abuse of discretion standard in New Jersey

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).

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)).

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.

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"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"An appellate court's 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) (first citing State v. Robinson, 217 N.J. 594, 603 (2014); and then citing State v. Blackmon, 202 N.J. 283, 297 (2010)).

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).

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).

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).

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)).

2026We review a "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.'" State v. Prall, 231 N.J. 567, 580 (2018) (quoting Est. of Hanges v. Metro.

2026"The trial court's evidentiary rulings 'are reviewed 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.

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).

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.

2025McDaniel v. Man Wai Lee, 419 N.J.

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.

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

2026Additionally, in general, "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).

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.

2025"The admission or exclusion of expert testimony is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court." Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36, 52 (2015). "[W]e apply [a] deferential approach to a trial court's decision to admit expert testimony, reviewing it against an abuse of discretion standard." Id. at 53 (second alteration in original) (quoting Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Cmty. Corp., 207 N.J. 344, 371-72 (2011)).

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"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.

2022Super. 154, 170 (App. Div. 1999); see also State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 158 (1997)) ("[A] defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing if the 'allegations are too vague, conclusory, or speculative to warrant an evidentiary hearing[.]'"). "[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.

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 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).

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

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.

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.

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)).

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.

2021Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561, 571 (2002) (noting that the abuse of discretion standard is established "when a decision is 'made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis'") (quoting Achacoso-Sanchez v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 779 F.2d 1260, 1265 (7th Cir. 1985)).

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.

2020"In reviewing the award of sanctions pursuant to Rule 1:4-8, we apply an abuse of discretion standard," Zahabian, 407 N.J.

2026Super. at 401 . "[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.

2026Super. 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.

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)).

2024"We traditionally have accorded trial courts deference in exercising control over matters pertaining to the jury" and application of the abuse of discretion standard "respects the trial court's unique perspective." Id. at 559-60 ; see United States v. Cantu, 167 F.3d 198, 202 (5th Cir. 1999) (applying abuse of discretion standard of review to trial court's decision not to voir dire remaining jurors).

2024Super. at 182 .] We "review[] the trial court's jury-related decisions under the abuse of discretion standard" because of the trial court's "unique perspective and the traditional deference we accord to trial courts in 'exercising control over matters pertaining to the jury.'" Ibid. (quoting R.D., 169 N.J. at 560).

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).

2018The extent of such awards rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge, reviewable under an abuse of discretion standard. *284 Packard-Bamberger & Co. v. Collier , 167 N.J. 427 , 443-44, 771 A.2d 1194 (2001). "[F]ee determinations by trial courts will be disturbed only on the rarest of occasions, and then only because of a clear abuse of discretion." Id. at 444 , 771 A.2d 1194 (quoting Rendine v. Pantzer , 141 N.J. 292 , 317, 661 A.2d 1202 (1995) ).

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.").

2024A court's determination on the admissibility of other-crime evidence is "entitled to deference" and is "reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Ramseur, 106 N.J. 123, 266 (1987).

2024A court's determination on the admissibility of other-crime evidence is "entitled to deference" and is "reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Ramseur, 106 N.J. 123, 266 (1987).