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 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

Thursday, November 13, 2014

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERS, LLC VS. NEW JERSEY v DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A-5283-12T3

 STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERS, LLC VS. NEW JERSEY v DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 
A-5283-12T3 
This case involves an emergency order issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection pursuant to N.J.S.A. 13:1E-9.5(c) and -125.9. The order enjoined the owner of a solid waste landfill located in the Township of Roxbury from accepting any material onto the landfill, and authorized the Department to immediately seize control of the landfill to abate an alleged imminent threat to the environment arising from continued emissions of hydrogen sulfide. 
We concluded that the Department exceeded its authority under N.J.S.A. 13:1E-125.4 by seizing control of the landfill without first obtaining judicial approval, and erred in basing the emergency order on past hydrogen sulfide emissions by applying a statutory emissions standard that did not yet exist until the applicable statute was enacted the same morning the order was issued. We also concluded the Department had not made the requisite showing to justify an emergency order under N.J.S.A. 13:1E-125.9. Accordingly, we vacated the emergency order and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. 

We specifically rejected the landfill owner's contention that the new statute on which the Department relied constituted unconstitutional special legislation, and declined to address other constitutionally-based challenges to the Department's actions. 

EDUCATION LAW CENTER ON BEHALF OF ABBOTT V. BURKE PLAINTIFF SCHOOLCHILDREN VS. NEW JERSEY STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND CHRISTOPHER D. CERF, COMMISSIONER, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION A-2816-12T3


 EDUCATION LAW CENTER ON BEHALF OF ABBOTT V. BURKE PLAINTIFF SCHOOLCHILDREN VS. NEW JERSEY STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND CHRISTOPHER D. CERF, COMMISSIONER, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 
A-2816-12T3 

The New Jersey State Board of Education had statutory authority and did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in amending and repealing certain regulations promulgated under the Charter School Program Act of 1995 to permit existing, successful charter schools in under-performing school districts to open satellite locations within the same districts. 

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

BRIAN DUNKLEY VS. S. CORALUZZO PETROLEUM TRANSPORTERS A-3252-12T1

 BRIAN DUNKLEY VS. S. CORALUZZO PETROLEUM TRANSPORTERS 
A-3252-12T1 
We affirm the summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff's LAD complaint, alleging claims of hostile work environment and constructive discharge. Plaintiff experienced racial discrimi-nation by a fellow employee assigned to train him. When the incidents were disclosed to defendant, its mechanisms, including a formal anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policy, a developed complaint procedure and an investigation process, effectively resolved the discriminatory treatment identified by plaintiff and he precluded any further racial harassment. However, plaintiff maintains as a result of his disclosures, co-workers avoided him, which he insisted caused his constructive discharge. 

We held plaintiff's complaints of perceived ostracism by fellow employees after he reported a co-worker's acts of racial discrimination are insufficient to support LAD claims of hostile work environment, retaliation or impose vicarious liability on the employer. 

BRIAN DUNKLEY VS. S. CORALUZZO PETROLEUM TRANSPORTERS A-3252-12T1

 BRIAN DUNKLEY VS. S. CORALUZZO PETROLEUM TRANSPORTERS 
A-3252-12T1 
We affirm the summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff's LAD complaint, alleging claims of hostile work environment and constructive discharge. Plaintiff experienced racial discrimi-nation by a fellow employee assigned to train him. When the incidents were disclosed to defendant, its mechanisms, including a formal anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policy, a developed complaint procedure and an investigation process, effectively resolved the discriminatory treatment identified by plaintiff and he precluded any further racial harassment. However, plaintiff maintains as a result of his disclosures, co-workers avoided him, which he insisted caused his constructive discharge. 

We held plaintiff's complaints of perceived ostracism by fellow employees after he reported a co-worker's acts of racial discrimination are insufficient to support LAD claims of hostile work environment, retaliation or impose vicarious liability on the employer. 

Monday, September 15, 2014

IN THE MATTER OF AN INITIATIVE PETITION FOR THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE JACKSON TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATIVE CODE A-0517-13T1

IN THE MATTER OF AN INITIATIVE PETITION FOR THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE JACKSON TOWNSHIP ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 
A-0517-13T1 

This appeal involves a governing body's pre-election challenge to an ordinance proposed in an initiative petition. The trial court declared a section of the ordinance unlawful but, notwithstanding a severance clause in the ordinance, declined to sever the unlawful section and order that the excised ordinance be placed on the ballot. We affirm. We conclude that the trial court had the authority to hear the pre-election challenge to the proposed ordinance. We further conclude that the court did not have the authority to revise the ordinance and order that the altered ordinance be placed on the ballot. 

ERIC G. HANISKO VS. BILLY CASPER GOLF MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL. A-5053-12T4

ERIC G. HANISKO VS. BILLY CASPER GOLF MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL. 
A-5053-12T4 
In this appeal, we revisit the application of the special employer-special employee relationship addressed in Blessing v. T. Shriver & Co., 94 N.J. Super. 426 (App. Div. 1967), and, in doing so, affirm the grant of summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiff, the superintendent of a golf club, sustained injuries in his employer-provided residence. Applying the Blessing factors, we found plaintiff was employed by both the management company that managed the golf club, and the golf club. We rejected plaintiff's contention that judicial estoppel precluded 

the golf club from asserting the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -128, as a bar to plaintiff's action in Superior Court against the golf club. In addition, we found no error in the trial court's consideration, for summary judgment purposes, the fully executed employment agreement, which was not turned over to plaintiff during the course of discovery. We agreed, as the motion judge found, the parties did not dispute the authenticity of the document. 

PRINCETON SOUTH INVESTORS, LLC VS. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY A-0850-12T3

PRINCETON SOUTH INVESTORS, LLC VS. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY 
A-0850-12T3 

In a dispute over title insurance coverage, we held that a municipality's pending tax appeal, concerning the alleged under-assessment of plaintiff's property, did not render plaintiff's title unmarketable or constitute a defect in or an encumbrance on the title. In addition, based on the language of the title insurance policy, we held that the claim was not covered.