To schedule a confidential consultation, email us at VercammenAppointments@NJlaws.com, call or

visit Website www.njlaws.com

Kenneth Vercammen was included in the 2011 “Super Lawyers” list published by Thomson Reuters.

Kenneth Vercammen is a Middlesex County trial attorney who has published 130 articles in national and New Jersey publications on litigation topics. He was awarded the NJ State State Bar Municipal Court Practitioner of the Year. He lectures for the Bar and handles litigation matters. He is Past Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Committee,GP on Personal Injury and was a speaker at the 2012 ABA Annual Meeting attended by 10,000 attorneys and professionals. To schedule a confidential consultation, email us at VercammenAppointments@NJlaws.com, call or

visit Website www.njlaws.com

Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C.

2053 Woodbridge Avenue - Edison, NJ 08817

(732) 572-0500

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

IN THE MATTER OF THE GRANT OF A CHARTER TO THE MERIT PREPARATORY CHARTER SCHOOL OF NEWARK AND IN THE MATTER OF THE GRANT OF A CHARTER TO THE NEWARK PREPARATORY CHARTER SCHOOL A-0019-12T2


IN THE MATTER OF THE GRANT OF A CHARTER TO THE MERIT PREPARATORY CHARTER SCHOOL OF NEWARK AND IN THE MATTER OF THE GRANT OF A CHARTER TO THE NEWARK PREPARATORY CHARTER SCHOOL
A-0019-12T2
The Commissioner of Education did not exceed his authority pursuant to The Charter School Program Act of 1995, N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-1 to -18, when he granted charters to two schools that use a "blended" teaching methodology that combines in-person, face-to-face teaching and online instruction by means of internet materials. 04/09/14 

SALVATORE LOPRESTI AND MARGARET LOPRESTI VS. WELLS FARGOBANK,N.A. A-1356-12T3


SALVATORE LOPRESTI AND MARGARET LOPRESTI VS. WELLS FARGOBANK,N.A.
A-1356-12T3
We hold that the proscription against a prepayment penalty in the New Jersey Prepayment Law, N.J.S.A. 46:10B-1 to -11.1, does not apply to commercial loans even when personally guaranteed by the individual owners of the business to which the loan was made, and secured by a mortgage on their primary residence. 04/08/14  

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY VS. L.W. AND R.W. IN THE MATTER OF I.W. AND K.W. A-3001-12T3


NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY VS. L.W. AND R.W. IN THE MATTER OF I.W. AND K.W.  A-3001-12T3
We reverse a finding of neglect after a mother came to the Division of Child Protection and Permanency office seeking housing for her two young children. We determine that the judge's finding of "unbelievably poor planning" was not sufficient for a finding of neglect. Parents of young children who become desperate for housing should be encouraged to seek a temporary safe placement for the children from the Division.  4/07/14 

04/07/14 PETER INNES, ET AL. VS. MADELINE MARZANO- LESNEVICH, ESQ., ET AL. VS. MITCHELL A. LIEBOWITZ, ESQ., ET AL. A-0387-11T1

04/07/14 PETER INNES, ET AL. VS. MADELINE MARZANO- LESNEVICH, ESQ., ET AL. VS. MITCHELL A. LIEBOWITZ, ESQ., ET AL.
A-0387-11T1

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of his daughter, sued defendants, a law firm and one of its principals,
page1image17032 page1image17192 page1image18952

alleging emotional distress damages as a result of defendants' breach of their professional responsibility. The complaint centered on a pre-divorce agreement, executed by the parties and their attorneys, that required plaintiff's ex-wife's then attorney to hold the daughter's passport in trust. Defendants, as successor counsel, with full knowledge of the agreement and without notice to anyone, gave the passport to the child's mother, who used it to remove the child to Spain, where she remains in the custody of her maternal grandparents. Plaintiff's ex-wife was criminally prosecuted and at the time of trial was incarcerated in New Jersey. Plaintiff has essentially been denied any contact with the child in the ensuing years. See Innes v. Carrascosa, 391 N.J. Super. 453 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 192 N.J. 73 (2007).
The jury found that, even though they were not clients, defendants breached the professional duty they owed to plaintiffs. It awarded damages to both father and daughter, and the judge included an award of counsel fees to both as part of the final judgment.
We affirmed the judgment as to plaintiff-father, but vacated the judgment as to his daughter. We discuss the duty owed by an attorney to a third-party in certain circumstances, the availability of emotional distress damages in an action sounding in legal malpractice, the necessary elements of proof in such an action and the propriety of an award of counsel fees to non-clients in such circumstances. 

OSEPH CHERILUS, ET AL. VS. FEDERAL EXPRESS, ET AL. A-1285-12T2

OSEPH CHERILUS, ET AL. VS. FEDERAL EXPRESS, ET AL.
A-1285-12T2
Claims against the designer/manufacturer of a torklift (air cargo lift), specially designed for a Federal Express facility and affixed to the loading dock, were correctly dismissed as barred by the ten-year statute of repose, N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1.1(a). Also, plaintiffs could not effectively assign their tort claims against the designer/manufacturer to the settling defendant. And the settling defendant did not preserve its right to seek contribution under the Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-3, when it settled with plaintiffs and filed a stipulation of dismissal rather than allow a "money judgment" to be entered in favor of plaintiffs. 04/02/14 J

H.S.P. VS. J.K. A-1121-12T1


H.S.P. VS. J.K.   A-1121-12T1
A petitioner asking the Family Part to make the findings in 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101(a)(27)(J) to enable a juvenile to apply for special immigrant juvenile status must show that reunification is viable with neither of the juvenile's parents due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment. It is insufficient to show only that one parent abused, neglected, or abandoned the juvenile.
The mother, who raised the juvenile, did not willfully neglect him merely because she was financially unable to provide better care. The mother did not abandon the juvenile, given that she arranged for him to enter the United States to live with a relative, and remains in contact with him. By contrast, the father, whose whereabouts are unknown, willfully abandoned the juvenile, because he left the family before the juvenile was born, never met the teenaged juvenile, and provided no support.
Because one parent had not abused, neglected, or abandoned the juvenile, the Family Part did not err in declining to find whether it was in the juvenile's best interest to be returned to his home country. 03/27/14  

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCYVS. C.W. I/M/O I.N.W. A-0542-12T4


NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCYVS. C.W. I/M/O I.N.W.   A-0542-12T4
We address the requisite procedures Family Part judges must follow to protect a defendant's due process rights when a child's testimony is sought in a protective services action. We hold that in any proceeding filed pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c), when a defendant objects to utilizing an alternative to the child's in-court testimony, the judge must adhere to the statutory procedures outlined in N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-32.4, prior to allowing in camera testimony of a child-witness. 03/27/14