Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
VOL. 2, NO. 114 DECISIONS RELEASED JUNE 24, 1995 AGENCY AND PARTNERSHIP – CONTRACTS – DEBTOR/CREDITOR 02-2-3603 Insulation Corp. of Am. v. Steven Berkowitz, M.D. et al., App. Div. (11 pp.) Where plaintiff insulation company installed insulation in buildings owned by a partnership which defendants formed, trial court properly held that a partner who entered into the contract was liable, and the others were not, since the the partnership was dissolved before the insulation contract. FAMILY LAW 20-2-3604 David L. Bruck v. Krysia Bruck, App. Div. (14 pp.) Where father challenged dual-divorce judgment, trial court erred in not ordering the mother to contribute to the children’s support and in calculating the father’s large support payments, since the judge did not make specific fact-findings as required by N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23; the matter is remanded. INSURANCE – AUTOMOBILES 23-2-3605 Gerard Doto and Maria Doto, v. Anthony Russo and Russo Agency and Utica Mut. Ins. Agency, App. Div. (11 pp. incl. dissent) Where, while employed by Sarasohn & Co., which had a commercial umbrella policy with defendant insurer, plaintiff was struck by a car while standing on sidewalk, trial court properly held that the umbrella policy provided excess coverage for plaintiffs’ uninsured/underinsured motorist claim, since there was no endorsement excluding that coverage from the umbrella policy. LAND USE – MUNICIPAL LAW 26-2-3606 Warner Co. v. Barbara Sutton, Maurice River Township Planning Bd., et al. and New Jersey Conservation Found., et al., App. Div. (25 pp.) Where plaintiff mined sand on part of its land, adjacent to a watershed area, and the township changed the zoning to a conservation area from a general industrial area, trial court erred in approving the settlement of land use litigation without a hearing and without the township adopting zoning ordinance amendments implementing the settlement terms, since the pertinent statutes must be followed when amending ordinances. MUNICIPAL LAW – CONTRACTS 30-2-3607 G & P Parlamas, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Vocational School in the County of Ocean, et al., App. Div. (6 pp.) Where board awarded a contract to build a vocational school to the second-lowest bidder because plaintiff lowest bidder’s consent of surety had an “A-” rating, contrary to the bid specifications requiring an “A” rating, chancery court properly dismissed the complaint, since applying the two-prong test in Township of River Vale v. R.J. Longo Constr. Co., 127 N.J. Super. 207 (App. Div. 1974), the court determined that the bid defect was material and nonwaivable. PRODUCT LIABILITY – PHYSICIAN/PATIENT – NEGLIGENCE 32-2-3608 Stephen Maciag, et al., v. Strato Medical Corp. and Dow Corning Corp., and Godfrey C. Pinder, M.D., St. Clare’s/Riverside Medical Center., et al., App. Div. (20 pp.) Where catheter, manufactured by Strato Medical Corp., and accompanying tubing, manufactured by Dow Corning Corp., broke into four pieces while in plaintiff patient’s body, trial court erred in dismissing the complaint against defendant companies, since where each defendant has the burden of presenting exculpatory evidence, until the jury has evaluated all of this evidence, no defendant should be let out of the case. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE 14-2-3609 State v. Lester Denmon, App. Div. (7 pp.) Where defendant was convicted of second-degree robbery, the conviction is reversed, since the trial judge failed to instruct the jury that the injury and force elements of robbery require “knowing” conduct. 14-2-3610 State v. Stephen Fairhurst, App. Div. (5 pp.) Where, after a felony murder and first-degree robbery conviction, the jury was ordered back to court the day after its verdict to clarify the robbery conviction, because the jury verdict form indicated that the defendant was found not guilty of robbery, but the foreman announced a guilty verdict, trial court’s decision to call the jury back may have been improper, but was not a sufficient basis for reversal. 14-2-3611 State v. Frank Wilson, App. Div. (8 pp.) Where defendant was convicted of cocaine possession, trial court erred in not reversing the conviction, since the prosecutor during summation commented on facts not shown or reasonably inferable from the evidence presented.

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.