Breaking and associated brands will be offline for scheduled maintenance Friday Feb. 26 9 PM US EST to Saturday Feb. 27 6 AM EST. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 3 No. 52 DECISIONS RELEASED MARCH 20, 1995 AGENCY AND PARTNERSHIP 02-2-5205 Rudy Cicchino v. Walter F. Brown, et al., App. Div. (21 pp.) Summary judgment was correctly granted to limited partners on their complaint for specific performance of general partner’s obligation to repurchase their partnership interests since the terms of the partnership agreement were clear and unambiguous, but the damages award must be recalculated since the limited partners cannot receive a greater return under the award than they were originally entitled to under the agreement. FAMILY LAW 20-2-5206 In the Matter of the Adoption of a Child by J.P. and J.P. v. F.B., App. Div. (4 pp.) Where birth mother voluntarily signed away her parental rights, but later objected to formal termination, trial judge correctly terminated her parental rights since she had expressed no desire to care for the child and objected solely to the name the child would use upon adoption and whether her aunt could have visitation rights with the child. INSURANCE 23-2-5207 Michael Allgor v. Travelers Ins. Co., App. Div. (11 pp.) The trial judge erred in finding that a minor was not bound by his father’s agreement with an insurer to submit all underinsured motorist benefit disputes to binding arbitration, since the optional nature of UIM benefits under the statute and the absence of a statute exempting minors from arbitration requires the child’s rights to be analyzed under contract principles and, as a third-party beneficiary, his rights rise no higher than his father’s. [Available online in N.J. Full-Text Decisions.] NEGLIGENCE – PROXIMATE CAUSE 31-2-5208 Beth Jennifer Frank v. James Frank, et al., App. Div. (10 pp.) Where plaintiff was abducted from a shopping center parking lot and later raped, (1) the jury verdict against owner/managing agent of shopping center is affirmed since, from the evidence presented, the jury could have determined that the owner/agent knew or should have known that there were several other incidents of violent crime in the shopping center and failed to follow recommendations to hire additional guards, and (2) while a portion of the judge’s charge on proximate cause may have been incorrect, when it is read as a whole, it would not confuse or mislead the jury and did not constitute error. WILLS AND TRUSTS 38-2-5209 In the Matter of the Probate of the Alleged Will of Katherine Konnyu, deceased, App. Div. (3 pp.) The trial judge properly applied the pertinent principles of law to the “overwhelming” facts in this probate matter and correctly concluded that there was clear and convincing proof that the attestation and declaration clauses of the purported witnesses were fraudulent. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 39-2-5210 New Jersey Manufacturers Ins. Co. v. Joseph Oat Corp., et al., App. Div. (9 pp.) The trial judge correctly found that the exclusion applied in defendant’s employer s liability policy (providing that coverage was excluded for intentionally caused bodily injury) and granted the insurer summary judgment, even though it was necessary for the plaintiff to couch its complaint in terms of intentional wrong to survive the exclusivity of the Workers’ Compensation Act. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE 14-1-5211 State of New Jersey v. Donald A. Petties, Supreme Ct. (19 pp.) Defendant’s acquittal of the commission of a crime with a gun does not establish that prior possession of the gun had been for a lawful purpose, and conviction for possession with an unlawful purpose may still be found. [Available online in N.J. Full-Text Decisions.] CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – JUVENILES 14-2-5212 State of New Jersey in the Interest of J.W., App. Div. (6 pp.) Even though the defendant may be correct in stating that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was an accomplice to a first degree robbery, the state did prove that he was guilty of a robbery, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute a crime in the second degree; therefore, defendant’s adjudication of delinquency is not reversed, but modified and affirmed. - A

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.