Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 3, No. 38 DECISIONS RELEASED FEBRUARY 28, 1995 AUTOMOBILES 05-2-5045 I/M/O Michael B. Oleksza, App. Div. (8 pp.) Since there was sufficient, credible evidence supporting the Director of Division of Motor Vehicles’ finding that plaintiff, who suffered from coronary insufficiency, did not meet the medical fitness requirements to drive a passenger bus, the requirements cannot be challenged as discriminatory under the Americans with Disabilities Act. CONTRACTS 11-2-5046 Authorized Leasing, Inc. v. Donna Stine, et al., App. Div. (8 pp.) Since the leasing company clearly violated federally-mandated notice requirements before repossessing defendant’s vehicle, the case is remanded for a determination, inter alia, on the effect of plaintiff’s notice violations. FAMILY LAW 20-2-5047 Joanne C. Gordon v. Elliot B. Gordon, App. Div. (6 pp.) Trial judge failed to articulate reasons for his awards of support and alimony on a post-divorce application; the earning capacity of the parties must be considered on remand. INSURANCE – AUTOMOBILES 23-2-5048 Ileana Rosado v. Tancredo F. Bayas, et al., App. Div. (6 pp.) Since “degenerative” by its very meaning implies a progressive deterioration rather than something that occurred as a direct result of a traumatic incident, the doctor’s finding of degenerative meniscus did not constitute sufficient objective medical evidence to support plaintiff’s subjective medical complaints; summary judgment for the defendants affirmed. 23-2-5049 Michael Giordano, et al. v. Alonzoret Scott, et al., App. Div. (4 pp.) Where plaintiff’s doctor diagnosed a traumatic narrowing of the nerve root canal in plaintiff’s cervical spine, a condition that caused pain and limitation of use and which the trial court accepted as having a significant effect on plaintiff’s life, summary judgment for defendant reversed. 23-2-5050 Shirley A. Sitek, et al. v. Anthony W. Chepulis, Jr., App. Div. (3 pp.) Where plaintiff’s doctor’s report noted that the accident aggravated a pre-existing TMJ condition, but where no one ever performed a comparative analysis of the condition before with the condition after the accident, summary judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to satisfy the verbal threshold was proper. 23-2-5051 Eletha Duffy v. Anita O’Connell, et al., App. Div. (12 pp.) Plaintiff failed to prove a type 9 injury since she missed only 36 days of her major daily activity, which was her work as an attorney, and the fact that she may also have experienced some slight curtailment in her other usual activities does not support a conclusion that they were diminished “to a great extent” as required by the law. [Available online in N.J. Full-Text Decisions.] LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT 25-2-5052 Thomai Karavangelas v. Bd. of Review, et al., App. Div. (6 pp.) Determination that claimant was ineligible for unemployment benefits was proper because she was “unavailable for work” due to child care problems and “not actively seeking work” because she restricted her applications to diners in her immediate area. TORTS 36-2-5053 Gerald J. Pacella v. K-Mart Corp., et al., App. Div. (12 pp.) When the assistant manager stated that the plaintiff, an employee, had misappropriated merchandise, this was not defamation per se, since the jury could choose whether the statement meant that the employee violated store policy or committed a crime, so submitting the question to the jury was not error and judgment of no cause is affirmed. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE 14-2-5054 State of New Jersey v. Edward L. Brown, (consolidated with State v. Raymond Goodman and State v. Willie Goodman), App. Div. (20 pp.) The fact that the defendant admitted that he did not understand the complexities of a conspiracy case did not prevent him from giving a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel, and the trial judge committed reversible error in refusing to allow him to proceed pro se. CORRECTION The summary of the following case replaces the summary contained in yesterday s Alert. We apologize for the error. CIVIL PROCEDURE 07-2-5033 Joseph Prevratil, et al. v. George Mohr, et al., App. Div. (7 pp.) Since automobile cases must remain subject to mandatory joinder requirements, the plaintiff s case was barred by the entire controversy doctrine where he had been a party to a prior lawsuit involving the same issues and parties and could have fully litigated his claim in the original action.

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.