NHCaseLaw.com

DUGGAN, J. The petitioners, the guardians of Phuong Phi Thi Luong, appeal orders of the Hillsborough County Probate Court (Patten, J.) rejecting two estate plans they proposed for Phuong Phi Thi Luong pursuant to RSA 464-A:26-a (2004) and adopting an alternative estate plan drafted by a court-appointed referee. We hold that the probate court was within its discretion to reject the estate plans proposed by the petitioners, but find that the court went beyond its authority in adopting the estate plan drafted by the court-appointed referee. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

DUGGAN, J. The petitioner and putative father, Kevin Gendron, brings this interlocutory appeal from a ruling of the Derry Family Division (Sadler, J.) ordering him to submit to genetic marker testing. See RSA 522:1 (2007). We reverse and remand.

BRODERICK, C.J. This case comes before us on interlocutory appeal from a ruling by the Superior Court (Mohl, J.), see Sup. Ct. R. 8, declining to dismiss negligence and wrongful death actions filed by the plaintiff, Michelle Alonzi, as administratrix of the estate of Glenn Hopkins, against defendant Northeast Generation Services Company (NGS). Because we overrule Park v. Rockwell International Corp., 121 N.H. 894 (1981), the touchstone case relied upon by the trial court, and uphold the constitutionality of the challenged death benefit provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law, see RSA 281-A:26, IV (1999), we reverse and remand.

GALWAY, J. The petitioner, Donald W. Murdock, appeals the decision of the New Hampshire Personnel Appeals Board (PAB) affirming his dismissal from employment by the respondent, the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (DOT), following his receipt of three written warnings for the same offense within a five-year period. N.H. Admin. Rules, Per 1001.08(b)(1) (current version at 1002.08(c)(1)). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

DUGGAN, J. The plaintiff, Elmer E. Chesley, appeals a decision of the Superior Court (McGuire, J.) dismissing his civil action against the defendant, Harvey Industries, Inc., for failure to file within the three-year statute of limitations. See RSA 508:4 (1997). We reverse and remand.

DUGGAN, J. The New Hampshire Supreme Court Committee on Judicial Conduct (JCC) determined that the respondent, Superior Court Judge Patricia C. Coffey, engaged in serious misconduct in violation of Canons 1 and 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct (the Code). See Sup. Ct. R. 38. This conclusion was based, in part, upon Judge Coffey’s admission that she aided her husband in protecting his assets from the reach of creditors and, consequently, impeded the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) in its efforts to collect on a valid, court-ordered debt. In light of its findings, the JCC recommended that Judge Coffey be: (1) publicly censured; (2) suspended without pay from all judicial duties and responsibilities for three months; and (3) ordered to reimburse the JCC for the expenses incurred in prosecuting her case. On appeal, Judge Coffey urges us to adopt the JCC’s recommended sanctions or, in the alternative, to reduce the sanction to public censure only. We adopt the JCC’s recommendation for public censure and grant its request for reimbursement, but we conclude, based upon the analysis that follows, that the three-month suspension must be increased to three years.

DALIANIS, J. The petitioner, Donald R. Carreau, seeks to appeal a decision of the respondent, the Board of Trustees of the City of Manchester Employees’ Contributory Retirement System (board), to offset his disability retirement pension by the amount he received from the City of Manchester to settle his workers’ compensation claim. Because we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over his appeal, we dismiss it.

The issues presently before the court in this divorce action arise out of plaintiff's efforts to discharge her counsel and to substitute a non-lawyer, Theodore Kamasinski, as her "attorney-in- fact." Based largely, although not entirely, upon Mr. Kamasinski's appearance, plaintiff has moved to recuse the undersigned justice from continuing to preside over the case. The defendant objects to the recusal motion and seeks to bar Kamasinski's appearance on the grounds that he is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Also before the court are a motion to withdraw and a motion for instructions filed by plaintiff's present counsel, Attorney Donald Kennedy, and a petition for access to court records filed by Mr. Kamasinski in his capacity as a private citizen. After reciting the pertinent facts, I address these various motions below.