Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 3, No. 23 DECISIONS RELEASED FEBRUARY 3, 1995 CORRECTIONS – TORTS 13-2-4875 Robert York v. Union County Jail, App. Div. (7 pp.) The trial court erroneously denied plaintiff’s motion seeking to file a late notice of claim under the Tort Claims Act because the claimant was able to demonstrate substantial reasons for the delay and the public entity would not be substantially prejudiced by the late claim. DEBTOR/CREDITOR – BANKRUPTCY 15-2-4876 Trooper Ink Co., Inc. v. John H. Warren, App. Div. (9 pp.) Where plaintiff, the assignee of a secured creditor, was awarded summary judgment against guarantors of underlying debt for an apparent deficiency between the debt and collateral, the matter is reversed and remanded for the trial court to resolve the factual and legal issues present concerning the collateral’s disposition.[Available online in N.J. Full-Text Decisions.] FAMILY LAW 20-2-4877 Adrienne Lerman v. David S. Lerman, App. Div. (9 pp.) Denial of the plaintiff’s Lepis motion was reversed because the wife s changed-circumstances claim was justified based upon her now total disability and her husband’s increased ability to pay, and a plenary hearing is mandated. LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT 25-2-4878 Ann Norton v. Bd. of Review., App. Div. (5 pp.) Claimant was improperly disqualified for partial benefits because there was a substantial question on whether full-time employment was available to her and whether such work was suitable; the matter was remanded. 25-2-4879 Syed A. Husain v. Bd. of Review, App. Div. (3 pp.) Claimant failed to demonstrate that he had met the eligibility requirements of either the minimum number of weeks worked or the minimum amount of wages earned to establish a valid claim for disability benefits. LANDLORD/TENANT 27-2-4880 Glassboro Housing Authority v. Tara Gaines, App. Div. (4 pp.) Tenant s order to show cause to vacate a judgment for possession and warrant of removal was improperly denied where defendant had paid all rent due, and prospective application of the judgment would no longer be equitable. MUNICIPAL LAW 30-2-4881 State of New Jersey v. Tradewinds, App. Div. (2 pp.) Municipal noise ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague, nor did municipality need to be “on the cutting edge of technology” to effectively regulate undesirable noise. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES 33-2-4882 Kenneth H. Williams v. Parking Auth. of East Orange, App. Div. (3 pp.) Open Public Meetings Act violations were cured by a subsequent open meeting at which employee s personnel matter was discussed, and the act does not guarantee employee the right to have such matters discussed in private. 33-2-4883 Maria J. Canico v. Orlando L. Hurtado, App. Div. (4 pp.) Police officers’ immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:3-3 does not apply to an action based on an officer s alleged carelessness in operating his police vehicle in response to a reported crime. TAXATION 35-2-4884 Nalbandian Asso. v. Twp. of Rochelle Park, App. Div. (4 pp.) Tax court correctly granted the township’s motion to dismiss taxpayer’s complaint at the end of the direct case since taxpayer had failed to offer evidence sufficient to overcome the township’s presumption of correctness. TORTS – DEFAMATION & MALICIOUS PROSECUTION 36-2-4885 Charles W. Geyer, Sr. v. Alfred L. Faiella, App. Div. (11 pp.) Defendants motions for dismissal of plaintiff s complaint alleging libel and malicious prosecution were improperly granted because the judge incorrectly applied an absolute, instead of qualified, privilege to the statements made by defendants, and granting of the motion was premature.[Available online in N.J. Full-Text Decisions.] CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE 14-2-4886 State of New Jersey v. Conrad Brown, App. Div. (6 pp.) Trial court s order suppressing evidence seized by trooper in a warrantless search was proper where judge found that defendant s written consent was not voluntarily and knowingly given. 14-2-4887 State of New Jersey v. William Popov, App. Div. (10 pp.) The defendant s conviction is reversed and remanded for a new trial since the cumulative effect of the errors below, most notably the prosecutorial excesses, denied defendant a fair trial despite the curative instructions addressed to some, but not all, of the objectionable tactics. A

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.