Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 3 No. 58 DECISIONS RELEASED MARCH 28, 1995 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE 01-2-5259 Div. of State Police v. Troopers Thomas M. Hall and David M. Buhan, App. Div. (10 pp.) While the proofs would sustain a finding that troopers engaged in sports betting, proofs do not support the charge that either had done so through a bookmaker. ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION 03-2-5260 Suzanne Borek v. Rutgers Casualty Ins. Co., App. Div. (5 pp.) The 30-day filing deadline for trial de novo demand should be relaxed where attorney timely instructed her secretary to prepare a demand, a cover letter and check for the filing fee, and where she reviewed and signed the prepared documents and check, and later, before leaving on vacation, saw copies of the documents in the file, and where the papers did not arrive at the court until beyond the 30-day filing deadline, ostensibly due to a mailing problem. CIVIL PROCEDURE 07-2-5261 Jennifer Boyer v. N.J.A.F.I.U.A., et al., App. Div. (3 pp.) The trial judge erred in assessing a sanction against plaintiff’s attorney in the amount of the fee of the defense’s expert, where plaintiff’s doctor was called away during his testimony to answer an emergency call, and the defense doctor could have testified at that time, but defense counsel chose that he return another day for tactical reasons. COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS 08-3-5262 Steven Hughes v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., Law. Div. (5 pp.) Where bus line gave passenger notice of the tariff limitation of $1,000 in baggage coverage, and an option to insure for more than the $1,000 limit, and passenger exercised that option and had a receipt stating such increased coverage, bus line cannot state at trial that passenger, whose luggage was opened and items stolen therefrom, is limited to the $1,000 tariff amount. [Approved for Publication March 23, 1995.] [Available online in N.J. Full-Text Decisions.] EVIDENCE 19-2-5263 Margaret A. O Hare v. Kwan Fung, et al., App. Div. (9 pp.) Trial judge erred in excluding testimony of plaintiff’s treating physician, wherein he explained that she had a higher probability for prospective knee replacement surgery than he had originally opined, since there was no surprise to the defense and there was great prejudice to the plaintiff in excluding the evidence. FAMILY LAW 20-2-5264 William L. Day v. Shirley M. Day, App. Div. (6 pp.) Since the trial judge made no specific findings of fact concerning the financial circumstances of the parties or bearing upon the correlative protection afforded by a life insurance maintenance requirement, the matter is remanded for such findings. NEGLIGENCE 31-2-5265 Rosalind Sanders, et al. v. Cross Keys Skating Center, et al., App. Div. (4 pp.) Since the Roller Skating Rink Safety and Fair Liability Act (N.J.S.A. 5:14-1 to 14-7) provides for immunity of operators of roller rinks from roller skaters who are injured by the acts of other skaters and was not intended to protect employees of the rink, verdict was properly entered in favor of skater injured when employee kicked her in the snack area and caused her to fall. 31-2-5266 Vincent Picone, Jr. v. Lily Langtree s, Inc., et al., App. Div. (10 pp.) (1) The trial court properly granted bar’s motion for a j.n.o.v. on the ground that bar patron failed to establish that any defects in the premises were a proximate cause of the injuries he sustained when he was ejected after an altercation. (2) Summary judgment was properly granted to off-duty state trooper, who aided in the ejection of the patron, since Tort Claims Act immunizes him for good faith actions, even if performed negligently. TORTS 36-2-5267 Cathy Trapani v. City of New Brunswick et al., App. Div. (5 pp.) Summary judgment was properly entered in favor of municipality — where plaintiff was injured when her vehicle was hit by a municipal garbage truck — since Tort Claims Act limits claims for pain and suffering to situations where there is a permanent injury, which plaintiff failed to show. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE 14-2-5268 State of New Jersey v. William Crews, App. Div. (4 pp.) The trial judge should not have granted defendant’s motion for a new trial, reasoning that if defendant, who was a passenger in the hijacked vehicle, were acquitted of the carjacking, then the jury could not have considered evidence of the carjacking in determining guilt on the separate offense of eluding the police, since consistency in verdicts is not required and there was sufficient basis for the jury to have found him guilty of the latter charge. OPINIONS APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION: 13-2-5248 Sundiata Lumumba v. Willis E. Morton (Mar. 24, 1994); 17-2-5250 Curtis T. Bedwell and Sons, Inc. v. Geppert Brothers, Inc., et al. (Mar. 24, 1995); 23-2-5251 Kenneth Arents, et al. v. General Accident Ins. Co. (Mar. 24, 1995); 35-2-5255 New York Life Ins. Co. v. Lyndhurst Twp. (Mar. 24, 1995); 14-2-5257 State of New Jersey v. Jorge Montalvo, et al. (Mar. 24, 1995). [All available online in N.J. Full-Text Decisions.]

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* 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 © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.