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

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

6/26/2014 BERG, ET AL. VS. HON. CHRISTOPHER J. CHRISTIE,ET AL./MICHAEL DELUCIA, ET AL. VS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, DIVISION OF PENSIONS AND BENEFITS A-5973-11T4/A-6002-11T4/ A-0632-12T1(CONSOLIDATED)


6/26/2014
BERG, ET AL. VS. HON. CHRISTOPHER J.
CHRISTIE,ET AL./MICHAEL DELUCIA, ET AL. VS. STATE
OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
DIVISION OF PENSIONS AND BENEFITS
A-5973-11T4/A-6002-11T4/ A-0632-12T1(CONSOLIDATED)
Our opinion decides two appeals, Berg and DeLucia. In Berg, construing 1997 pension legislation, we conclude that the Legislature intended to create a contractual right to receive pension benefits, including cost of living adjustments. We find that plaintiffs' claims for payment of benefits from the pension funds is not barred by the Debt Limitation and Appropriations Clauses of the StateConstitution. We reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the State, and remand to allow the parties to create an evidentiary record on whether the State can satisfy the constitutional standard it must meet to justify impairing the obligation of a contract. In DeLucia, plaintiffs raised separate arguments that we find without merit, and we affirm the trial court's decision granting summary judgment.

06/24/14 COMANDO V. NUGIEL A-2403-13T3


06/24/14 COMANDO V. NUGIEL
A-2403-13T3
We conclude RPC 1.7, addressing concurrent conflicts of interests, equally prohibits the representation of opposing parties in transactional matters. Accordingly, a concurrent conflict of interest arises when "the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client," RPC 1.7(a)(1), such as the instant matter where counsel provided legal representation to both a corporate landlord, and its principals, as well as the corporate tenant and its principal.