| Counsel To Those Who Shape Our Future |
|
|
RECENT NEWS
An Inch Can Go a Long Way, Sometimes All the Way Back to the Drawing Board -
As developers and building professionals are aware, a request for a height variance can be granted by the planning board in
certain circumstances and the zoning board of adjustment in others. As one developer recently found out, a difference of one
inch in the requested relief from the height limitation ordinance was enough to invalidate the entire approval and force
the developer to start over in front the appropriate board.
Click here to find out more.
Supreme Court Ends Municipal Practice of Exacting Open Space From Homebuilders -
In a unanimous decision styled New Jersey Shore Builders Association v. Jackson Township, the Supreme Court has
affirmed the Appellate Division’s ruling that municipalities cannot require builders to set aside open space and
recreation facilities or make monetary “in lieu” payments as a condition of receiving development approval under the
Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL).
Click here to read more.
New Jersey Supreme Court Expands Standing to Challenge Public Bid Specifications -
On March 4, 2009, in Jen Electric, Inc. v. County of Essex, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a prospective
subcontractor, vendor and supplier that is neither a taxpayer nor a prospective bidder has standing to challenge a
public entity’s bid specifications pursuant to the New Jersey Local Public Contracts Law.
Click here to learn more.
CONTRACTORS BEWARE - A contractor on a residential construction jobsite
with multiple single family homes and condominium units may be under the mistaken belief that his work and his interest
is protected if he complies with the requirements of the New Jersey Construction Lien Law for commercial construction.
However, this approach may ultimately cause the contractor to lose a million dollar construction lien, a costly mistake.
Click here to read more.
New Jersey’s Appellate Division Rules That Plaintiff-Lessee Of New Mercedes, Which Required Several Repairs,
Had No Viable Claims Against Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC - Does your new vehicle often require repair? If it does,
that may not be enough to sustain a cause of action against the manufacturer. On March 19, 2009, the Superior Court of
New Jersey – Appellate Division handed down its opinion in Turner v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Turner”).
By way of its decision, the court made clear that, simply because a new vehicle requires repair, does not entitle the
lessee of that vehicle to relief under the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Warranty Act (“Warranty Act”), the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Improvement Act (“Magnuson-Act”), the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”), or the Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”).
The court was persuaded by the fact that the Plaintiff, Karen B. Turner, failed to substantiate her independent automobile
technician’s assertion that Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Mercedes”) failed to correct “serious and recurrent” problems
with the vehicle. Thus, the court opined that Turner did not lose the “benefit of the bargain” simply because her
vehicle sometimes required warranty service. Rather, the warranty program was part of the bargain.
Click here to read more.
New Jersey Supreme Court Holds that Passengers in a Stolen Vehicle are not
Entitled to Receive Personal Injury Protection Benefits - Recently, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that
passengers injured while occupying a stolen motor vehicle are not entitled to receive Personal Injury Protection (PIP)
benefits, even if unaware the vehicle was stolen.
Click here to find out more.
Settling Parties Take Note: All Remedies Upon Default Must Be Specifically
Preserved in Settlement Agreements - With the vast majority of lawsuits coming to a resolution by way of settlement,
a recent Appellate Court decision that enforced only the remedies specifically contained within settlement agreements
should be in the minds of all parties out there in the midst of drafting such agreements. Settling parties need to not
only think about the terms of their actual agreement that will resolve the lawsuit itself, but must also think ahead to a
future date when one of the parties may default as to those terms.
Click here to read more.
Tax Appeals: Owners of former income-producing properties must respond to Chapter 91 requests -
Owners of income-producing property beware: you must respond to assessors' Chapter 91 requests for income information or
lose your right to appeal, even if you no longer derive income from the property.
For more
information, click here.
Proposed Bill May Change Equitable Distribution In Cases With Convictions Of
Crimes Against A Child Or Spouse - Amazing as it may seem, current NJ Law permits an award of equitable distribution to individual who attempts to kill his or her spouse
prior to the divorce. That would all change under proposed legislation approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee
of the NJ Legislature. The bill, S-1645/S-1640, would bar equitable distribution awards to individuals convicted
of attempting or conspiring to kill their spouse.
Click here to find out more.
back to top
|
|
|
|
Case dismissed? - Attorneys and litigants beware – if certain steps are not
timely taken, your case could get dismissed, and without reinstatement. New Jersey Court Rule 1:13-7 governs the procedure
for dismissal of civil cases for lack of prosecution. Under the rule, a notice of dismissal will result if no required
proceeding is taken when an action has been pending for four months. Unless the required action is taken within 60 days
following the notice, the action will be dismissed. The most commonly litigated issue under Rule 1:13-7 is whether a
party may reinstate his claim after it has been dismissed. Typically, when good cause for lack of prosecution is shown,
and when defendant does not object to reinstatement, courts apply a liberal standard and allow the case to proceed.
When defendant objects to reinstatement, and when there is an inexplicably long delay in prosecuting the case, courts have
generally affirmed the dismissal.
Click here to read more.
Pennsylvania Superior Court Puts a Dent in the Employment At Will Doctrine -
The court in Helpin v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania: held that (1) an “offer letter” of employment
can be a binding contract that can refute the employment-at-will doctrine and (2) “sharp cuts in an employee’s compensation
may constitute grounds for a finding of ‘intolerability’ such as to sustain a claim of constructive discharge.”
Click here for
more information.
Governor Corzine Issues Conditional Veto on Housing Bill; Refuses to
Aid Depressed Housing Market and Struggling Developers - Earlier this month Governor Corzine returned Senate
Bill No. 2577 with recommendations that the Bill be modified to include additional hurdles for developers.
The Bill as adopted by both the House and Senate would have allowed developers to convert age-restricted (55+)
developments to non-age-restricted developments, as of right, provided that no units had been sold.
Governor Corzine, feeling the pressure from various municipalities, recommended language be added to increase
the burden on developers and make it easier for municipalities to fight attempts at conversion.
Click here to read more.
New Jersey’s Appellate Division Rules That A Dress-Code For Public Schools Is
Constitutional - Do New Jersey students have a constitutional right to dress as they choose? Not according to
our State Appellate Division’s recent decision. On March 5, 2009, the Superior Court of New Jersey – Appellate Division
upheld the constitutionality of New Jersey State law, N.J.S.A. 18A:11-8 (“the Statute”), which allows public schools
to implement dress-code policies. Appellate Division Judge Paulette Sapp-Peterson, who was joined by Judges Susan
Reisner and Carmen Alvarez, decided the first reported case in New Jersey to address this issue. The Appellate
Panel rejected the Plaintiff-Appellant’s argument that a student’s act of dressing as he or she chooses is expressive
conduct protected by the First Amendment of the Unites States Constitution. By way of its decision, the Court made
clear that there is no legitimate basis under the First Amendment for challenging the Statute and that the law
advances a legitimate state interest.
Click here to read more.
As the recent decision in Stengart v. Loving Care Agency reflects,
a client who communicates with her attorney using a computer owned by her employer may unwittingly
waive the privilege. - The attorney-client privilege is the legal concept that protects communications between a client
and his or her lawyer. This privilege, one of the strongest available under the law, holds that client-attorney communications,
either written or oral, are confidential and protected from disclosure. It is generally understood that the privilege belongs
to the client and only the client can waive same, even if the waiver is unintentional.
Click here to read more.
Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Purposes Has Always Been a Highly
Contested Matter. - Advocates claim that medicinal marijuana has been shown to alleviate the pain and suffering
of chronic patients. On the other hand, critics argue the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes would promote
illegal drug use. New Jersey has entered this debate on the side of legalization of marijuana for the chronically ill.
Click here to read more.
The Satirical Publication of a Person's Photograph Taken in a Public Place May Be
Protected By the First Amendment from Claims of Defamation. - Such was the ruling of a Superior Court Judge in Bergen
County in the case Gorzelany et al. v. Simon & Schuster, Inc. et al.
Click here to read more
Even
Mortgagees Have the Right to Appeal
Tax Assessments - One might think that only
property owners have the right to appeal a property tax assessment, however such is not
the case. Where a property owner is in default under a mortgage, a mortgagee possesses the right to
appeal a property tax assessment in order to limit its losses.
Click here to read more.
back to top
|
|
