LAW OFFICES OF GEOFFREY D. MUELLER, LLC

366 Kinderkamack Road
Westwood, New Jersey 07675
610 East Palisade Avenue
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632
2 William Street - Suite 509
White Plains, New York 10601
Phone: (201) 569-2533 Fax: (201) 569-2554

Dear Clients & Friends-

Given the rapidly evolving Covid-19 scenarios, it is important to us for you to know we are closely following the recommendations of the CDC, WHO, State of New Jersey, State of New York and other healthcare entities to minimize the risk of transmission and protect the health, safety and well-being of our employees, clients and visitors.

This is a priority to us.

An equal and concurrent priority is our ability to continue to successfully address your legal and business matters. If and when it becomes necessary to work remotely, we are immediately prepared to seamlessly serve you with the same vigor and effectiveness we have always demonstrated.

Regardless of how current events unfold, we are and will continue to be completely and immediately available to you, whether by phone, email or otherwise, exemplifying the type of prompt, zealous and courteous representation you should expect from all legal counsel.

As always, if we can assist you in any way, please let me know directly.

Stay safe and be well.

Geoffrey D. Mueller

GEOFFREY D. MUELLER

Violation of "Seat Belt" Law May Serve As Predicate Offense - State v. Lenihan, A-4667-10

GUADAGNO, P.J.F.P. (temporarily assigned) writing for the Appellate Division:

"In this case we are asked to determine whether a violation of N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2f, the 'seat belt law,' can serve as a predicate offense to support a conviction under N.J.S.A. 2C:40-18(b), which proscribes knowingly violating a law or failing to perform a duty imposed by law intended to protect the public health and safety and recklessly causing serious bodily injury.  Defendant appeals her plea-bargained conviction under N.J.S.A. 2C:40-18(b), arguing the law is unconstitutionally vague and the seat belt law is not a law intended to protect the public health and safety as contemplated by this statute. We reject both arguments and affirm."

More after the jump...