to regulate conduct that occurs within its own borders. For example, the plaintiff in P.V. was a New Jersey resident pursuing a tort claim against a Pennsylvania charity for conduct that occurred in Pennsylvania. Id. at 153, 962 A.2d 453. The Court found both of the conditions that it noted for affording comity: (1) applying New Jersey’s broad charitable immunity to the activity in Pennsylvania would “substantially impair[ ]” Pennsylvania’s “ability to regulate the conduct of those who chose to operate within its borders,” and (2) applying Pennsylvania law would not prevent New Jersey from applying its law of charitable immunity to activities within New Jersey. Id. at 153, 962 A.2d 453. The parallel of this case to P.V. rests on the fa N.J.Super. 145, 159, 689 A.2d 158 (App. Div. 1997) (<HOLDING>), appeal dismissed, 152 N.J. 361, 704 A.2d
recognizing that pennsylvania had no interest in denying its residents the greater damages available under new jersey consumer fraud statutes for claims against a new jersey seller recognizing new jerseys interest in deterrence of tortious misconduct as a relevant factor in choice of law decisions applicable where two of defendants were new jersey residents from whom damages were sought for their negligent acts in new jersey recognizing that alabama had no interest in denying its residents the procedural and substantive advantages afforded under new jerseys product liability and consumer fraud statutes but not alabamas for claims against a new jersey manufacturer recognizing israel had no interest in denying its citizens the substantive advantages of new jersey defamation law in new jersey residents claims for defamation published in new jersey holding purposeful and deliberate omission on enactment of new jersey sales and use tax of exemption found in new york counterpart act which served as the model for new jersey act