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, March 4, 2014

JANICE J. PRIOLEAU VS. KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN, INC.

JANICE J. PRIOLEAU VS. KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN, INC.
A-2884-12T4

We examine the scope of mode-of-operation liability, concluding the trial judge erred its application. While on her way to the restroom, plaintiff slipped on the tile floor of defendants' fast-food restaurant on a substance she described as "water" or "grease." The trial judge applied the doctrine finding defendants' operated a fast-food operation and had not followed certain safety policies. We reversed finding no link between the manner in which the business was conducted and the alleged hazard plaintiff slipped on or its source. We concluded mode-of-operation liability results when a plaintiff suffers injury because the mode or manner of the business operation creates the dangerous condition on the premises. This concept does not lead to broad application. Although mode-of-operation liability is a type of dangerous condition, not all dangerous conditions arising in the operation of a business satisfy the mode-of-operation theory of liability.

In his dissent, Judge Hoffman views the facts as sufficient to impose mode-of-operation liability and would affirm the verdict. 03/03/14
 

Sunday, February 23, 2014

KATHERINE FELICIANO VS. JEFFREY N. FALDETTA, ET AL.

KATHERINE FELICIANO VS. JEFFREY N. FALDETTA, ET
AL.
 A-1301-12T3

This appeal raised the issue of whether, in the
context of a contingent fee case, an award of fees under
Rule 4:58-2(a) should be reduced by the amount of the
contingent fee to avoid a double recovery. The panel held
that it should not because the fee belongs to the client
and the attorney is not entitled to the entire contingent
fee from the client under that circumstance. The attorney
is entitled to the fee awarded pursuant to Rule 4:58-2 for
the work done after the offer of judgment was rejected and
fair compensation from the client for the period prior to
that. 02/21/14

WILLIAM E. NEWMAN, JR. VS. BOARD OF REVIEW, ET AL.

WILLIAM E. NEWMAN, JR. VS. BOARD OF REVIEW, ET
AL.
 A-2253-09T3

We reverse the Board's determination to disqualify
claimant from benefits for six weeks and remand for a new
hearing for two reasons. First, a hearing as to the
timeliness of the employer's appeal was held in claimant's
absence when he was serving in the United States Air Force,
contrary to the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50
U.S.C.A. app. §§ 501 to 597. Second, the Board improperly
found the employer's appeal was timely filed based on the date the employer received the determination from its
representative, UC Express, rather than the date that UC
Express received it. 02/19/14
 

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

L.R. VS. DIVISION OF DISABILITY SERVICES

L.R. VS. DIVISION OF DISABILITY SERVICES
 A-5701-11T2

L.R. participates in the Personal Assistance Service
Program under the Personal Assistance Services Act,
N.J.S.A. 30:4G-13 to -22. She receives a monthly cash
budget to assist her perform routine, nonmedical tasks and
promote the greatest possible degree of self-control and
self-direction. She appeals from the decision of the
Commissioner of Human Services denying her request to use
unspent funds to pay for the landline connection to her
residence phone, cell phone service, and internet access.

We reverse. The Commissioner's decision was
arbitrary, capricious, and inconsistent with the
Legislature's policy of promoting the greatest possible
degree of self-control and self-direction on the part of
consumers of Personal Assistance Service Program services. 02/06/14

PORT LIBERTE II CONDOMINIUM ASSOC. V. NEW LIBERTY RESIDENTIAL URBAN RENEWAL CO.

PORT LIBERTE II CONDOMINIUM ASSOC. V. NEW LIBERTY
RESIDENTIAL URBAN RENEWAL CO.
A-2574-11T1;A-3129-11T1(CONSOLIDATED)

Several years into the litigation, the trial court
dismissed a massive construction lawsuit filed by a
condominium association, on the grounds that the
association had filed the lawsuit without first obtaining
the unit owners' approval as required by the by-laws.
Although the unit owners had voted to ratify the filing of
the suit, the trial court reasoned that post-filing
ratification was not permitted. We concluded that was
contrary to well-established case law concerning
ratification. We also reasoned that construing the by-laws
to preclude ratification produced an absurd result,
contrary to the unit owners' interests and to the purpose
of the Condominium Act. We held that defendants – the
developers and builders — had no standing to represent the
interests of the unit owners in enforcement of the by-laws.
Any interest defendants had in avoiding possible
duplicative litigation by unit owners was satisfied when
the unit owners' ratified the association's filing of the
complaint. 01/31/14

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 97, ET AL. VS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 97, ET AL. VS. STATE OF NEW
JERSEY, ET AL. NEW JERSEY STATE FIREFIGHTERS'
MUTUAL BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION ET AL. VS. STATE OF
NEW JERSEY ET AL.
 A-3274-10T3; A-3868-10T3;A-3916-10T3;A-4086-
10T3(CONSOLIDATED)

In these consolidated appeals, plaintiffs, who
represent state and local public employees in collective
negotiations with public employers, challenge the
constitutionality of three laws: L. 2010, c. 1, which made
changes to State-administered retirement systems; L. 2010,
c. 2, which made changes to eligibility requirements for
and benefits provided through the State Health Benefits
Program (SHBP) and School Employees' Health Benefits
Program (SEHBP); and L. 2010, c. 3, which made changes to
other public employee benefits. We reject plaintiffs'
constitutional challenges and affirm the trial court's
dismissal of plaintiffs' complaints for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. 01/31/14

STEPHANIE PLATIA VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF HAMILTON

 STEPHANIE PLATIA VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
 TOWNSHIP OF HAMILTON, MERCER COUNTY
 A-1730-12T3

In this appeal, we consider the application of the
"temporary" employee exception to the Tenure Act, N.J.S.A.
18A:16-1.1. Plaintiff was employed as a special education
teacher by the Board of Education of Hamilton Township
(Board) for more than three academic years in a four-year
period. However, the Board denied that she obtained tenure
under the Tenure Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:28-1 to -18, because her
employment for one of those academic years was as a "Long
Term Substitute" pursuant to a contract that stated the
position was "non-tenurial." We conclude the exception
does not apply and that Platia obtained tenure as of right. 01/29/14