Bill > A2980

Introduced Session

This bill would provide for a new type of municipal court, to be known as a "county-municipal court." It would have some similarities in its operation to joint municipal courts that may be established by two or more municipalities pursuant to subsection b. of N.J.S.2B:12-1, but would be established by a county governing body, and the municipalities in that county would agree, by ordinance, to have violations occurring within their municipal boundaries heard in the new court. Any county could establish a county-municipal court. The new court would be an inferior court of limited jurisdiction, adjudicating all matters for which a municipal court currently has jurisdiction pursuant to N.J.S.2B:12-17 et seq., such as violations of county and municipal ordinances, and motor vehicle and traffic laws, plus all civil actions currently adjudicated in the Special Civil Part of the Superior Court, Law Division (generally civil actions with damages not exceeding $15,000 and summary landlord-tenant actions). In addition to existing municipal court costs collected in connection with the prosecution of violations, whenever the court heard a civil action, all filing and other fees, charges, and costs for the county-municipal court would, pursuant to N.J.S.22A:2-43, be the same as provided by law for similar services for the Special Civil Part. As to the court's creation, a county would establish its new court by ordinance, and that ordinance would provide an initial date on which the court would begin hearing matters. The county would be responsible for providing one or more suitable courtrooms, chambers, offices, equipment and supplies for the county-municipal court in the same county courthouse utilized by the Superior Court in that county. The county could either provide for an administrator and other necessary employees for the county-municipal court and for their compensation, or permit, by agreement with the Administrative Office of the Courts, for the court's operation by employees and staff of the Superior Court located in the same courthouse. Each municipality within a county that establishes a county-municipal court would have to agree, by ordinance enacted and implemented no later than two years next following the date on which the new court would initially begin hearing matters, to have violations occurring within its municipal boundaries heard in the new court. The municipality would not be responsible for any administrative costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the new court. However, if a municipality failed to agree within the two-year period to have violations heard by the new court, the Assignment Judge of the vicinage for the county would order that any violations occurring in the non-compliant municipality be heard in the new court, and the municipality would be responsible for all administrative costs specified in the judge's order until such time as it agreed to have violations heard by that court. If a municipality had previously established a municipal court, the municipality would, in the ordinance joining with the county-municipal court, specify a date on which the previously established municipal court will be abolished and thereafter all violations heard in the new court. The date set forth in the ordinance could be no more than one year next following the date on which the ordinance is enacted. It would not be necessary for all of the county's municipalities to coordinate their court's abolishment and joining with the new county-municipal court to be the same date, as the new court could begin hearing matters even though less than all of the municipalities of the county had abolished their municipal courts and begun having cases heard in the new court. On the date established by a municipality in its ordinance for abolishing its previously established court and initially having violations heard in the new court: (1) all causes and proceeding of whatever character pending in the municipal court would be transferred, along with the files for those causes and proceedings, to the county-municipal court; and (2) all the functions, powers, and duties conferred on the municipal court abolished by the ordinance, to the extent not inconsistent with the functions, powers, and duties of the county-municipal court, would be transferred to and could be exercised by the county-municipal court. All files for causes and proceedings not transferred to the new court, and all books, papers, records, and documents, along with all office equipment, furnishing, and other property of the municipal court abolished by the ordinance would be disposed of by the municipality in a manner set forth in that abolishing ordinance, or one or more subsequent ordinances. The nomination and appointment of judges of a county-municipal court, being a court with jurisdiction extending to more than one municipality, would be done by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate, as required by the State Constitution under Article VI, Section VI, paragraph 1. Depending upon the type of county government involved in the establishment of the new court, either the county executive or the county governing body would be authorized to submit names of judicial candidates to the Governor for consideration as a potential nominee. The county prosecutor would act as the municipal prosecutor to prosecute all offenses over which a county-municipal court has jurisdiction. Since the new county-municipal court would hear violations of motor vehicle and traffic laws, the bill would permit an establishing county to use the State's Automated Traffic System that is now used by existing municipal courts to exchange information and assist with court financial accounting, case processing, statistical reporting services, and other components of automated municipal court operations. Lastly, as to all costs, fines, fees and forfeitures of bail imposed by a county-municipal court, these would generally be paid to the county treasury of the county where the court is located, to defray the county's cost of operating the court.

AI Summary

Committee Categories

Clinton Calabrese (D)*,  Erik Peterson (R)*, 

Introduced, Referred to Assembly Judiciary Committee (on 01/13/2026)

Official Document