Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 4 No. 64 – APRIL 3, 1996 STATE COURT CASES AUTOMOBILES 05-2-8473 State v. John A. Cianfrani, App. Div. (5 pp.) Defendant’s single instantaneous act of crossing over a roadway’s center line, “just to the inside of his tires,” while a police officer followed and observed him for five minutes, does not constitute a “failure to keep right” under N.J.S.A. 39:4-82, and defendant’s conviction is reversed. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION — SEX 10-2-8474 Frank Allegretti, et al. v. El Coronado Inc., etc., et al., App. Div. (10 pp.) In a case where plaintiffs, all male attorneys 26 or older, file suit against motel for refusing to give them accomodations, (1) the trial judge erred in refusing to admit audiotapes of a conversation with defendants made by plaintiffs’ friend when he was likewise denied accomodations — in which the defendants stated that they do not rent to groups of men — since there was no indication that the tapes had been made at the request of or with the knowledge of the plaintiffs, and (2) the judge erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ claims under the Law Against Discrimination, since the law clearly prohibits denial of public accomodations to persons based on their sex. FAMILY LAW 20-2-8475 Consuelo Kane v. Edward M. Kane III, App. Div. (7 pp.) Where defendant produced a certification from his employer — stating that defendant’s income had been substantially reduced due to a rapid decline in real estate appraisal requests — he sufficiently demonstrated a prima facie change of circumstances warranting a plenary hearing on his request for a reduction in alimony and support, and the denial of his motions was erroneous. INSURANCE — VERBAL THRESHOLD 23-2-8476 Antonio Imbesi Jr. v. Christopher W. Frey, App. Div. (7 pp.) Plaintiff’s claim of a type 9 injury was properly dismissed since he presented no evidence that his doctor suggested bed rest or advised him not to work or limit his activities for medical reasons and, according to plaintiff’s own testimony, he still continued to drive and go out with his friends after the accident, although he did not go to work. 23-2-8477 Timothy A. Ritchie, et al. v. David G. McCulloch, et al. v. N.J. Tpke. Authority, et al., App. Div. (7 pp.) In finding that accidental injuries did not seriously affect the plaintiff, the trial judge correctly granted summary judgment to the defense, since plaintiff was still able to perform his job as a heavy equipment operator, and his recreational activities, which were not extensive to begin with, had not been curtailed for any medical reasons, but because plaintiff “did not feel up to it.” LAND USE 26-2-8478 James W. McCahill, et al. v. Bd. of Adjustment of the Borough of Wharton, App. Div. (11 pp.) Law Division judge, in concluding that plaintiffs had not indicated subjective intent to abandon their property’s nonconforming two-family use, failed to consider the “objective discontinuance” test recognized by the case of Villari v. Zoning Bd. of Adj., 277 N.J. Super. 130 (App. Div. 1994), and matter is remanded. NEGLIGENCE 31-2-8479 David Alston, et al. v. Danny’s Auto Elec., etc., et al., App. Div. (5 pp.) Where police officer, in pursuit of suspect, was injured in vehicle owned by suspect’s employer and sued the employer under the theory of respondeat superior, the court correctly granted summary judgment to the employer, holding that the doctrine did not apply because the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury was outside of the scope of the suspect’s employment and entirely beyond the employer’s authorization or knowledge and, with respect to negligent hiring and retention allegations, the case was barred by the firefighter rule. NEGLIGENCE — CAR REPAIR 31-2-8480 Robert A. Zimel v. Liccardi Motors Inc., App. Div. (5 pp.) Judge erred in ruling that car dealership, in repairing a primary timing belt on manufacturer’s recall, was negligent in failing to replace the secondary belt at the same time, since the recall only spoke to the primary belt, and there was no evidence that any defect existed in the secondary belt at the time of the recall repair, although the second belt failed after some 8,000 additional miles had been put on the vehicle. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE 14-2-8481 State v. Thomas Pallotta, App. Div. (4 pp.) Defendant’s acts of staring or clearing his throat to draw attention to himself cannot be characterized as alarming or seriously annoying, and his act of driving his car behind the complainant’s car on only one occasion does not constitute “repeated” conduct nor “a course of conduct,” and his harassment conviction is reversed.

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.