X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 3 No. 99 DECISIONS RELEASED MAY 26, 1995 AGENCY AND PARTNERSHIP 02-2-5727 John J. D’Andrea v. Dominick Borrelli, et al., App. Div. (5 pp.) Since partnership agreement contained a clause providing that disputes between the partners should be submitted to arbitration, plaintiff, as an assignee of a partner, did not have the right to dissolve the partnership, and his suit seeking same was properly dismissed. AUTOMOBILES 05-2-5728 In the Matter of Curtis L. Lockwood, App. Div. (4 pp.) Since the director of the Division of Motor Vehicles misunderstood and recited an incorrect view of the facts concerning a fatal accident, reversal of defendant’s 60-day drivers’ license suspension is warranted and a remand is necessary for an accurate assessment of those facts and a redetermination of what penalty, if any, should be imposed. CORPORATIONS 12-2-5729 Gregg Kaufer v. Philip Petris, et al., App. Div. (11 pp.) While the trial judge correctly found that there was no meeting of the minds on the terms of a tripartite agreement dealing with the formation of restaurant, he erred in finding that father of one of the incorporators had made a capital contribution that entitled him to an interest in the company, since the evidence accorded the father no status greater than that of a lender, and the matter is remanded for a reevaluation of the ownership issues and other issues not resolved by the trial court. FAMILY LAW 20-2-5730 Donna Boye, n/k/a Donna Collins v. Jack Alan Boye, App. Div. (12 pp.) Whether the parties had agreed orally to modify their separation agreement with respect to their respective obligations to contribute to their son’s educational xpenses required a plenary hearing, and the court erred in resolving the issue after oral argument on motion; the finding that husband must retroactively pay his son’s entire college education is reversed. INSURANCE 23-2-5731 Carolyn L. Tobin, Ind. and as Adm’x v. State Farm Ins. Co., et al., App. Div. (4 pp.) Plaintiff’s complaint for uninsured motorist benefits on behalf of her 4-year-old daughter- -who had died as a result of injuries she sustained in an accident while she was a passenger in plaintiff’s brother’s uninsured vehicle–was properly dismissed since the evidence revealed that plaintiff and her brother were members of the same household, which barred the claim. INSURANCE — VERBAL THRESHOLD 23-2-5732 Renee Adams v. Louis Godfrey, et al., App. Div. (3 pp.) The fact that plaintiff worked less than full time for a period before returning to her job on a full-time basis does not satisfy the statutory requirement of being unable to perform substantially all of the material acts of her work, under Type 9, and her claim was properly dismissed. 23-2-5733 Taquana Hilliard, et al. v. Alan Freeman, App. Div. (3 pp.) While it is true that the legislature amended N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8 so that an injured party who has no automobile to insure and is not part of the household of an insured family is given the benefit of the no-threshold option, no similar amendment of N.J.S.A. 39:6-70(n) was enacted, presumably to protect the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund, and plaintiff’s suit against the fund (for injuries sustained when she was hit by an uninsured automobile while riding her bicycle) was properly dismissed. LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT 25-2-5734 Wayne & Carol Hayman v. Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, et al., App. Div. (11 pp.) In a case where a casino slot machine cashier supervisor was terminated by the casino for theft, and was acquitted of the criminal charge in the municipal court: (1) Employee’s civil claims against casino for breach of employment contract was properly dismissed since he was an at-will employee, and the fact that the casino’s actions might have been unjustifiable, arbitrary or capricious does not give rise to employee’s breach claim. (2) Employee’s claim for false arrest and malicious prosecution also were properly dismissed since there was probable cause for the arrest and ensuing prosecution. LANDLORD/TENANT 27-2-5735 Arlington Beach Co., Inc. v. Anthony Dippolito, et al., App. Div. (5 pp.) Where tenant had leased a vacant lot from landlord for more than 20 years, and, after some dispute regarding the amount of rent to be paid to landlord once the property was improved, landlord signed the plans and executed documents required for tenant to be able to construct a residence on the property, the trial judge’s conclusion that landlord was estopped from evicting tenant, since the real dispute centered around the rent amount, was supported. PRODUCT LIABILITY 32-2-5736 Godwin Rodriguez, et al. v. Ajax Mfg. Co., et al., App. Div. (13 pp.) Where plaintiff worker was injured when a wire-drawing machine severed four of his fingers, but where no one was able to determine the manufacturer of the machine, and plaintiffs joined 37 possible manufacturers, trial judge was correct in rejecting the plaintiffs’ request to apply the market-share theory of collective responsibility since plaintiffs failed to either allege or demonstrate the required proof that the group of products produced by defendants presented the same or similar risks to plaintiff as the machine upon which he was injured. TORTS — TORT CLAIMS ACT 36-2-5737 Elwood and Frances Yuengling v. Twp. of Gloucester, et al., App. Div. (5 pp.) Where driver of vehicle involved in an accident on a curve filed suit against municipality and the state Department of Transportation alleging improper signage, but failed to prove reliance on the existing signs, the alleged improper sign did not proximately cause the accident and, therefore, the driver’s claims are not actionable under the Tort Claims Act. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE 14-2-5738 State v. Aurelio Chenique-Puey, App. Div. (5 pp.) In a case where defendant was convicted of making a terroristic threat and of contempt for violating a domestic violence restraining order, a new trial is warranted because the contempt charge and the terroristic threat charge should have been severed for trial. ADDITIONAL OPINION APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION: 05-2-5638 State v. Clifford J. Tekel (May 16, 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?

 
 

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.