Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 4, No. 159 – August 16, 1996 STATE COURT CASES ATTORNEY/CLIENT 04-2-9869 P&M Enters. v. Ronald Murray, et al. v. Joseph P. Perfilio, et al., App. Div. (5 pp.) A loan by an attorney to a client is presumptively invalid, and unless that presumption is overcome, the loan obligation is unenforceable from its inception, and the attorney is entitled only to the return of the principal and the cost of the money lent. [Approved for publication Aug. 16, 1996.] INSURANCE 23-2-9870 S.N. Golden Estates Inc., et al. v. Continental Casualty Co., App. Div. (17 pp.) Because the complaint in the underlying action alleges that defective septic systems in the houses sold by plaintiff have caused damages to the homes and properties of homeowners whose septic systems have not failed, the defendant — plaintiff’s insurer — owed a duty to defend the action and none of the policy exclusions cited by defendant are applicable. [Approved for publication Aug. 16, 1996.] INSURANCE — U.M. COVERAGE 23-2-9871 Paul M. Degen v. Khalid Maziri, App. Div. (6 pp.) Tortfeasor’s insurance company cannot avoid liability by misrepresenting to the injured plaintiff that there was no insurance coverage and thereby lull the plaintiff into letting the statute of limitations expire; therefore, judge erred in dismissing plaintiff’s case — brought after he found out there was coverage — on statute of limitations and entire controversy grounds. LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT 25-2-9872 PSM Steel Contractors Inc. v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, etc., App. Div. (10 pp.) There was no abuse of discretion in trial court’s decision to bifurcate trial, and since it is clear that the liability jury determined that union’s unlawful conduct — by an illegal secondary boycott — resulted in plaintiff’s loss of contracts, and there is an adequate record to support the finding of the damages jury on the extent of plaintiff’s monetary loss from that illegal conduct, the verdicts are affirmed. REAL ESTATE — NOTICES OF SETTLEMENT — LIENS 34-2-9873 Tobar Constr. Co.; Donald Zucker v. R.C.P. Assocs., etc., et al., App. Div. (6 pp.) Where no statutory notice of settlement has been filed, a judgment docketed after a deed disposing of the judgment debtor’s interest in real property is delivered, but before the deed is recorded, becomes a lien on the property by virtue of N.J.S.A. 46:22-1. [Approved for publication Aug. 16, 1996.] REAL ESTATE — WARRANTIES 34-2-9874 Patricia Fierro v. Allan Bergman, et al., App. Div. (7 pp.) Since plaintiff homebuyer failed to prove that either seller or broker had warranted that the air conditioner on the premises would be in working order at the time of closing or for any period after the closing, and since seller’s contractual representations do not survive the closing of title, judgment against broker and seller is reversed. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE 14-2-9875 State v. Rashaan Smith, etc., App. Div. (9 pp.) Defendant’s conviction for third-degree theft by receiving a stolen vehicle is reversed, since the absence of a jury charge on the lesser included joyriding offense deprived defendant of a fair trial. 14-3-9876 State v. Rudis Rodriguez, Law Div. (19 pp.) Analyzing the rights of a non-English speaking municipal court defendant to an interpreter, the court concludes that defendant, having been charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and leaving an accident scene was confronted with the possibility of imprisonment and other consequences of magnitude, such as a substantial monetary penalty and the suspension of his driving privileges, and, therefore, he had the right to a court interpreter as part of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and right to confront witnesses. [Approved for publication Aug. 6, 1996.] A Daily Reporter of New Jersey Court Decisions THIS WEEK IN THE … A series of high-profile criminal cases stemming from attacks at shopping centers spawned a new cause of action: claims against malls for lax security. But an appellate court has issued a ruling that limits the liability of shopping malls in such cases. Plaintiffs’ lawyers say the ruling is in direct contradiction to a groundbreaking 1981 state Supreme Court ruling. See page 1 of this week’s Law Journal.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* 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 © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.