Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 3 No. 76 DECISIONS RELEASED APRIL 24, 1995 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE — SCHOOL BUSSING 01-1-5484 In the Matter of the Petition of the Bd. of Education of the Twp. of Wayne v. Arlene Kraft, et al., Supreme Ct. (10 pp.) The Appellate Division exceeded the scope of judicial review by failing to defer to the finding below that the public walkway in this case was as safe as any other sidewalk in the township, and therefore the local board need not bus the students affected by this walkway. [Available online in N.J. Full-Text Decisions.] CIVIL PROCEDURE — ENTIRE CONTROVERSY 07-2-5485 Milkap Corp. v. Industrial Construction Co., Inc., App. Div. (14 pp.) Despite the fact that the party joinder requirement of the entire controversy doctrine imposed by Cogdell v. Hospital Center at Orange, 116 N.J. 7 (1989) was not implemented in the rules until the enactment of R. 4:30A, the Cogdell mandate applies to complaints filed after the decision but before the rule’s enactment and, since defendant road contractor had a “material interest” in developer’s controversy with its builder and guarantor, developer was required to join defendant in his prior action (filed in that interim period) and, since he did not, the dismissal of his complaint was proper. [Approved for publication April 24, 1995.] [Available online in N.J. Full-Text Decisions.] CONTRACTS 11-2-5486 John Gumperz, t/a Gumps Electric v. John J. Murray, et al., App. Div. (5 pp.) Since electrical contractor completed the electrical work necessary to heat defendant’s house, reasonably expecting that he would be paid, and defendant should reasonably have known that contractor was doing the work with the expectation of payment, the fact that the parties had not agreed upon specific contract terms is not fatal to contractor’s suit for payment since the court properly awarded recovery under theory of quasi-contract. FAMILY LAW — PRO BONO — REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES 20-1-5487 In the Matter of the Guardianship of C.A.B., Jr., and I.B., Minors, Supreme Ct. (7 pp.) Attorneys do not have an obligation to spend personal funds when undertaking pro bono representation in parental-rights termination cases, and reimbursement by DYFS of reasonable expenses will be prospectively ordered. [Available online in N.J. Full-Text Decisions.] FAMILY LAW 20-2-5488 Deborah Terebey v. John Terebey, App. Div. (4 pp.) The trial judge correctly applied the support guidelines in consideration of ex-husband’s responsibilities to both his former and new families when awarding an increase in support to ex-wife and contribution toward college expenses of child from first marriage. 20-2-5489 Arthur A. Sharples v. Susan Sharples, App. Div. (4 pp.) Since ex-wife failed to establish a prima facie case of her own changed circumstances, the judge correctly denied her motion for increased support, and the fact that her ex-husband had had substantial success since the divorce is not material. 20-2-5490 Jane D. Mullaney v. John T. Mullaney, App. Div. (14 pp.) The trial judge’s decisions on equitable distribution of most of the parties’ assets, including the husband’s dental practice, Keough plan, car and airplane, are sustainable, but since trial judges should not fix real property market values without the benefit of expert appraisal evidence, the judge’s decision as to the distribution of the marital home must be remanded for further evaluation. TORTS 36-2-5491 George Farrow v. Comm’r, Dept. of Ins., et al., App. Div. (12 pp.) In an action against the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund, prejudgment interest computed under R. 4:42-11(b) is mandatory and, since the trial judge failed to award such interest, the judgment must be amended. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE 14-2-5492 State v. Dennis Kleinman, App. Div. (10 pp.) When sentencing defendant under the provisions of the sex offender act, the trial judge erred in summarily rejecting the report of the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center psychologist and ordering a second examination of defendant, therefore, a de novo review is mandated. OTHER OPINIONS APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION: 31-2-5474 Koickal Abraham, et al. v. Vijay Gupta, et al.* (April 21, 1995); 39-2-5480 Lynn McIntosh, et al. v. Patrolman John De Filippo, et al. (April 21, 1995); 14-2-5482 State v. Leonard R. Avena (April 21, 1995). [All available online in N.J. Full-Text Decisions.] *CORRECTION: This case was erroneously captioned in Friday s Alert as Koickal Abraham v. Sussame Abraham, et al. The correct case name is listed above under opinions approved for publication.

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.