X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 4, No. 198 — October 15, 1996 STATE COURT CASES GOVERNMENT 21-2-0258 Borough of Keyport P.B.A., etc., et al. v. Borough of Keyport, et al., App. Div. (2 pp.) Judge properly concluded that N.J.S.A. 40:9-165 did not authorize submission of a referendum to the voters to review an ordinance to create the position of police director, and dismissal of plaintiff s petition to compel such submission is affirmed. Judge also properly concluded that a second petition — which sought to have a referendum placed on the ballot to limit the police director s salary — exceeded the purpose of the referendum authorized by N.J.S.A. 40A:9-168. INSURANCE — ENVIRONMENT 23-2-0259 Jack Friedland, et al. v. Prudential Reinsurance Co., et al., App. Div. (9 pp.) Analyzing the terms of leases, judge properly dismissed plaintiff/landlords claims against tenants excess insurers — seeking defense and indemnification in proceedings stemming from environmental contamination of land landlords leased to tenants — based on fact that lease did not obligate the tenant to obtain insurance for property damage in excess of $100,000, and landlords were therefore insureds under the policies. INSURANCE — UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE 23-2-0260 American Reliance Ins. Co. v. The American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pa., et al., App. Div. (4 pp.) Judge erred in holding that injured party s own insurance policy s UIM coverage was primary based upon the discussion in Aubrey characterizing the nature of UIM coverage as personal to the insured, when, considering the other insurance clauses of that policy and the policy issued to injured party through her employer — whose van she was using at the time of the accident — it is clear that the employer s policy is primary. [Approved for publication Oct. 15, 1996.] INSURANCE — UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE 23-2-0261 Elayne Pucci, et al. v. CNA, App. Div. (6 pp.) Since insurance policy does not state in clear and unambiguous language that UM/UIM coverage does not extend to additional insureds, the policy which defendant issued to plaintiffs family corporation should be interpreted to provide such coverage, and summary judgment entered in favor of insurer is reversed. TAXATION 35-2-0262 Nathan R. Schnitzer v. Rudolph F. Rinderer, Jr., et al., App. Div. (13 pp.) Chancery Court erroneously set aside certificate for redemption of tax sale, discharging plaintiff s lien, since the inquiry, based upon redemption statutes, should have been to determine whether plaintiff s lien was properly discharged upon a redemption by new owners, and one of the critical questions should have been the sufficiency of the affidavit plaintiff submitted to establish the amount necessary to redeem, which was not addressed by the court. Because the issues involved are particularly embedded in the tax statutes, and require consideration of the statutory redemption procedures, the matter is remanded to the Tax Court. [Approved for publication Oct. 15, 1996.] FEDERAL COURT CASES CIVIL PROCEDURE — CERTIFICATION FOR APPEAL — MULTIPLE CLAIMS 07-7-0263 Stephen Kapossy v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., U.S. Dist. Ct. (25 pp.) Because plaintiff s employment discrimination complaint, although alleging numerous legal theories, presents only a single claim within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), certification of final judgment for appeal of the court s orders on several issues will be denied. Plaintiff s request that certain issues be certified for interlocutory appeal, and for a stay pending appeal, is denied because plaintiff has failed to show either a substantial ground for difference of opinion or that interlocutory appeal will materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. [Filed Oct. 4, 1996.][For publication.] CONTRACTS — REAL ESTATE VENTURES 11-7-0264 Coastal Group, Inc., etc. v. Westholme Partners, etc., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (29 pp.) In a contract matter arising out of a failed real estate development project, because the plaintiff had adequately pleaded these claims, defendants motion to dismiss the complaint is denied as to breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims, but granted because of plaintiff s failure to adequately plead claims of equitable estoppel, equitable subordination, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, interference with contractual relations and prospective economic advantage and duress. [Filed Oct. 3, 1996.] CORRECTIONS — CIVIL RIGHTS 13-7-0265 John Jamison v. DiSabato, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (5 pp.) Defendants are granted summary judgment dismissing inmate s claims since (1) insofar as inmate complains of parole hearing officer s substantive decision not to grant inmate parole, officer is entitled to absolute immunity, (2) on claim that officer violated inmate s civil rights by delaying his parole eligibility, there is no indication that parole officer participated personally in the decision to delay the hearing, and (3) on the claim that officer failed to inform inmate of his right to refuse to submit to a psychological exam, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. [Filed Oct. 2, 1996.] LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT — EDUCATION 25-7-0266 Dr. Harry Power v. Rutgers, The State University, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (28 pp.) Summary judgment is granted dismissing professor s suit against university and its dean — alleging, inter alia, that professor was deprived of property and liberty without due process when the university refused to consider him for promotion and imposed certain restrictions upon him after concluding that he had sexually harassed a female graduate student — since professor had no property interest in either his expectation to be considered for promotion, or his right to meet with students alone or have student assistants. Further, professor received all process from the university to which he was entitled. [Filed Oct. 1, 1996.] PRODUCT LIABILITY 32-7-0267 Pedro Oquendo v. Bettcher Industries, Inc., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (15 pp.) Since, under N.J. law, plaintiff s negligence claim is subsumed in the product liability count, and because plaintiff has adduced insufficient evidence to permit a reasonable fact finder to conclude that the meat press on which plaintiff was injured, as manufactured, was a defective product, the court grants summary judgment to the manufacturer. The court denies plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to add his employer as a defendant — for allegedly removing or altering the safety devices on the press — as there is nothing in the record to suggest the intentionality necessary to avoid the workers compensation tort bar. [Filed Oct. 1, 1996.] A Daily Reporter of New Jersey Court Decisions THIS WEEK IN THE … The Appellate Division, for the second time this year, criticizes Monmouth County Prosecutor John Kaye’s denial of PTI to a defendant in a school-zone drug case. See page 5 of the Oct.14 Law Journal.

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.