018We review a trial court's order enforcing litigant's rights pursuant to Rule 1:10-3 under an abuse of discretion standard. *459 Barr v. Barr , 418 N.J.

2026See Flagg, 171 N.J. at 572 (defining the abuse of discretion standard).

2025“In other words, a functional approach to abuse of discretion examines whether there are good reasons for an appellate court to defer to the particular decision at issue,” or whether the decision is instead “‘an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable judgment.’” Flagg, 171 N.J. at 571 (quoting Coletti v. Cudd Pressure Control, 165 F.3d 767, 777 (10th Cir. 1999)). 12 In the context of prosecutorial action, the Court has often equated the abuse of discretion standard with “arbitrary and capricious” action.

2026We review a decision on a motion for frivolous lawsuit sanctions under "an abuse of discretion standard." United Hearts, L.L.C. v. Zahabian, 407 N.J. Super. 379, 390 (App. Div. 2009) (citing Masone v. Levine, 382 N.J. Super. 181, 193 (App. Div. 2005)).

2025We review a decision on a motion for frivolous lawsuit sanctions under "an abuse of discretion standard." United Hearts, L.L.C. v. Zahabian, 407 N.J.

2025"On appellate review, the court will apply an abuse of discretion standard to the sentencing court's explanation for its sentencing decision within the entire range." State v. Pierce, 188 N.J. 155 , 169- 70 (2006). "[T]he deferential standard of review applies only if the trial judge follows the [Criminal] Code and the basic precepts that channel sentencing discretion." Trinidad, 241 N.J. at 453 (quoting State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49, 65 (2014)).

2025On appellate review, the court will apply an abuse of discretion standard to the sentencing court's explanation for its sentencing decision within the entire range. [State v. Pierce, 188 N.J. 155, 169-70 (2006).] In sum, we affirm defendant's convictions, vacate his extended-term sentence, and remand for further proceedings, to include resentencing.

2024We are not persuaded that the motion judge abused his discretion in either circumstance. "[W]e apply an abuse of discretion standard to decisions made by our trial courts relating to matters of discovery." Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Cmty. Corp., 207 N.J. 344, 371 (citing Bender v. Adelson, 187 N.J. 411, 428 (2006)).

2020I. "[W]e apply an abuse of discretion standard to decisions made by [] trial courts relating to matters of discovery." Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Cmty. Corp., 207 N.J. 344, 371 (2011) (citing Bender v. Adelson, 187 N.J. 411, 428 (2006)).

2026Generally, an assessment of attorneys' fees is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, Slutsky v. Slutsky, 451 N.J. Super. 332, 365 (App. Div. 2017), and is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, Litton Indus., Inc. v. IMO Indus., Inc., 200 N.J. 372, 386 (2009) ("[A] reviewing court will disturb a trial court's award of counsel fees 'only on the rarest of occasions, and then only because of a clear abuse of discretion.'" (quoting Packard- Bamberger & Co. v. Collier, 167 N.J. 427, 444 (2001))).

2025Super. 560, 590 (App. Div. 2003), and is reviewed by this court under an abuse of discretion standard, Packard- Bamberger & Co. v. Collier, 167 N.J. 427, 444 (2001).

2021Although "[t]rial court evidentiary determinations are subject to limited appellate scrutiny," and are ordinarily "reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard," State v. Buda, 195 N.J. 278, 294 (2008), the question of whether a defendant's constitutional rights to confrontation have been satisfied is a "question of law . . . review[ed] de novo." Wilson, 227 N.J. at 544 .

2020See State v. Buda, 195 N.J. 278, 294 (2008) ("Trial court evidentiary determinations are subject to limited appellate scrutiny, as they are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.").

2026Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, 244 N.J. 567 , 582 (2021) (reviewing a trial court's order regarding a reconsideration motion under an abuse-of-discretion standard).

2026See Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, 244 N.J. 567 , 582 (2021) (applying an abuse-of discretion standard when reviewing an order on a reconsideration motion); State v. L.G.-M., 462 N.J.

2023Case law instructs that "[a]n appellate court reviews the trial court's jury- related decisions under the abuse of discretion standard." State v. Brown, 442 N.J. Super. 154, 182 (App. Div. 2015) (citing State v. R.D., 169 N.J. 551, 559 (2001)). "[T]he trial court is vested with broad discretionary powers in determining the qualifications of jurors and [so] its exercise of discretion will ordinarily not be disturbed on appeal." State v. Jackson, 43 N.J. 148, 160 (1964).

2023Case law instructs that "[a]n appellate court reviews the trial court's jury - related decisions under the abuse of discretion standard." State v. Brown, 442 N.J. Super. 154, 182 (App. Div. 2015) (citing State v. R.D., 169 N.J. 551, 559 (2001)). "[T]he trial court is vested with broad discretionary powers in determining the qualifications of jurors and [so] its exercise of discretion will ordinarily not be disturbed on appeal." State v. Jackson, 43 N.J. 148, 160 (1964).