The Appellate Division has, for example, granted review of interlocutory orders that actually or effectively dismiss a party's claims or defenses. See,e.g., Fid. Union Bank v. Hyman,214 N.J.Super. 177, 179, 518 A.2d 764 (App.Div. 1986); Hamilton v.Letellier Constr. Co., 156 N.J.Super. 336, 337, 383 A.2d 1168 (App.Div. 1978). It has also granted leave to review orders concerning novel questions of law, see,e.g., Arena v. Saphier, 201 N.J.Super. 79, 81, 492 A.2d 1020 (App.Div. 1985), matters relating to questions of privilege, see, e.g., Coyle v. Estate ofSimon, 247 N.J.Super. 277, 280, 588 A.2d 1293 (App.Div. 1991), and issues of constitutional magnitude, see, e.g., Bd. of Educ. v. Caffiero,173 N.J.Super. 204, 206-08, 413 A.2d 981 (App.Div. 1980), aff'd, 86 N.J. 308,431 A.2d 799 (1981).
Such an inference against the ex-husband would not negate his father's affirmative and unrivaled claim to the money. See Fidelity Union Bank v. Hyman, 214 N.J. Super. 177, 182 (App. Div. 1986) (noting that if "a litigant seeking affirmative relief claims a Fifth Amendment privilege to avoid discovery with respect to the subject matter of his case" the court may dismiss his pleadings) (emphasis added). It is immaterial that the ex-wife factually disputes her former father-in-law's sworn statements about the funds because she herself asserts no claim of ownership to the money.
Moreover, defendant's exposure to adverse consequences from exercising his constitutional privilege appears to be slight given the substantial differences between the civil and criminal matters and the fact that he has affirmatively counterclaimed against plaintiffs for fraud. Fid. Union Bank v. Hyman, 214 N.J. Super. 177, 182 n.4 (App. Div. 1986); Whippany Paper Bd. Co. v. Alfano, 176 N.J. Super. 363, 374 (App. Div. 1980).