X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 4 No. 143 – JULY 26, 1996 STATE COURT CASES ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE — MOVERS 01-2-9705 In the Matter of the Suspension or Revocation of the License of Fair Lawn Reliable Movers, etc., App. Div. (8 pp.) On complaint against movers by customers, (1) the state Board of Public Movers and Warehousemen s decision not to refer this matter to the Office of Administrative Law was not an abuse of discretion, and (2) although hearsay evidence may be relied on by the board, and was properly considered, the hearsay must be supported by other evidence; therefore, three of the board s findings without support are reversed, but the other supported findings are affirmed. CIVIL PROCEDURE — EXPERTS 07-2-9706 Raritan Enviro Sciences Inc. v. Super Value Inc., etc., et al., App. Div. (7 pp.) The trial court’s preclusion of defendant s expert witness from testifying at trial did not amount to a clear abuse of discretion where defendant, despite repeated requests to provide a summary of the proposed expert s opinion, failed to do so until 18 days before trial. FAMILY LAW — DOMESTIC VIOLENCE — STALKING 20-2-9707 Jeanette S. v. Robert S., App. Div. (6 pp.) The trial court correctly entered final restraining order against defendant, finding that he had engaged in stalking since he purposely and repeatedly followed plaintiff and with the intent to annoy her. LAND USE Now on Counsel Connect 26-2-9708 Carl Vidal v. Lisanti Foods Inc., et al.; Twp. of East Hanover, etc. v. Bd. of Adjustment of the Twp. of East Hanover, et al., App. Div. (16 pp.) The trial court judgment sustaining the municipal Board of Adjustment s resolutions granting use variance applications and related site plan and subdivision approvals is reversed, since the grant was based on the board s view that the tract’s present zoning is inappropriate, which constitutes an arrogation of the power to rezone, and the board s approval of the use variance applications constituted an impermissible de facto rezoning of the tract. [Approved for publication July 26, 1996.] PHYSICIAN/PATIENT 29-2-9709 Thomas J. Haneke, etc. v. Bernard M. Schroeder, M.D., et al., App. Div. (7 pp.) There was no reversible error in trial judge s permitting defendant s expert to testify, since defendant had offered plaintiff a further deposition of the expert after his report was amended in supplemental answers to interrogatories, but plaintiff never followed up on that offer. Judge also did not impermissibly limit cross-examination of defendant s expert witness, nor interfere with plaintiff s counsel s summation, nor err in the jury charge, and therefore no cause verdict is affirmed. TAXATION Now on Counsel Connect 35-2-9710 Gen. Motors Corp. v. City of Linden, App. Div. (12 pp.) In a case dealing with the definition of a fixture and the taxation of personal property affixed to real property, the Tax Court erred in declaring that N.J.S.A. 54:4-1(b), as amended by L. 1992, c. 24, Sec. 3, in implementation of the Business Retention Act (BRA), N.J.S.A. 54:4-1.13 to 16, is unconstitutional as a violation of the uniformity requirement of Article 8, Section 1, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey constitution. [Approved for publication July 26, 1996.] CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE Now on Counsel Connect 14-2-9711 State v. Lisa M. Paturzzio, App. Div. (16 pp. — including dissent) The trial judge erred in suppressing evidence obtained in a warrantless search, since there were sufficient facts to corroborate the information provided by a source that illegal drug activity was occurring, and therefore there was probable cause to stop the vehicle, in which knapsack was in plain view, a search of which produced marijuana cigarette. Further searches were conducted incidental to proper arrests. [Approved for publication July 26, 1996.] 14-2-9712 State v. Vernon Waiters, App. Div. (6 pp.) Since the alleged strategy of defense counsel was not based upon a proper understanding of the law, defendant must not be bound by the attorney s election not to object to admission of hearsay evidence, and conviction is reversed. FEDERAL COURT CASES CIVIL RIGHTS — DUE PROCESS 46-7-9713 Benjamin Adams, et al. v. City of Jersey City, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (23 pp.) Due to the grievance and arbitration procedures available to the plaintiffs through their collective bargaining agreement, plaintiffs received due process, and their civil rights claims are dismissed. [Filed July 16, 1996.] CONTRACTS — CIVIL PROCEDURE — DISCOVERY 11-7-9714 Russian Academy of Sciences Computation Center v. Lencomm Sys. Inc., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (6 pp.) Defendant s motion to vacate discovery order is denied, since the records sought are clearly relevant to the parties dispute on issues of fraud and piercing of the corporate veil. [Filed July 18, 1996.] FAIR HOUSING — LAND USE 41-8-9715 Hovsons Inc., et al. v. Twp. of Brick, etc., et al., Third Cir. (30 pp.) Since applicant’s nursing-home project would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden upon the municipality, nor would building the nursing home fundamentally undermine the municipal zoning scheme, the district court erred in rejecting applicant s claims under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, where applicant contends that municipality failed to provide reasonable accommodations to handicapped persons when it denied application to build the nursing home. [Filed July 18, 1996.] INSURANCE 23-7-9716 NL Industries v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., U.S. Dist. Ct. (23 pp.) On reconsideration of an order concerning the duty of various insurers to defend plaintiff and contribute to defense costs with regard to lead paint suits, the court makes some modifications in the prior order with respect to coverage and coverage periods. [Filed July 18, 1996.][For publication.] CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE — WIRETAPPING 14-7-9717 Lawrence V. Pascale, et al. v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., etc., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (37 pp.) (1) Where the only evidence pointing to certain corporate officials involvement in illegal wiretapping — that the officials were in the chain of command and pressured subordinates to solve a theft problem that existed within the company — is insufficient to create a disputed issue of fact as to their liability for the wiretap, the complaint against these officials is dismissed. (2) The court may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over fraud counterclaims because they are distinct controversies that require independent jurisdictional foundations, lacking here. (3) The magistrate judge correctly denied plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint since discovery had concluded and the parties were ready to proceed to trial, and plaintiffs had waited some 20 months after receiving information about the putative defendant s involvement in the wiretapping. [Filed July 16, 1996.]

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.