Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
STATE COURT CASES CONTRACTS — CONSIGNMENT — SETTLEMENTS 11-2-7085 Baterdouk v. Antonovich, et al., App. Div. (per curiam) (3 pp.) The court dismisses plaintiff’s complaint alleging that an $800 fur coat she left on consignment was sold or lost by defendant, and vacates default judgment entered thereon; there is nothing to show that plaintiff was coerced into a settlement entered into after the judgment was entered, wherein she was to receive a new $2,000 leather coat in lieu of the judgment, and the settlement is binding. NEGLIGENCE — AUTO ACCIDENTS 31-2-7086 Tarnopoll v. Marino, et al., App. Div. (per curiam) (3 pp.) Judge did not err in failing to give plaintiff’s requested charge that, “when two or more cars are in motion, and one car is seeking to avoid hitting the other car, and ends up somehow striking a third car, that is negligence; it’s not just evidence of negligence,” since that is not the correct statement of the holdings of Dolson and Paiva, and the language of N.J.S.A. 39:4-89. Moreover, the proofs submitted did not require a Dolson-Paiva charge, even if correctly stated. NEGLIGENCE — CHARITABLE IMMUNITY 31-2-7087 Abraham, et ux. v. Teaneck Jewish Ctr., et al. v. Hartford Ins. Co., et al., App. Div. (per curiam) (4 pp.) Since, to proscribe recovery under charitable immunity, there must be a showing that the plaintiff received some benefit from the charitable organization, the court erred in applying the immunity here to bar claims made by plaintiff — non-Jewish mayor who was injured on snow and ice at defendant’s center, while he was there to make a speech at a function — since, while the organization was engaged in its charitable works, plaintiff was not a direct recipient of those works, but was, instead, conferring a benefit by the donation of his time. TORTS — TORT CLAIMS ACT 36-2-7088 Borrelli v. Borough of West Paterson, et al., App. Div. (per curiam) (3 pp.) Court properly dismissed motorcyclist’s action against municipal defendants for injuries sustained when his bike hit a raised manhole cover; the cyclist’s undisputed foot fracture, now healed, but subject to some sensitivity, pain and stiffness, falls far short of the “substantial” objective impairment required by the statute. FEDERAL COURT CASES BANKRUPTCY 42-6-7089 In re Constable Terminal Corp., Bankr. Ct. (Winfield, B.J.) (16 pp.)Bankruptcy Code sec. 505(a)(2)B), which provides that any right of an estate to a tax refund is conditioned upon a proper request therefor by the trustee or debtor, precludes the bankruptcy court from granting tax refund requests that are untimely under state law, such as here where the debtor filed to file a timely appeal from a real estate tax determination. [Filed July 30, 1998.][For publication.] JURISDICTION– ADMIRALTY — INSURANCE 24-7-7090 Thao Dao v. Knightsbridge International Reinsurance Corporation et al., Dist. Ct. (Orlofsky, D.J.)(29 pp.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1333(1), which provides for original, exclusive jurisdiction “of any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled,” the district court may exercise admiralty jurisdiction over most of the claims in this action for indemnification for loss of a vessel, and supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, notwithstanding any procedural defects in the removal of the action from state to federal court. [Filed Aug. 5, 1998.][For publication.] LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT — WRONGFUL DISCHARGE 25-7-7091 Sievers v. PSE&G Co., U.S. Dist. Ct. (Hayden, U.S.D.J.) (6 pp.) (1) Since resolution of plaintiff’s wrongful discharge claim is substantially dependent upon an analysis of the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, it must either be treated as a sec. 301 claim or dismissed as pre- empted by federal law; (2) plaintiff’s wrongful discharge claim in count one is dismissed since count two already contains a sec. 301 claim; and (3) sec. 301 claim is dismissed as time-barred by the six- month statute of limitations, since plaintiff’s union notified him that it would no longer pursue his grievance against the employer in late December, 1994, and plaintiff did not file this action until late June of 1997. The suit plaintiff filed in the interval does not toll the running of the limitations period. [Filed Jul. 27, 1998.] PENSIONS — ERISA — ATTORNEYS’ FEES 56-8-7092 Brytus et al. v. Spang & Company et al., Third Cir. (Sloviter, C.J.) (8 pp.) Since this circuit’s unbroken precedent is that an award of attorneys’ fees will not be reviewed if the amount of the fees has not been quantified, district court’s order denying a motion by successful ERISA plaintiffs to receive attorneys fees from the fund they had created — on the ground these counsel were entitled to and would receive counsel fees to be paid under the statutory fee provision for prevailing parties under ERISA — was not a final order ripe for review. [Filed Aug. 4, 1998.] [For publication.] ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DECISIONS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES — DISCIPLINE 01-CSV-7093 Bell v. Burlington Cy., etc., OAL (Tassini, A.L.J.) (11 pp. — includes ALJ’s initial decision and final decision by Mintz, Acting Commr.) Laborer was properly suspended for failing to report for work on 14 occasions without notifying his employer of his intended absence; in light of prior infractions of the same nature, the Board modifies ALJ’s suggested five-day suspension to six days. [Initial decision dated Mar. 26, 1998; Final decision dated May 18, 1998.] 01-CSV-7094 Abel v. Monmouth Cy. Bd. of Social Svcs., OAL (Lavery, A.L.J.) (14 pp. — includes ALJ’s initial decision and final decision by Anselmini, Commr.) After senior clerk was suspended pending disposition of criminal charges, he was improperly then resigned not in good standing, since, inter alia, the clerk had been working with his union to achieve reinstatement from the outset of the suspension, and the respondent did not notify the clerk that his indefinite suspension had terminated and that he should report to work on a date certain. [Initial decision dated Jul. 29, 1997; Final decision dated Sept. 29, 1997.] 01-CSV-7095 Adams v. Dept. of the Treasury, OAL (Reback, A.L.J.) (37 pp. — includes ALJ’s initial decision and final decision by Anselmini, Commr.) Technical assistant on the Taxpayers’ Hotline received appropriate ten- and twenty-day suspensions for insubordination and continuing to act in the same manner despite warnings and a preliminary notice of the first suspension. [Initial decision dated Jul. 22, 1997; Final decision dated Sept. 29, 1997.] 01-CSV-7096 Reynolds v. Cy. of Monmouth, OAL (Bruno, A.L.J.) (9 pp. — includes ALJ’s initial decision and final decision by Anselmini, Commr.) Highway department laborer — who failed to produce medical records to justify his absence — was correctly resigned not in good standing for being absent for five or more consecutive business days without prior notice to his employer, which created exceptional and unanticipated burdens upon the supervisor in staffing road crews. [Initial decision dated Aug. 6, 1997; Final decision dated Sept. 29, 1997.] WORKERS’ COMPENSATION — MENTAL ILLNESS 01-WCC-7097 Pitts v. AT&T, WCC (Moncher, J.W.C.) (22 pp.) Although there is no question that petitioner has the permanent residuals of a mental illness, and the onset of his psychiatric problems began shortly after the respondent’s divestiture and the turmoil of job transfers and employment changes instituted by the surviving companies, the compensation judge nevertheless finds that work- related stressors were not the significant cause of petitioner’s condition; petitioner suffered no loss of regular wages, seniority or job status, and his self-engendered fears of layoff were not objectively reasonable. [Decision dated Jul. 6, 1998.] Final Decisions: The following final decisions are now available, with the respective Commissioner or Director adopting the ALJ’s initial decisions as previously reported in the Alert. The final decision utilizes the same DDS number as the initial decision, followed by the letter “F.” Unless otherwise indicated, the final decision consists of one page. 01-ABC-5711F Patel’s, Inc., etc. v. Borough…of Raritan (4 pp.) [Jul. 29, 1998.] 01-CSV-3980F I/M/O Abner (2 pp.) [Jan. 7, 1997.] 01-CSV-5312F I/M/O Williams (3 pp.) [Apr. 20, 1998.] 01-CSV-5423F I/M/O Beecham (3 pp.) [Apr. 16, 1998.] 01-CSV-5448F I/M/O Karins (6 pp.) [Apr. 22, 1998.] 01-CSV-5507F I/M/O Recine (4 pp.) [Apr. 30, 1998.] 01-CSV-5534F I/M/O Roach (2 pp.) [Apr. 15, 1998.] 01-CSV-5557F I/M/O Sheffield (3 pp.) [Apr. 8, 1998.](penalty modified) 01-CSV-6339F I/M/O Campbell (4 pp.) [Jun. 8, 1998.](penalty modified) 01-CSV-6390F I/M/O Willingham (3 pp.) [Jun. 5, 1998.](penalty modified) 01-CSV-6660F I/M/O Galloza-Orama (2 pp.) [Feb. 18, 1997.] 01-CSV-6756F I/M/O Baker (2 pp.) [Jun. 26, 1998.] 01-CSV-6807F I/M/O Snowden (2 pp.) [Jun. 26, 1998.] 01-CSV-6820F I/M/O Stillings (3 pp.) [Jul. 7, 1998.](penalty modified) 01-CSV-6821F I/M/O Ferrogine (5 pp.) [Jul. 6, 1998.](penalty modified)

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.