Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
VOL. 2, NO. 152 DECISIONS RELEASED AUGUST 24, 1994 TAXATION – REAL ESTATE 35-4-3949 Mary Ann Brinkley v. Western World Inc. et al., Ch. Div. (8 pp.) Where Supreme Court held that two lots, for which plaintiff purchased tax sale certificates, were entitled to farmland assessment which reduced and/or extinguished underlying tax liens, chancery court held that plaintiff is not entitled to foreclosure judgment on one lot, since the lien was extinguished, and the motion to foreclose on the other lot is postponed pending a determination as to whether there are outstanding taxes. INSURANCE – AUTOMOBILES 23-2-3950 Venancio Tibabijo v. Daniel O’Donnell and Robert E. O’Donnell, App. Div. (8 pp.) Where plaintiff, who was injured in an automobile accident, was able to recover PIP benefits as a household member under his brother’s insurance policy, trial court properly held that plaintiff was subject to the verbal threshold even though his brother’s policy had the “zero” threshold, since he was not an immediate family member under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8. FAMILY LAW 20-2-3951 Sally L. Berdini v. Jeffrey L. Berdini, App. Div. (7 pp.) Where husband wanted to terminate alimony on grounds that his wife cohabited with an unrelated male, pursuant to divorce- judgment terms, trial court properly did not terminate alimony since the evidence did not support the cohabitation claim. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE 14-2-3952 State v. Gardiner Garrette, App. Div. (9 pp.) Where defendant was convicted of cocaine possession, trial judge did not abuse its discretion by excusing a juror who dozed during part of the trial and having him designated as an alternate, since “a defendant is not entitled to any particular juror, but only to an impartial jury of 12 individuals.” 14-2-3953 State v. James Hardiman, App. Div. (9 pp.) During his opening statement in trial for cocaine possession, prosecutor should not have made reference “defendant bringing forth his witnesses,” but this was not reversible error, since there was no showing of bad faith by prosecutor or of prejudice to the defendant. 14-2-3954 State v. Ronald Pack, App. Div. (11 pp.) Where defendant was convicted of cocaine possession, trial judge’s submission to the jury of a written outline of a portion of the jury instructions was not improper, since the judge fully and accurately explained orally the elements of the crimes charged.

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?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


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.