Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 2, No. 6 DECISIONS ISSUED JANUARY 12, 1994 CIVIL PROCEDURE – EVIDENCE 07-2-2294 Karin Manno et al. v. William Curtis et al., App. Div.(18 pp.) (1) In negligence suit, attorney who asserted that a juror might have had ill will toward him because he had handled litigation against juror’s employer did not have “good cause”under R. 1:16-1 to question the juror about his possible prejudice, since attorney’s assertion was based solely on speculation. (2) Where plaintiffs failed to object to expert’s deposition testimonyat the time of the deposition, before trial and during trial, they waived their right to object to the testimony on appeal. CONTRACTS – CIVIL PROCEDURE 11-2-2295 Jacqueline Milici-Lauter et al. v. Tri-State Metrovision, App. Div. (6 pp.) Trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion to enforce its settlement of a suit with plaintiffs because defendant obtained the settlement after harassing plaintiffs by coming to their house at 10:50 P.M., since plaintiffs failed to establish that their will was overborne as required by the duress defense. INSURANCE 23-2-2296 Ronnie Polnerow v. Cumberland Mutual Fire Insurance Co., App. Div. (4 pp.) Plaintiff’s claim against fire insurer was barred by the one-year period of limitation provided in the policy, as authorized by N.J.S.A. 17:36-5.20, since plaintiff failed to file suit within one year of receiving a letter from insurer’s adjuster unequivocally denying the claim and advising plaintiff of the one-year period. PARENT/CHILD 28-2-2297 In the Matter of the Guardianship of C.J.S. and E.F.M., App. Div. (6 pp.) Trial court properly terminated parental rights of husband, who had sexually abused his daughter and stepdaughter, and wife who was schizophrenic and had never attempted to prevent the abuse. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 39-2-2298 Joseph Van Woeart et al. v. Supermarkets General Corp., App. Div. (8 pp.) Where plaintiff who worked as a porter at defendant’s warehouse was nominally employed by a maintenance company but defendant supervised plaintiff’s work and provided his schedule, trial court properly concluded that negligence suit against defendant was barred by the workers’ compensation defense on the ground that defendant qualified as plaintiff’s special employer. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE 14-2-2299 State v. Jose Hernandez., App. Div. (12 pp.) (1) In drug possession trial, remand was ordered for a suppression hearing where the record was unclear as to whether a suppression motion was made and whether it was heard on the merits. (2) Trial court properly concluded that under Evid. R. 56(2) director of police laboratory was entitled to provide expert testimony based in part on a report prepared by his assistant . 14-2-2300 State v. Deborah Reid, App. Div. (5 pp.) Trial court acted within its discretion by permitting defendant’s 1980 conviction for drug possession to be admitted to impeach her credibility in robbery trial.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* 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 © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.