Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
VOL. 2 NO. 85 DECISIONS RELEASED MAY 13, 1994 ATTORNEY/CLIENT 04-1-3282 In the Matter of Samuel Asbell, an Attorney-At-Law, Sup. Ct. (26 pp.) Where former Camden County prosecutor pled guilty to filing a false police report about an assassination attempt on his life that he faked, even though the former prosecutor claimed insanity and/or diminished capacity, the Disciplinary Review Board properly held that he must be suspended from practicing law for two years, since (1) evidence of mental or emotional weakness does not preclude a suspension where the facts demonstrate serious ethical infractions and (2) a suspension can be appropriate even though the offense did not directly deal with the practice of law. FAMILY LAW 20-2-3283 Roni Lipman v. Robert Lipman, App. Div. (9 pp.) Where first wife contested husband’s transfer of Pennsylvania property to his second wife, trial court erred (1) in voiding the transfer, since the court did not have jurisdiction, and (2) in directing husband to pay old medical expenses, since the judge took no testimony and required no proofs concerning bills. LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT 25-2-3284 Mildred A. Lisiewski v. Bd. of Review and U.S. Dep’t of the Navy, App. Div. (5 pp.) Where state labor department board awarded plaintiff, a former employee, unemployment benefits based on her base-year Navy earnings listed on her W-2 form, which was then was reduced by the amount of an annuity, review board erred in calculating plaintiff’s benefits, since the portion of her salary that was put into the pension fund also should have been considered. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE 45-2-3285 William F. Morley v. State, Dep’t of Labor, App. Div. (14 pp.) Where complaints were made against plaintiff, a private plan hearing officer in the unemployment appeals office, Merit System Board properly held that the hearing officer be suspended for three days for insubordination and conduct unbecoming an employee, since the findings were based on sufficient credible evidence. LANDLORD/TENANT – TORTS 27-2-3286 Charles Boland v. Peter Dolan and Judy Dolan, App. Div. (7 pp.) Where plaintiff tenant fell in his apartment’s public vestibule supposedly due to a defective runner, and landlords claimed that defendant fell because of a worn shoe, trial court erred in allowing the jury during deliberation to use a magnifying glass to examine a photograph (showing an emergency squad assisting the tenant shortly after his fall with the sole of his right shoe visible) since giving the jury the magnifying glass was equivalent to supplementing the evidence. PHYSICIAN/PATIENT – NEGLIGENCE 29-2-3287 Robert Looby and Leona Looby v. George S. Weber, M.D. and Joseph J. Fallon, Jr., M.D., et al., App. Div. (6 pp.) Where plaintiff patient, who had a stroke during heart surgery, claimed that defendant doctor did not warn him about surgery risks, trial court properly limited the trial to nondisclosure of the risk of stroke, since this was the trial’s focus, and there was no proof that any other undisclosed risk occurred. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE 14-2-3288 State v. Wilfredo Cruz, App. Div. (8 pp.) Where defendant was convicted of murder, trial court’s admission of evidence on other crimes that the defendant had committed did not constitute plain error, since it gave a background and explanation for the murder. 14-2-3289 State v. Donald Fiscor, App. Div. (11 pp.) Where defendant, who was driving while intoxicated, killed another driver, trial judge properly allowed cross-examination of defense extrapolation expert on his knowledge of hospital record (where defendant ‘s blood had a blood alcohol level of .163), since judge’s instructions eliminated any prejudice, and the hospital test record was presumptively trustworthy as a business record of a routine test by a medical institution. 14-2-3290 State v. Mary J. Tanner, App. Div. (5 pp.) Where police officer, who pulled over a car for speeding in which defendant was a passenger, found cocaine in her pocket during a pat-down search, trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress, since the officer had a reasonable concern that the defendant was armed and dangerous. 14-2-3291 State v. Sean Timberlake, App. Div. (8 pp.) Where defendant was convicted of armed robbery, defendant’s claim for ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to subpoena or assure the presence of two witnesses at trial was unfounded, since defense counsel diligently tried to locate the witnesses.

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.