X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 4 No. 11 Decisions Released Jan. 18, 1996 STATE COURT CASES ARBITRATION — DE NOVO APPEALS 03-2-7593 Charles J. Behm v. Joaquim M. Ferreira; Antonio Martins v. Rolando O. Cruz, Jr., et al.; Teri Jean Green, et al. v. Rolando Cruz, Jr. v. Antonio Martins, et al.; Sharyn Vaughn v. Rolando Cruz, Jr., et al.; Juanita Rivera, et al. v. Jose L. Quintana, et al., App. Div. (12 pp.) The excuse that an attorney is too busy or has too heavy a workload to properly handle litigation or to supervise staff is insufficient to constitute the extraordinary circumstances necessary to relax 30-day filing requirement for a trial de novo application following an arbitration, and the fact that the defense attorney was hired by the carrier or that some of the awards exceeded policy limits has no bearing on this decision. [Approved for publication Jan. 18, 1996. Available online in NJ Full-Text Decisions.] CONTRACTS — DEFAULT JUDGMENTS 11-2-7594 ATI Communications Inc. v. Crest Ultrasonics, Inc., et al., App. Div. (7 pp.) In contract case for payment for a telephone system installation, an order denying motion to vacate default was erroneous since lack of excusable neglect alone is not always dispositive; it is clear that no viable basis exists for a judgment against president of company individually; and company’s allegations that the system continues to be defective raises a viable basis for a counterclaim which may well be lost under the entire controversy doctrine if it is not permitted in this litigation. 11-2-7595 Mark A. Godek v. Syed Salahuddin, etc., App. Div. (6 pp.) On case for defective construction of a slaughter barn, defendant’s motion to vacate default judgment was properly denied, due to defendant’s tactics of delay and obstruction and failure to demonstrate a meritorious defense. CORPORATIONS 12-1-7596 Ralph Muellenberg, et al. v. Bikon Corp., et al., Supreme Ct. (26 pp.) While a minority buyout is an uncommon remedy, the trial court acted within its discretion in ordering majority shareholders to sell their shares to the oppressed minority shareholder under the New Jersey Corporation Business Act, N.J.S.A. 14A:12-7(1). [Approved for Publication. Available online in NJ Full-Text Decisions.] GOVERNMENT — CONDITIONS ON LAND DEVELOPMENT 21-2-7597 Poricy Builders Inc., etc. v. County. of Monmouth, et al. v. R.C.G. Dev. Co. of Freehold II Inc., App. Div. (12 pp.) On developer’s suit to recover funds it was required to pay to defray the cost of widening county bridges as a precondition to receiving subdivision approval from the county planning board, (1) since a rational nexus was established between the expansion of bridges and the storm waters from the subdivision that drained into the county’s culverts, the county planning board permissibly required the contribution and (2) even irrespective of the foregoing, developer was precluded from a refund because it had made the payment to the county voluntarily. INSURANCE — VERBAL THRESHOLD 23-2-7598 J.T. Merriweather v. Gwendolyn C. Manson, App. Div. (3 pp.) Trial judge erred in dismissing plaintiff’s claim for non-economic losses sustained as a result of an automobile accident for failure to satisfy the verbal threshold since spasm was still evident three years after the accident, plaintiff’s employment responsibilities have been somewhat curtailed and his recreational and social activities have been seriously restricted. LAND USE 26-2-7599 Joan Grimm, et al. v. Bd. of Adjustment of the Borough of Tinton Falls, et al., App. Div. (3 pp.) Board of adjustment correctly granted landowner’s use-variance application for a 15-dog boarding kennel over neighbors’ objection, since the record shows the landowner fully satisfied the enhanced burden of proof under Medici v. BPR, 107 N.J. 1 (1987), irrespective of whether the kennel is a conditional agricultural use, a prohibited use, or a commercial venture. NEGLIGENCE — PROXIMATE CAUSE 31-1-7600 Gloria Yun, etc., et al. v. Ford Motor Co., et al., Supreme Ct. (11 pp.) In a case where the spare tire fell off decedent’s vehicle and onto the road due to an alleged defect in the mounting apparatus, and he was killed by another vehicle while trying to retrieve the tire, because reasonable minds could differ regarding the foreseeability of decedent’s injuries and whether the alleged defect in the apparatus was the proximate cause of his death, the grant of summary judgment to manufacturers was inappropriate. [Approved for Publication Available online in NJ Full-Text Decisions.] PUBLIC EMPLOYEES — HEALTH 33-2-7601 In the Matter of John F. Rountree, etc., App. Div. (9 pp.) The state Department of Health violated veteran’s preference status respecting civil service appointments by failing to offer him one of the vacant positions then filled by provisional appointees who were not entitled to an appointment before the veteran; veteran’s assertion of a claim to a retroactive appointment date was neither untimely nor waived given the department’s concealment. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE — MEGAN’S LAW CLASSIFICATION 14-2-7602 In the Matter of Registrant G.B., etc., App. Div. (13 pp.) (1) Trial judge properly concluded that registrant’s admissions, along with the victim’s statement, were sufficient to make the risk assessment calculation without a hearing; (2) Since prosecutor has offered no evidence as to the reasons for the establishment of a two-mile radius for the area of notification, this aspect of registrant’s classification is remanded. [Approved for publication Jan. 18, 1996. Available online in NJ Full-Text Decisions.] FEDERAL COURT CASES LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT — DISCRIMINATORY RETALIATION 25-7-7603 Mia Moore v. Metromedia Communications, U.S. Dist. Ct. (6 pp.) The court grants defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of summary judgment on plaintiff’s discriminatory retaliation claim, since the court failed to consider plaintiff’s stipulated facts and admissions; since these admissions indicate that plaintiff did not believe that her change in job requirements were in any way motivated by her race and that the supervisor who allegedly retaliated against her was unaware that plaintiff had filed an EEOC complaint, summary judgment is granted to defendant. LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT — SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION 25-7-7604 Lori Annun v. Orval Kent Foods, Co., etc., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (14 pp.) Defendants’ summary judgment motion is denied both (1) on plaintiff’s sexual employment discrimination claim, since a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether plaintiff’s pregnancy was known to defendants at the time they decided to fire her, which fact is crucial to a determination of whether plaintiff belonged to a protected class, and (2) on plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, since a reasonable fact finder could deduce that the alleged isolation and ambivalence exhibited toward plaintiff, while support and guidance were given to her male counterparts, was pervasive enough to alter the work environment into one of inappropriate hostility.

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.