Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 4 No. 36 – FEBRUARY 23, 1996 STATE COURT CASES CORPORATIONS 12-2-7974 Ernest L. Previte v. G. Potter King, Inc., et al.; G. Potter King, Inc., et al. v. Jessica Previte, App. Div. (8 pp.) The judge correctly concluded that plaintiff was not an oppressed shareholder, since, although defendant shareholders acted to “freeze out” plaintiff, they did so because of plaintiff’s conduct, which was contrary to the parties’ agreement, and which conduct ultimately would have threatened the corporation’s continued viability. LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT — UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 25-2-7975 Waclaw Pistor v. Bd. of Review, App. Div. (7 pp.) To waive refund of an overpayment of federal emergency unemployment benefits, both lack of fault on the part of the recipient and extraordinary hardship must be shown, and, therefore, even though the board failed to consider whether appellant would be at fault because he knew that his work authorization papers were bogus, waiver was still properly denied since the record supported the conclusion that the appellant would not suffer extraordinary hardship if compelled to refund the benefits. 25-2-7976 Alfonso D. Nicolosi v. Bd. of Review, App. Div. (4 pp.) Former toll collector was properly denied unemployment benefits when he was terminated from his position for gross misconduct — the theft of more than $200 — and, because this is an administrative hearing, the fact that he has not yet been convicted of the criminal offense, which is still pending, does not violate his constitutional rights. LAND USE 26-2-7977 Daniel J. Ragone v. Haddonfield Planning Bd., App. Div. (8 pp.) Planning board’s decision denying plaintiff a subdivision with a variance based on the irregular shape of plaintiff’s proposed second lot, which resulted in a lot depth nonconformity, was the product of its exercise of sound discretion guided by the statutory positive and negative criteria, and the board’s conclusion that plaintiff had created the problem by virtue of the location of his rather large home is supported by the record. NEGLIGENCE 31-2-7978 Geraldine Hicks v. Clinton Grey, et al., App. Div. (4 pp.) In a case involving a slip and fall in a two-family dwelling, where the jury found defendants negligent but plaintiff moves for additur on the verdict, the trial judge did not err in excluding evidence regarding defendants’ alleged violation of certain housing codes and in refusing to instruct the jury that any violation of such codes would constitute evidence of negligence, since the judge allowed plaintiff’s expert to testify as to other housing codes, but plaintiff simply failed to satisfy her burden of establishing the applicability of the excluded codes to defendants’ building. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 39-2-7979 Jose Fernandez-Lopez v. Jose Cervino Inc., App. Div. (17 pp.) The trial judge correctly held that (1) petitioner’s status as an undocumented Guatemalan alien did not bar him from obtaining workers’ compensation benefits, and (2) that he was an employee of respondent, and not an independent contractor. [Approved for publication Feb. 22, 1996.] FEDERAL COURT CASES ATTORNEYS 04-7-7980 Iman Abdallah v. Vincent Pileggi, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (14 pp.) Plaintiff, a member of the federal and state bars, but who is ineligible to practice law in this state for failure to make payment to the N.J. Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, is not thereby disqualified from prosecuting this civil action in federal court, since the failure to pay the fund implicates neither character nor competence. EDUCATION — HANDICAPPED 16-7-7981 L.H., et al. v. Hamburg Bd. of Educ., U.S. Dist. Ct. (4 pp.) Although the magistrate judge correctly observed that the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, 20 U.S.C. 1415(e)(2), obligated the state to provide handicapped student’s parents with a verbatim record of administrative proceedings below, he erred in refusing to grant the parents’ request that the federal government pay for such transcription, since there is precedent that allows a court in a non-frivolous civil action to order the transcription of a state administrative record at federal expense where the litigant is indigent. JURISDICTION 24-7-7982 Telesis Mergers & Acquisitions, Inc. v. Atlis Federal Svcs., Inc., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (32 pp.) In this case for breach of contract involving commissions allegedly due as a result of the sale of a nursing services business, (1) an examination of the removal notice indicates that it was timely and complied in all respects with the procedural requirements of the rules; therefore plaintiff’s motion to remand is denied, but (2) since defendants only New Jersey contact was their original telephone call or letter to plaintiff, plaintiff has failed to establish the “purposeful availment” requirement necessary for maintaining in personam jurisdiction over the defendants in New Jersey, and the matter is transferred to the district court in Maryland.

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.