Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 3 No. 178 Decisions Released Sept. 20, 1995 STATE COURT CASES CONTRACTS — SETTLEMENTS 11-2-6550 Salvatore Diperi v. Anthony Depersio, et al., App. Div. (2 pp.) It is not necessary for an agreement to contain every possible contractual provision in order to be binding; since the settlement agreement before the trial judge in this case was sufficiently definite to manifest the parties’ intention to be bound by it, the order denying relief from the settlement is affirmed. FAMILY LAW — DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 20-2-6551 Y.M.P. v. J.R.P., App. Div. (3 pp.) Defendant’s argument in support of his application to vacate final restraining order–that the wording of the order prevented him from being able to possess firearms under newly enacted federal statutes–did not constitute “good cause” to vacate the order, as defendant has failed to demonstrate that there is no further necessity for continued protection and restraint, and the order denying him relief was properly entered. TAXATION 35-5-6552 Joseph Frisina, et al. v. City of Newark, Tax Ct. (8 pp.) The failure of the appealing taxpayer to pay water and sewer charges imposed by the municipality will not deprive the Tax Court of the power to hear an appeal from a judgment of the county tax board if the municipality has failed to raise the defense of non- payment of municipal charges at the initial appeal of the assessment at the county board; therefore, the defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied. [Approved for publication.] 35-5-6553 Calton Homes, Inc. v. Twp. of West Windsor, Tax Ct. ( 31 pp.) The tax clause of the state constitution and related statutes require that rollback taxes be assessed on the full and fair value of the subject property as of Oct.1 of the pertinent pretax year, adjusted by means of the Chapter 123 average ratio to determine nonfarmland qualified taxable value, and plaintiff’s position that the value determined by a revaluation firm in a revaluation or base year should be the appropriate standard of value cannot prevail; therefore, the Tax Court administrator is directed to enter judgment modifying the rollback assessment for 1991 to apply the correct Chapter 123 ratio, and affirming the county board’s judgment for 1992 and 1993. [Approved for publication.] WRONGFUL DEATH 40-2-6554 Gaile Frances Iovine, Admr., etc. v. County of Union, App. Div. (4 pp.) In plaintiff’s suit against county alleging that jail personnel were negligent because they failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent plaintiff’s decedent’s suicide, the trial court correctly granted county’s motion for summary judgment, since plaintiff failed to produce any evidence from which a jury could find that the jail personnel knew or should have known that plaintiff’s decedent was suicidal. Additional opinions approved for publication: 35-5-6543 Ernest Vogelbacher, et al. v. Director, Div. of Taxation; 35-5-6544 Harris Corp. v. Director, Div. of Taxation. FEDERAL COURT CASES BANKRUPTCY 42-7-6555 Geriatrics Nursing Home Inc., et al., Debtors; Geriatrics Nursing Home Inc., et al. v. First Fidelity Bank, N.A., U.S. Dist. Ct. (17 pp.) While the Bankruptcy Judge did not abuse her discretion in denying the nursing homes’ motion to extend their Chapter 11 exclusivity period, she did abuse her discretion in granting the bank’s motion to terminate the exclusivity period, since statements made by creditors that they were prepared to offer more favorable plans if the court were to terminate the exclusivity period did not constitute sufficient “cause” to cut short the debtors’ window of opportunity to negotiate approval of their proposed plan, and this decision is reversed (emphasis added). [For publication.] CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — L.A.D. — SEXUAL ORIENTATION 10-7-6556 Presbytery of N.J., etc., et al. v. James Florio, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (70 pp.) In a case where various religious plaintiffs challenged the addition to the Law Against Discrimination of the protected category of “affectional or sexual orientation,” asserting that it violated certain of their constitutional rights, and where the case now has been narrowed to the First Amendment claims of an individual reverend, (1) the reverend’s motion for summary judgment is denied, (2) defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part, since certain claims have been abandoned or are unripe, but denied as to the individual minister’s claims that sections of the law are unconstitutional as applied to him, and (3) the Court shall abstain from deciding the merits of the minister’s as-applied challenge pending a state-court adjudication.

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.