Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 3, No. 22 DECISIONS RELEASED FEBRUARY 2, 1995 FAMILY LAW 20-2-4866 John Markey v. Audrey Markey, App. Div. (4 pp.) On an appeal of a denial for a post-judgment increase, plaintiff failed to make the required Lepis showing, which is that her changed circumstances had substantially impaired her ability to maintain the living standard established by a 17-year-old divorce judgment. GOVERNMENT – LIMITATIONS 21-2-4867 State of New Jersey v. Cruz Construction Co., Inc., App. Div. (13 pp.) Defendants motion to dismiss plaintiff s complaint on the basis of the 10-year limitation period contained in N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1.1 was properly denied, since the state’s claims were insulated from the operation of this statute and were, therefore, not time-barred. [Approved for publication Feb. 2, 1995.] LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT 25-2-4868 Josephine Moffatt v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Ins. Co., App. Div. (6 pp.) (1) A directed verdict for the defendant employer in an age discrimination case was affirmed, since the proofs showed significant and persuasive buisness reasons for eliminating the plaintiff s position. (2) Plaintiff s supervisors could not be sued on the theory of tortious interference because the supervisors were acting as agents of the employer and not as third-party interlopers. MUNICIPAL LAW 30-2-4869 The Price Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Twp. of Union, App. Div. (2 pp.) The Law Division correctly upheld the decision of the local zoning board, which denied a use variance to plaintiff retailer because the proposed store would result in an increase in off-site traffic. [Approved for publication Jan. 31, 1995; opinion in Law Division matter under Docket No. UNN-L-5422-92 P.W., not previously approved, also approved for publication Jan. 31, 1995.] NEGLIGENCE – LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS 31-2-4870 Jason Standard v. Anthony E. Vas, App. Div. (7 pp.) Attempting to clarify the interpretation of what properly constitutes prospective application of the state Supreme Courts opinion discussing majority age affecting tolling provisions in Green v. Auerbach Chevrolet Corp., 127 N.J. 591 (1992), the court stated that the proper fling date for actions involving a minor would be two years from the date of Green, two years from the date of the accident, or two years from attaining the age of 18, whichever is later. [Approved for publication Feb. 2, 1995.] CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE 14-2-4871 State of New Jersey v. Byron Graham, App. Div. (6 pp.) Defendant s motion to suppress evidence was properly denied where the police search of defendant s car trunk, revealing an unregistered rifle, was made incident to a lawful arrest for an offense other than a traffic violation. 14-2-4872 State of New Jersey v. Wallace Wrobel, App. Div. (10 pp.) The motion judge properly denied the defendant s motion to suppress the results of a blood test obtained by the state from a hospital via a subpoena duces tecum, since there was an objective, reasonable basis to believe that defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol and subpoena was properly issued. 14-2-4873 State of New Jersey v. Marvin Baker, App. Div. (6 pp.) If substantial credible evidence exists to convict the defendant, the trial judge s failure to prohibit prejudicial hearsay testimony will not be deemed to have been plain error. 14-2-4874 State of New Jersey v. Earl D. Lester, Jr., App. Div. (4 pp.) Even if statements made by a prosecutor in summation may have misled the jury on the issue of burden of proof, when the judge corrected this in his charge and repeatedly reminded the jury of the correct standard, there was no error. Approved for publication: State of New Jersey v. Jeffrey T. Pindale, Sr., 14-2-4865. The following is a clarification of a case which appeared in yesterday s Alert: CONTRACTS 11-2-4862 Charles Bloom & Co. v. Echo Jewelers, et al., App. Div. (16 pp.) The trial judge held that, since the plaintiff wholesaler had not pierced the corporate veil, the individual defendant retailers were entitled to summary judgment; this constituted error in that the judge failed to address the issue of the defendants potential liability under the theory of conversion. [Approved for publication Feb. 1, 1995.]

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.