Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 4 No. 10 Decisions Released Jan. 17, 1996 STATE COURT CASES ARBITRATION — DE NOVO APPEALS 03-2-7582 Gregory Costello, et al. v. Stanley Quirk, App. Div. (3 pp.) Request to file application for trial de novo out of time was properly denied, since secretary’s placing a de novo request in a file while awaiting a check from bookkeeping and forgetting to mail it did not amount extraordinary circumstances justifying delay. FAMILY LAW 20-2-7583 Karen L. Berard v. Kenneth W. Berard, App. Div. (17 pp.) Although wife chose to work only four days a week, trial judge did not abuse his discretion in child support determination by failing to impute additional income to her, since parties originally had agreed to the four-day work schedule so that wife could care for their youngest child, and only a small reduction would enure to the husband if one day’s income were imputed, measured against potential emotional interference with the youngest child’s routine. 20-2-7584 Carmine Cerminara v. Teresa Cerminara, App. Div. (17 pp.) The trial court did not mistakenly exercise its discretion, inter alia, in permitting wife to relocate permanently to Virginia with the children of the marriage, since such relocation was in good faith, it would better the lives of the wife and the children, and wife had agreed to a very generous visitation schedule so that husband’s relationship with children could be maintained. [Approved for publication Jan. 17, 1995. Available onlin in NJ Full-Text Decisions.] NEGLIGENCE — IMMUNITIES — PUBLIC HEALTH EXAMINATIONS 31-2-7585 Delisha Kemp, etc., et al. v. State of N.J., et al., App. Div. (19 pp.) Where plaintiff received a rubella vaccine at a public-health measles immunization clinic and sued public entities when her baby was born eight months later with congenital rubella syndrome, the trial court erred in finding that public defendants were not immune from liability under the Tort Claims Act and N.J.S.A. 26:11-12. [Approved for publication Jan. 17, 1995. Available online in NJ Full-Text Decisions.] NEGLIGENCE — TORT CLAIMS ACT — POLICE PURSUITS 31-2-7586 Elmer Kollar, et al. v. Kenneth Lozier, et al., App. Div. (14 pp.) Summary judgment was properly granted to all defendants, since, inter alia, the court cannot envision how police officers violated a general order that police should not engage in high-speed chases over minor non-moving motor vehicle violations, when, under the circumstances, the officers would have been justified in pursuing plaintiff’s decedent, who was intoxicated and speeding through traffic on a motorcycle; however, even if the order was a specific command, the officers could not form the specific intent to violate it, since the record establishes that police officers were unaware of the specific terms of that order and therefore cannot be guilty of willful misconduct that would waive their immunity under the Tort Claims Act. [Approved for publication Jan. 17, 1995. Available online in NJ Full-Text Decisions.] PUBLIC EMPLOYEES — MEDIATION & ARBITRATION 33-2-7587 Twp. of Aberdeen v. Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn., Local 163, App. Div. (10 pp.) In this public employment dispute, chancery judge correctly vacated arbitration award, since the mediator — who was permitted under the Compulsory Interest Arbitration Act to also serve as the arbitrator when the mediation was unsuccessful — impermissibly relied on information learned during the mediation process but not presented during the arbitration hearing. [Approved for publication Jan. 17, 1995. Available online in NJ Full-Text Decisions.] PUBLIC RECORDS 52-2-7588 The Home News v. Bd. of Education of the Borough of Spotswood, App. Div. (10 pp.) Trial judge correctly held that plaintiff was not entitled to access to materials utilized by board members in their budget planning process, since plaintiff had not made a showing that these materials were legally required to be “made, maintained or kept on file” under the Right-To-Know law, and since the materials were not public records for common law access purposes. [Approved for publication Jan. 17, 1995. Available online in NJ Full-Text Decisions.] 52-2-7589 Hunterdon Cy. P.B.A. Local 188 v. Twp. of Franklin, App. Div. (7 pp.) (1) The trial judge properly determined that police union was entitled to access to copies of any and all bills from attorneys, arbitrators or other professionals hired by township in connection with any policy matter for a certain period, since these documents are required to be kept or maintained by the standards of good fiscal practice embodied in the Local Fiscal Affairs Law. (2) The trial judge also correctly found that these documents were not protected by attorney-client privilege since defendant could not point out any confidential matters discussed therein. [Approved for publication Jan. 17, 1995.Available online in NJ Full-Text Decisions.] FEDERAL COURT CASES BANKRUPTCY 42-7-7590 Robert Neville, Jr., et al. v. Elaine Harris, Trustee, U.S. Dist. Ct. (23 pp.) Bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in ordering debtors’ bankruptcy case reopened to include debtors’ legal malpractice lawsuit, since the trustee never formally abandoned the lawsuit as an asset of the bankrupt’s estate but simply failed to formally adopt any position vis-a-vis the lawsuit due to inadvertence. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY — PATENTS 53-7-7591 Mastercard Intl., Inc. v. Meridian Enterprises Corp., U.S. Dist. Ct. (25 pp.) The court denies motion for summary judgment to dismiss patent infringement claim over a patent that discloses a system and method for administration of an incentive award program through the use of credit, since consideration of the claim language and specification, the prosecution history and the prior art leads to the conclusion that the patent could apply to the credit card programs at issue in this case. NEGLIGENCE — C.P.A. MALPRACTICE — ENTIRE CONTROVERSY 31-7-7592 The American Ins. Co. v. Schonbraun, Safris, Sternlieb & Co., U.S. Dist. Ct. (22 pp.) Because there are issues of fact as to when plaintiff’s accounting malpractice claim accrued, summary judgment is not possible on defendant’s claim that the entire controversy doctrine bars the action; however, since the doctrine potentially could apply to bar the malpractice case, plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s entire controversy defense is denied pending resolution of those factual issues.

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.