01-2-2666 Vashisht v. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection etc. , App. Div. (per curiam) (5 pp.) The final decision of the DEP commissioner assessing a penalty because plaintiff had repudiated an administrative consent order requiring it to remediate contaminated ground water, and continuing the remediation requirement, is affirmed, as plaintiff’s unilateral rejection of available financing did not invalidate the order or alter the obligation to remediate the site. Also affirmed is the trial judge’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ Law Division action, alleging that the order was a contract that the DEP had breached, on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. [Decided Jan. 7, 2009.]
ATTORNEY/CLIENT — LEGAL MALPRACTICE
04-2-2595 Porter et al. v. Kilcullen, Esq., et al. , App. Div. (per curiam) (30 pp.) Plaintiffs Norman and Elinor Porter executed “mirror” wills prepared for them by defendant Kilcullen. Where plaintiffs’ legal-malpractice claim was filed 10 years after Elinor’s death and the probate of her will, the appellate panel found the summary judgment dismissal of plaintiffs’ claim appropriate based on statute-of-limitations grounds. In addition, according to plaintiffs’ own expert, inclusion of the QTIP device to exert control over Norman’s broad discretion would have been contrary to the testator’s testamentary intent. [Decided Dec. 31, 2008.]
