Kenneth Mr. Vercammen was included in the 2017 “Super Lawyers” list published by Thomson Reuters.

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

(732) 572-0500

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

IN THE MATTER OF CENTEX HOMES, LLC PETITION FOR EXTENSION OF SERVICE AND/OR FOR EXEMPTION FROM MAIN EXTENSION RULES N.J.A.C. 14:3-8.1 ET. SEQ. PURSU

IN THE MATTER OF CENTEX HOMES, LLC PETITION FOR
EXTENSION OF SERVICE AND/OR FOR EXEMPTION FROM MAIN
EXTENSION RULES N.J.A.C. 14:3-8.1 ET. SEQ. PURSUANT TO
N.J.S.A. 48:2-27 AND N.J.A.C. 14:3-8.8(a)(4) OR
(a)(6). A-2207-07T3 12-30-09

Where the intent to incorporate smart growth land use
planning principles is not contained within the enabling of the
Board of Public Utilities (BPU), and where the BPU is not
specifically called upon by the State Planning Act, N.J.S.A.
52:18A-196 to -207, to incorporate the smart growth planning
principles contained therein, the BPU exceeded its authority
under N.J.S.A. 48:2-27 by promulgating a regulation that
prohibited public utilities from subsidizing new service
extensions in areas not designated for growth under the State
Planning Act.

NAJDUCH V. TOWNSHIP OF INDEPENDENCE PLANNING BOARD, A-2900-08T1

NAJDUCH V. TOWNSHIP OF INDEPENDENCE PLANNING BOARD, A-2900-08T1
12-30-09
A planning board only has jurisdiction to grant site plan
approval for a development project that is a permitted use in
the zoning district.

ANDREA ORZECH, ET AL. v. FAIRLEIGH DICKENSON UNIVERSITY A-5919-07T1 12-29-09

ANDREA ORZECH, ET AL. v. FAIRLEIGH DICKENSON
UNIVERSITY A-5919-07T1 12-29-09

A university's negligent failure to enforce its alcohol
policy and a student's violation of that policy do not negate
the student's status as a beneficiary of the university's
educational works. We therefore found that the wrongful death
claim resulting from the student's accidental fall to his death
from his dormitory window, while intoxicated, was barred by
charitable immunity, and we reversed the judgment against the
university.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

G.D. v. BERNARD KENNY and THE HUDSON COUNTY DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION, INC. A-3005-08T3

G.D. v. BERNARD KENNY and THE HUDSON COUNTY
DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION, INC.
A-3005-08T3 12-21-09

Defendants, sued for defamation for preparing and
circulating flyers referring to plaintiff's criminal record, may
assert the defense of truth despite the fact that plaintiff's
conviction has been expunged.

DAVID JOHNSON V. MOLLY V.G.B. JOHNSON A-0704-08T1

DAVID JOHNSON V. MOLLY V.G.B. JOHNSON
A-0704-08T1 12-21-09

In this appeal from an order confirming an arbitral award
respecting custody and parenting time, we conclude that Fawzy v.
Fawzy, 199 N.J. 456 (2009), should be given pipeline retroactive
effect. As a result, we reverse and vacate the arbitral award
because the arbitration agreement prohibited a transcript of the
proceedings. Without an adequate record, the Family Part judge
could not evaluate the threat of harm to the children.

IN RE PETITION FOR REFERENDUM ON CITY OF TRENTON ORDINANCE 09-02 A-5864-08T3

IN RE PETITION FOR REFERENDUM ON CITY OF TRENTON
ORDINANCE 09-02
A-5864-08T3 12-17-09

The sale of such portion of the water utility system is not
subject to the Faulkner Act referendum provisions mandated by
N.J.S.A. 40:69A-185. The portion serves less than five percent
of the population of the municipality and is excepted from a
public vote by N.J.S.A. 40:62-3.1.

The portion of a municipal water system that lies outside
of the municipality and provides water services to adjoining
municipalities does not "serve" the municipality.

ANDREW FAUCETT V. DARIANNA VASQUEZ A-2945-08T1

ANDREW FAUCETT V. DARIANNA VASQUEZ
A-2945-08T1
12-17-09

A prior, post-judgment order entered in 2002 awarded
primary residential custody of these divorced parties' eleven-
year old son to the plaintiff/father. When he faced imminent
deployment to Iraq as an Army reservist, defendant/mother, who
shared legal custody of her son and exercised significant
parenting time under the order, moved for modification. She
sought immediate transfer of residential custody of her son and
child support, arguing that between herself and the child's
stepmother, she was presumed to have custody. Determining that
the child should not be uprooted in the middle of the school
year, the motion judge denied the mother's request without
prejudice, but nevertheless ordered a custody evaluation.
Defendant appealed.

We concluded that the "parental presumption" does not apply
under such circumstances and the mother was not entitled to
modification simply because the parent of primary residential
custody was about to be deployed for one year.

However, we also determined that the mother had established
a prima facie case of changed circumstances that affected the
welfare of her son. The judge properly ordered a custody
evaluation, and clearly anticipated further review. We
concluded that the motion judge should not have denied
defendant's motion, and reversed only as to that aspect of the
order.

Edward Zabilowicz v. Roslyne Kelsey (A-87-08)

Edward Zabilowicz v. Roslyne Kelsey (A-87-08)
12-17-09

In this automobile insurance case, under the plain
language of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a), the limitation-on-
lawsuit threshold can be invoked only by a defendant
who is eligible to receive New Jersey PIP benefits.
Because the defendant’s out-of-state insurance policy
does not provide her with this State’s PIP benefits,
she is subject to suit for noneconomic damages without
restriction under that statute.

Praxair Technology, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation (A-91/92-08

Praxair Technology, Inc. v. Director, Division of
Taxation (A-91/92-08) 12-15-09

Praxair’s business arrangement with its corporate
parent gave rise to liability under the Corporation
Business Tax Act, N.J.S.A. 54:10A-2, for the years
1994-1996, before an example was added to the relevant
regulation, N.J.A.C. 18:7-1.9.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

MING YU HE v. MILLER A-5685-07T3

MING YU HE v. ENILMA MILLER
A-5685-07T3 12-15-09

In earlier proceedings, the court reversed an order
granting a remittitur of the pain and suffering and per quod
components of a jury verdict. The Supreme Court reversed in
part and remanded to the trial judge for a complete and
searching analysis including a factual analysis of how the award
here was different or similar to others to which it was
compared. The trial judge thereafter considered two verdicts
produced by trials over which he presided, as well as verdicts
emanating from other courts, and adhered to his earlier ruling
that the award was excessive.

Pursuant to the Supreme Court's mandate, the court
reconsidered its earlier decision and found the trial judge's
analysis of the verdicts in other cases was inadequate and
inconsistent with the applicable jurisprudence. The court
concluded that -- although high and perhaps overly-generous -- a
pain and suffering award of $1,000,000 for a permanent injury
incurred by the forty-six year old plaintiff, who sustained four
herniated discs as a result of the defendant's negligence, was
not so wide of the mark as to constitute a manifest miscarriage
of justice.

Highland Lakes Country Club and Community Association v. Nicastro, Sr (A-10-09)

Highland Lakes Country Club and Community Association
v. Frank W. Nicastro, Sr., et al. (A-10-09) 12-8-09

Judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed
substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge
Grall’s written opinion. Application of the Affidavit
of Merit Statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-26 to -29, would be
inconsistent with its overall purposes under the
present circumstances of this case.

Monday, December 7, 2009

PAULA ALEXANDER, JOAN COLL, and CHERYL THOMPSON-SARD v. SETON HALL UNIVERSITY, JOHN J. MYERS, ROBERT SHEERAN, PAULA BULEY, KAREN E. BOROFF an

PAULA ALEXANDER, JOAN COLL, and CHERYL THOMPSON-SARD
v. SETON HALL UNIVERSITY, JOHN J. MYERS, ROBERT
SHEERAN, PAULA BULEY, KAREN E. BOROFF and JOSEPH
DEPIERRO
A-1251-08T3 12-07-09

There is no cause of action under the New Jersey Law
Against Discrimination (LAD) for discrimination in pay and
compensation benefits when the discrimination is based on
decisions ("discrete acts") which occurred outside the LAD two-
year statute of limitations. The fact the impact of the
discriminatory decision-making continued the pay disparity into
the two-year period before the complaint was filed is not
relevant. Using the guidance of the federal Title VII
jurisprudence, we follow the United States Supreme Court's
decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S.
618, 127 S. Ct. 2162, 167 L. Ed. 2d 982 (2007), despite
Congress' subsequent adoption of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
of 2009. The Legislature, not this court, must amend LAD to
achieve the result Congress adopted.

BOYLAN V. THE BOROUGH OF POINT PLEASANT BEACH A-0234-08T2

BOYLAN V. THE BOROUGH OF POINT PLEASANT BEACH
A-0234-08T2 12-04-09

Any ambiguity in the description of the boundaries of a lot
created by a subdivision, which is contained in the deed
conveying the lot, should be resolved by reference to the filed
subdivision map that shows the precise boundaries of the lot.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

ALPERT, GOLDBERG, BUTLER, NORTON & WEISS, P.C., n/k/a Alpert Butler & Weiss, P.C., Plaintiff- Respondent, v. MICHAEL QUINN, MARITA QUINN and QUINN-

ALPERT, GOLDBERG, BUTLER, NORTON & WEISS, P.C.,
n/k/a Alpert Butler & Weiss, P.C., Plaintiff-
Respondent, v. MICHAEL QUINN, MARITA QUINN and QUINN-
WOODBINE REALTY & LEASING CO., L.L.C., Defendants-
Appellants
A-5503-07T2
11-24-09

We hold in this attorney-fee collection action the
following: (1) given the unique relationship between an
attorney and a client, the fiduciary duty owed by an attorney to
a client, and the need for a client to have complete information
at the time of retention concerning the fees, charges, and
obligations to be owed by a client to the attorney, R.P.C.
1.5(b) requires an attorney to present a client the attorney has
not regularly represented, in writing, at the time of retention,
all of the fees and costs for which the client will be charged,
as well as the terms and conditions upon which the fees and
costs will be imposed; (2) we adopt Williston's principles that
in order for a contract to properly incorporate by reference a
separate document, the document to be incorporated must be
described in such terms that its identity may be ascertained
beyond doubt and the party to be bound by the terms must have
had "knowledge of and assented to the incorporated terms"; (3)
the failure to conduct a case management conference pursuant to
Ferreira v. Rancocas Orthopedic Assocs., 178 N.J. 144 (2003), in
a malpractice action does not toll the timeframes set forth in
the Affidavit of Merit statute; and (4) Rule 1:4-8(d)(2)
compensates a party, represented by an attorney or appearing pro
se, for the reasonable legal fees and expenses the party
actually incurred as a result of an adversary's frivolous claim
and, therefore, an attorney appearing pro se is not entitled to
fees unless the fees are actually incurred as opposed to
imputed.

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES v. P.W.R., ET ALS. A-1060-08T4

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES v.
P.W.R., ET ALS.
A-1060-08T4 11-19-09

The trial judge in this Title 9 action defaulted a
defendant because she did not attend the factfinding hearing
even though her attorney appeared to represent her interests.
The court concluded that, unless warranted by defendant's
failure to comply with a prior order and the potential for
default was adequately noticed, a judge is not authorized to
enter a default in this circumstance. In considering the
overall circumstances, however, the court determined that the
default had no meaningful impact on the proceedings and
affirmed.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

11-17-09 EPIX HOLDINGS CORPORATION V. MARSH & MCLENNAN COMPANIES, INC., ET AL.

11-17-09 EPIX HOLDINGS CORPORATION V. MARSH & MCLENNAN COMPANIES, INC., ET AL.
A-3059-08T3

We reverse the Law Division's denial of defendants' motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff's anti-trust and related common law claims in a pending lawsuit, holding:

1. under principles of equitable estoppel, a non-signatory may enforce an arbitration clause in a contract signed by a subsidiary where the issues to be litigated are intertwined with the agreement containing the arbitration clause;

2. a clause that provides for arbitration of any dispute "arising out of" is broad enough to encompass claims going to the formation of the underlying contract and hence extends to the price-fixing and related common law claims in this case;

3. unlike employment claims alleging violations of the Law Against Discrimination, the Legislature did not intend statutory anti-trust and restraint of trade claims to be non-arbitrable; and

4. the fact that arbitration will not conclude the entire litigation in this case (as claims will remain pending in the Law Division against other co-defendants) is not a bar to the enforcement of an arbitration clause since piecemeal resolution is allowed when necessary to give effect to an arbitration agreement.



Assistant Editor: Umair Hussain

11-16-09 OSORIA v. WEST NEW YORK RENT CONTROL BOARD, ET AL.

11-16-09 GLORIA OSORIA v. WEST NEW YORK RENT CONTROL BOARD, ET AL.
A-1596-08T1

The rental building in this case was covered by a rent control ordinance but was converted to one that became exempt under the language of the ordinance. We hold that the ordinance provides tenant protections that are at least coextensive with the protections of the Anti-Eviction Act, but neither the ordinance nor the Anti-Eviction Act implicitly creates vested rights of a pre-conversion tenant beyond its explicit terms. As to the latter point, we agree with a similar holding in Dempsey v. Mastropasqua, 242 N.J. Super. 234 (App. Div. 1990), and disagree with the contrary holding of Surace v. Papachristou, 244 N.J. Super. 70 (App. Div. 1990). We also disapprove Judge Fast's contrary holding in Chambers v. Nunez, 217 N.J. Super. 202 (Law Div. 1986).


Assistant Editor: Umair Hussain

Saturday, November 14, 2009

KENNETH VERCAMMEN – resume and community involvement

KENNETH VERCAMMEN – resume and community involvement
Attorney at Law
2053 Woodbridge Ave.
Edison, NJ 08817
732-572-0500
www.njlaws.com
Kenneth Vercammen is an Edison, Middlesex County, NJ trial attorney who has published 125 articles in national and New Jersey publications on probate, estate planning, criminal and litigation topics. He often lectures to trial lawyers of the American Bar Association, New Jersey State Bar Association and Middlesex County Bar Association.
Kenneth Vercammen was the NJ State Bar Municipal Court Attorney of the Year and past president of the Middlesex County Municipal Prosecutor's Association.

 He is the past chair of the NJ State Bar Association Municipal Court Section. He is the Deputy chair of the ABA Criminal Law committee, GP Division. Kenneth Vercammen was selected one of only three attorneys as a Super Lawyer 2009 in NJ Monthly in the Criminal - DWI.
He is a highly regarded lecturer on litigation issues for the American Bar Association, ICLE, New Jersey State Bar Association and Middlesex County Bar Association. His articles have been published by New Jersey Law Journal, ABA Law Practice Management Magazine, and New Jersey Lawyer. He is the Editor in Chief of the New Jersey Municipal Court Law Review. Mr. Vercammen is a recipient of the NJSBA- YLD Service to the Bar Award. He has successfully handled over One thousand Municipal Court and Superior Court matters in the past 18 years.


Since 1985, his primary concentration has been on litigation matters. Mr. Vercammen gained other legal experiences as the Confidential Law Clerk to the Court of Appeals of Maryland (Supreme Court),with the Delaware County, PA District Attorney Office handling Probable Cause Hearings, Middlesex County Probation Dept as a Probation Officer, and an Executive Assistant to Scranton District Magistrate, Thomas Hart, in Scranton, PA. He started his career as a trial attorney for Drazin & Warshaw in Hazlet and Red Bank, NJ, and Borrus, Goldin, Foley, Vignuolo, Hyman & Stahl in North Brunswick.


ADMISSIONS: Admitted In NJ, NY, PA, US Supreme Court and Federal District Court

MANAGING ATTORNEY Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, PC March 1990-Present
Full service Law practice with offices in Edison and Cranbury.

PROSECUTOR Township of Cranbury, Middlesex County, NJ 1991-1999
Municipal Prosecutor for criminal and traffic cases involving Township and State Police
-Acting Assoc. Prosecutor: Carteret Municipal Court, Middlesex County, NJ 2000

EDITOR- NJ MUNICIPAL COURT LAW REVIEW 1993- present

Middlesex County Bar Association 2008 Municipal Court Attorney of the Year

NJ State Bar Association- 2005-2006 Municipal Court Attorney of the Year Award

New Jersey Super Lawyers selection 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006

Who's Who in America 2004

NJ State Bar Association- 2002 General Practitioner of the Year Award

1993 AWARD WINNER "Service to the Bar Award"- New Jersey State Bar Association YLD

RELEVANT LITIGATION SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS:
-Criminal, DWI and Drug Cases- NJ State Bar Annual Meeting 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 01, 00, 99
-Civil Trial Practice- Middlesex Bar 2004
-Personal Injury Litigation- NJ Institute for Continuing Legal Education/ NJ State Bar
2001, 2000,1999,1998,1997,1996,1995,1994,1993,1991
-Municipal Court Handling Serious Cases ICLE/NJSBA-2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002,2001,2000,1998,1997,1995,1994
-NJ Association of Municipal Court Administrators 2002
-Edison Police Auxiliary- Search and Seizure 2002
-New Jersey Network TV- Due Process TV show 2000
-Cablevision TV- Law on the Line 2003, 2001
-Elder Law and Probate NJSBA/ ICLE 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 03,02,01,99,98,97,96

PUBLICATIONS:
Published 150 separate Law Review and Legal Periodical articles in legal journals such as New Jersey Law Journal, American Bar Association Barrister, New Jersey Lawyer, ABA Law Practice Management, and New Jersey State Bar Association's Dictum. Listed on www.njlaws.com.

KENNETH VERCAMMEN, ESQ.

RECENT SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS ON WILLS, ELDER LAW, AND PROBATE
East Brunswick Adult School 2009, 2008
Middlesex County Police Chiefs 2009- Living Wills
Middlesex County College- Wills & Probate 2007
Edison Adult School -Wills, Elder Law & Probate- 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002 [inc Edison TV], 2001, 2000,1999,1998,1997
- Nuts & Bolts of Elder Law - NJ Institute for Continuing Legal Education/ NJ State Bar ICLE/NJSBA 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2000, 1999, 1996
-Elder Law and Estate Planning- American Bar Association New York City 2008, Miami 2007
South Plainfield Seniors- New Probate Law 2005, East Brunswick Seniors- New Probate Law 2005
Old Bridge AARP 2002; Guardian Angeles/ Edison 2002; St. Cecilia/ Woodbridge Seniors 2002;
East Brunswick/ Hall's Corner 2002;
-Linden AARP 2002
-Woodbridge Adult School -Wills and Estate Administration -2001, 2000,1999,1998,1997,1996
Woodbridge Housing 2001; Metuchen Seniors & Metuchen TV 2001; Frigidare/ Local 401 Edison 2001; Chelsea/ East Brunswick 2001, Village Court/ Edison 2001; Old Bridge Rotary 2001; Sacred Heart/ South Amboy 2001; Livingston Manor/ New Brunswick 2001; Sunrise East Brunswick 2001; Strawberry Hill/ Woodbridge 2001;
-Wills and Elder Law - Metuchen Adult School 1999,1997,1996,1995,1994,1993
-Clara Barton Senior Citizens- Wills & Elder Law-Edison 2002, 1995
-AARP Participating Attorney in Legal Plan for NJ AARP members 1999-2005
-Senior Legal Points University of Medicine & Dentistry UMDNJ & St. Peter's-2000, 1999,1998
-East Brunswick AARP Wills 2001; -Iselin/ Woodbridge AARP Wills 2000
-Metuchen Reformed Church; Franklin/ Somerset/ Quailbrook Seniors 2001
-North Brunswick Senior Day 2001
-Wills, Elder Law and Probate-South Brunswick Adult School & Channel 28 TV 1999, 1997,1993
-Wills and Estate Planning-Old Bridge Adult School 1998,1997,1995
-Senior Citizen Law-Perth Amboy YMHA 1995; Temple Beth Or 2002;
-Wills, Living Wills and Probate-Spotswood Community School 1995,1994,1993
-Wills and Probate-Sayreville Adult School 1997, 1996,1995,1994
-Living Wills-New Jersey State Bar Foundation and St. Demetrius, Carteret 1994
-Wills and Estate Planning-Edison Elks and Senior Citizens January 1994
-"Legal Questions Clinic" Metuchen Adult School March 1995,1994,1993
-Estate Planning to Protect Families-Metuchen Chamber of Commerce April 1993

SPECIAL ACTING PROSECUTOR: Woodbridge, East Brunswick, Metuchen, South Brunswick, Perth Amboy, Cranbury, South Plainfield, Clark, South River, Hightstown, Carteret, Jamesburg, Berkeley Heights on conflict matters. Past President- Middlesex Municipal Prosecutor's Association. Previous experience with the Delaware County, Pennsylvania District Attorney Office, Middlesex County Probation Department and Scranton District Magistrate Office.

Metuchen Public Defender 2001- present Edison Public Defender 1990-1991

KENNETH VERCAMMEN- Community Service

NON- PROFIT: -Edison Elks-Presiding Justice 1993- Present
-Y.B. CHOI TAE KWON DO (Korean Karate)- 4th degree Black Belt awarded 2008 3rd degree 2004 ; 2nd degree December 1993, 1st degree Black Belt December 2001
-Raritan Valley Road Runners- Comeback of the Year Award 2002 and ranked Master Distance Runner; state champion 20,000 meter team 2005

New Jersey State Age Group Champion Garden State Games 5,000 meter run 1993
-Bishop Ahr/St. Thomas Aquinas H.S. Alumni Society
Elected Vice-President 1989-1990; Class of 1977- 25 year Reunion Chair
-Edison 14th District Committeeman Elected 1988-1994
-St. Francis Cathedral- Church Lector 1990-1994
-University of Scranton, North Jersey Alumni Chapter Co-Chair, Fall Social 1988
-Knights of Columbus-Fourth Degree Knight, Edison Council
Edison NJ Essay Contest Chair 1992,1993
Metuchen Chamber of Commerce, Past member Edison Chamber of Commerce;
RUNNING:
Raritan Valley Road Runners RVRR Rumson HashHouse Harriers
Central Jersey Road Runners CJRR Jersey Shore Triathlon Club JSTC
Freehold Area Running Club FARC Scranton Area Organization Runners SOAR
Jersey Shore Running Club JSRC USATF- US Athletic Track & Field
Sandy Hook Triathlon Club First Place- Bergen Bar 5k Law Day Run May 2001 South Brunswick Running Group- President First Place- CJRR Summer 5K 2002
First Place: Cocoa Beach 2 mile 2008, 2007; Cranford Run for Lupus 4 mile 2006, JSRC Twilight run 2006. Indian Trials Middletown 3m 2005,2004; Stroudsburg 5k 2005, 2004; Wildwood 5k, Ocean Winter 4 mile, Edison Lannie 5k, 2004; Washington DC Run for Justice 5K 2002
CJRR Age group champ 2005,2004, 2002, 1996, 1995
New York Marathon top 100 NJ Finisher

ACTIVITIES: Married 1989, one son born 1991, daughter born 1994
Weekend Road Running Races, Triathlons, Soccer
Tae Kwon Do Karate

SOUTH BRUNSWICK AREA
Summer Blast/Ireland Brook Neighborhood Sponsor
So. Brunswick Soccer Asst. Coach Travel 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 98
So. Brunswick Athletic Assoc.-Team Sponsor and helper with son's team
So. Brunswick Viking 5k- volunteer
South Brunswick 5K running Race volunteer
So. Brunswick Bicentennial Volunteer
Neighborhood Picnic Sponsor 1998-2009
So. Brunswick 50 Mile Bike Volunteer and 50 mile Finisher
Holt for Congress Volunteer

CHARITABLE: American Cancer Society-Chairman
Annual Summer Fundraiser Picnic- 1987,88,89,90,91,92
Chairman, Annual Christmas Fundraiser- 1987,88,89,90,911,92
Recipient-Young Professionals Award-Sept. 1988, Sept. 1989
Board of Manager's - 1989-1994 Founder and Chair-Young Professionals Group

KENNETH VERCAMMEN, ESQ. Education & Awards

LEGAL EDUCATION: The Widener/ Delaware Law School, J.D., May 1985
Class Rank: Top Ten Percent
Awards: Honor Grades: Federal Income Tax, Business Organization, Criminal Law, Advanced Advocacy, Family Law, New Jersey Practice, Unfair Trade Practices, Professional Liability.
Outstanding Service Award Recipient in Graduation Ceremony
Delaware Merit Scholarship - 1983, 1984
Provincial Winner - Phi Delta Phi Legal Honor Fraternity Graduate of the Year Award
Who's Who in American Law Schools

ACTIVITIES:
Law Review- Senior Staff-Member
Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Senior Editor 1984-1985
Winner - Sixth Annual Trial Advocacy Competition
First Prize - Delaware Law School/ATLA Environmental Law Essay Contest
Delaware Law Forum, Casenote Editor

Working Scholar- Hon. Philip Gruccio, Assignment Judge of Atlantic, Cumberland, Cape May, Salem Counties
Association of Trial Lawyers of America, Delaware Chapter Treasurer
Law School Running Club - President
Research Assistant - Dean Arthur Weeks
Publications- Published in Law Review and wrote more articles than 75% of law faculty members

PRELEGAL EDUCATION: University of Scranton B.S., January 1981
Major: Political Science: Graduated Cum Laude in 3-1/2 years
Honors:
- Cited in Who's Who in American Colleges and Universities;
- Dean's List; Pi Gamma Mu Honor Society; Pi Sigma Alpha Honor Society.
- Varsity Cross- Country - Team Captain and Record Holder of Indoor Half-Mile
- District Magistrate Thomas Hart- Paid Law Clerk/ Executive Assistant
- Pre-Law Society Public Relations Director
- Voter Registration Drive Coordinator
- Internship with Pa. Representative Hon. Fred Belardi
- School Newspaper Staff and Sportswriter
- WYRE radio station sports caster
- 3rd Place Wrestling Tournament
- Campus Bowl Intellectual Competition (Team Captain)
- Trustee Day Volunteer, Red Cross Blood Drive Volunteer
- Senior Class - Hard Rockers Social Committee Chair
-Alumni Society-Estate Planning Council 1997-Present
- Class of 1981 20 year Reunion Executive Committee member 2001 -25 Year Reunion Co-chair


KENNETH VERCAMMEN
Attorney at Law
2053 Woodbridge Ave.
Edison, NJ 08817
732-572-0500
The American Bar Association is the largest voluntary professional organization in the world with more than 400,000 members

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION - National Appointments:

General Practice Solo & Small Firm Division
-Estate Planning, Probate & Trust Committee- Chair 2008-2009, 2006-2007
-Elder Law Committee Chair 2005- present, Vice Chair 1996-1999
- Criminal Law Committee Deputy Chair 2006-present
- Tort, Personal Injury and Insurance Committee Chair 2005- 2006
-Deputy Chair and Newsletter Editor-GP Marketing Legal Services Committee 1993 -1996
- Probate & Estate Planning Committee- Newsletter Editor & Vice Chair 1997-1999, Vice Chair 2005
-Litigation Committee Member 1993 - present

BUSINESS AND AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS:
-Elder Law, Estate and Probate ABA Chicago Annual Meeting
-Elder Law and Probate New York City 2008 Annual Meeting
- Improving Your Elder Law & Estate Practice San Francisco, CA 2007
-Elder Law and Estate Planning- ABA Miami 2007
-Elder Law Practice, New Ethical Ideas to Improve Your Practice for Clients ABA Hawaii 2006
-Marketing Success Stories ABA Toronto 1998
-Opening a Business-Sayreville Adult School 1997,1996,1995
-Olympians of Marketing- ABA Annual Meeting-Orlando, Florida 1996
-Unique Marketing Techniques & Client Relations III ABA Annual Meeting-Chicago 1995
-Starting a Business-Brooklyn Bar Association 1995,1994
-Personal Marketing & Relations - 1995 Miami ABA meeting LPM Personal Marketing Skills IG
co-sponsored by four Major National Bar Sections and committees
-How to Start a Practice-1994 New Orleans ABA Annual Meeting LPM primary sponsor
-1993 New York Annual Meeting "Marketing for Small Firms"

LAW PRACTICE MANAGEMENT SECTION ABA- LPM
-Co-Chair with Jay Foonberg-ABA LPM Personal Marketing Skills Group 1998,1997,1996,1995,1994
-Speaker at many ABA Annual Meetings
-National Liaison and ex-officio member of Law Practice Management Section Council 1993 - 1995
-National Chair - Law Practice Management Committee YLD 1992-1993
-Chair and Newsletter Editor-Marketing Legal Services Committee 1996-1997,1999-2000
ABA Attendance at Leadership Conferences and participation at following Annual and Sectional meetings: Chicago 2009, New York 2008, Philadelphia GP 2007, San Francisco 2007, Washington GP 2007, Miami 2007, Hawaii 2006, Philadelphia LPM 2005; Washington DC 2002; Philadelphia 2002; London 2000, New York 2000, Atlanta 1999, Beverly Hills 1999, Cancun LPM 1998, Naples-LPM 1997; Captiva 1996, Orlando 1996, Coronado LPM 1995, Chicago 1995, Miami 1995, Washington D.C. GP 1995, Vancouver LPM 1995, New Orleans 1995, Napa, CA LPM 1994, Colorado LPM 1993, New York 1993, Boston 1993, San Francisco 1992, Cleveland GP 1992, Scottsdale AZ 1991, Los Angeles 1990, Hawaii 1989, Philadelphia 1988, Toronto 1988, New York City 1986, Washington DC 1985


KENNETH VERCAMMEN
Attorney at Law
2053 Woodbridge Ave.
Edison, NJ 08817
732-572-0500
New Jersey State Bar Association- Municipal Court Section Chair 2003-2004, Vice Chair 1999-2002; Chair of Municipal Court Education Committee 1996-Present
Middlesex County Bar Association Chair Municipal Court Practice Committee 1997-2008
County Bar Board of Trustees 2000- 2006

New Jersey State Bar Association -General Practice Section-Board of Directors 1995- Present

ADJUNCT PROFESSOR Middlesex County College
Edison, NJ February, 2001-April, 2001; Jan. 1990-May, 1991
Instructor of "Criminal Law and Procedure" and Business Law. Taught college students the elements of crime and the criminal procedure system. Explained the incidents before and after trial and analyzed the impact of the Constitution on crimes and criminal procedures.

New Jersey Superior Court - Certified Mediator 1997-

New Jersey Supreme Court Committee on Municipal Courts 2000-2005

Other Speaking
-Update of Municipal Court-NJSBA Annual Meeting Atlantic City 1999,1997, 95, 94
- Cranbury Twp Municipal Alliance Against Substance Abuse 2004, 2002
-ATLA-NJ - New Jersey Courts 1991
-Intoxicated Driver Resource Center/IDRC - DUI Law 1999, 1991
-Preventing the Impaired Driver-Coalition Against Impaired Drivers 1992
-Winning Lawsuit Threshold Cases NJSBA 1992
-WCTC Radio Mid-Day Legal Advisor - Criminal and Traffic Laws 1991 and 1990
-Computers in Litigation-NJSBA Law Office Management 1994
-Self Defense Law in New Jersey - Cranbury Police Dept. 1997,1993,1992

Self Defense and Home Protection - Speaker - New Brunswick Crime Watch - 1989
-Wills and Power of Attorney 1991 Edison Democratic Association
Defending Speeding Cases - New Jersey State Bar Association/NJSBA - 1989
-Family Law & Domestic Violence Trial Practice NJ State Bar Association 1995,1994,1993
-Automobile Insurance - Middlesex County College - 1990
-Criminal & Juvenile Courts Piscataway Vo Tech – 1990
-Living Wills-Dean Witter and Nordstroms, Menlo Park Mall October 1992; Trusts and Living Wills-Dean Witter, Metro Park, June 1992; Estate Planning-North Brunswick Republican Club May 1992;

Make a Wish Foundation- Co Chair 19th Annual Summer Blast 1994 in Belmar, NJ
Co Chair Christmas Fundraiser 1993
Jersey Shore Medical Center Chair-18th Annual Summer Blast to Benefit the Jersey Shore Regional
Trauma Center at Bar Anticipation, Belmar 1993
American Red Cross Elected to Board of Directors 1988-1991

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

11-09-09 O'SHEA V. TOWNSHIP OF WEST MILFORD

11-09-09 MARTIN O'SHEA V. TOWNSHIP OF WEST MILFORD
A-1185-08T3

The Attorney General's guidelines, policies and procedures
requiring the completion of "Use of Force Reports" (UFRs) and
their maintenance in the files of police departments have the
force of law for police entities, rending such documents
accessible under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A.
47:1A-1 to -13. Therefore, UFRs do not qualify, generically,
under the "criminal investigatory records" exception of OPRA.


Assistant Editor: Umair Hussain

11-09-09 GONZALEZ-POSSE V. RICCIARDULLI

11-09-09 CELINA GONZALEZ-POSSE V. JOSE RICCIARDULLI
A-6446-06T3

We hold that the Family Part order, modifying spousal
support by extending the term of limited duration alimony from
five years (at $500 weekly), which the parties agreed to in a
property settlement agreement, to seventeen years (at $100
weekly), failed to meet the heightened statutory standard of
"unusual circumstances", N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(c); or to adhere to
the presumption that the durational feature of the support
obligation be preserved; or to otherwise give effect to the need
for, and purpose of the original agreed-upon arrangement.


Assistant Editor: Umair Hussain

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Litton Industries, Inc. v. IMO Industries, Inc., et

11-2-09 Litton Industries, Inc. v. IMO Industries, Inc., et
al. (A-10/11-08)

The Purchase and Sale Agreement provided for
attorneys’ fees and costs and the amount of the fee
award is governed by traditional principles applicable
to attorneys’ fee awards, within the context of the
contract. The trial court did not abuse its
discretion in the amount awarded for pre-judgment
interest or commit error in the claimed trial
deviations.


Assistant Editor: Umair Hussain

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

10-22-09 UNITED CONSUMER FINANCIAL SERVICES CO. V.

10-22-09 UNITED CONSUMER FINANCIAL SERVICES CO. V.
WILLIAM CARBO v. A&M MERCHANDISING, INC.
A-5501-06T2

The dispute that gave rise to this class action litigation
is about the content and form of a contract and notice of
cancellation, which was approved by a single creditor and used
by multiple door-to-door sellers in retail installment sales of
vacuum cleaners. The appeal is from a judgment awarding
injunctive relief and a civil penalty in the amount of $100 to
each member of the class pursuant to the Truth-in-Consumer
Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA), N.J.S.A. 56:12-14 to
-18, based upon violations of consumer rights provided in the
Retail Installment Sales Act (RISA), N.J.S.A. 17:16C-1 to -61,
and the Door-to-Door Retail Installment Sales Act (DDRISA),
N.J.S.A. 17:16C-61.1 to -61.9.

We reject the claim that class certification was improper
because only one of the several sellers was involved in the
purchase made by the class representative. We affirm the TCCWNA
penalty because the contract violated a consumer right provided
by RISA and the aggregate award was neither unconstitutionally
excessive nor a basis for decertification of the class. We
modify the injunctive relief because the Federal Trade
Commission regulations, 16 C.F.R. §§ 429.1 to 429.3, preempt and
preclude enforcement of several but not all of the provisions of
DDRISA.



Assistant Editor: Umair Hussain

10-21-09 D.R. HORTON, INC., NEW JERSEY V. J.J. DELUCA CO., INC.

10-21-09 D.R. HORTON, INC., NEW JERSEY V. J.J. DELUCA CO., INC.
A-1041-08T2

We affirm, for reasons stated by the Chancery Division, a
judgment holding that the New Jersey Arbitration Act, N.J.S.A.
2A:23B-10(c), does not vest exclusive jurisdiction in the courts
to decide motions to consolidate two or more pending arbitration
proceedings and therefore the matter may proceed before a
neutral arbitrator in accordance with the American Arbitration Association's (AAA) procedural rules.



Assistant Editor: Umair Hussain

10-20-09 JANICKY V. POINT BAY FUEL, INC. and USF INSURANCE

10-20-09 JANICKY V. POINT BAY FUEL, INC. and USF INSURANCE
CO. and THE POWDERHORN AGENCY, INC.
A-0867-08T3

When the parties consent to entry of a final judgment
memorializing a settlement disposing of all claims in an action,
a party cannot appeal from an interlocutory order that no longer
has any effect upon any party's pecuniary interests or property
rights.


Assistant Editor: Umair Hussain

Monday, October 19, 2009

10-14-09 Thomas Best v. C&M Door Controls, Inc. (A-57-08)

DATE NAME OF CASE (DOCKET NUMBER)
10-14-09 Thomas Best v. C&M Door Controls, Inc. (A-57-08)
A defendant can never be awarded fees under Rule 4:58,
the offer-of-judgment rule, in a case involving the
Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), the
Prevailing Wage Act (PWA), or a similar fee-shifting
statute. However, a trial judge may take into account
a plaintiff’s unreasonable rejections of an offer of
judgment in calculating plaintiff’s award under such a
statute.

Assistant Editor: Umair Hussain

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

10-07-09 New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company v. Bergen Ambulatory Surgery Center A-0307-08T2

10-07-09 New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company v. Bergen
Ambulatory Surgery Center
A-0307-08T2
In this case, plaintiff automobile insurer sought discovery
in the Law Division pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-13 for use in
personal injury protection (PIP) arbitration proceedings. The
nature of the discovery was the annualized billing and payment
history of the defendant ambulatory surgery center for certain
services that were subject to a usual, customary, and reasonable
(UCR) analysis in the PIP arbitration proceedings. We hold that
this type of expansive discovery is not obtainable under
N.J.S.A. 39:6A-13 as of right in the Law Division. We therefore
affirm the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's action.

Assistant Editor: Umair Hussain

10-01-09 NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES v. J.L. A-1103-08T2

10-01-09 NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY
SERVICES v. J.L.
A-1103-08T2
In this decision, we reverse the final decision of the
Director of the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS)
finding that J.L. had committed an act of child neglect as
defined by N.J.S.A. 9:5-8.21c(4)(b), determining that willful
and wanton misconduct was not demonstrated. Additionally, we
again query whether inclusion on the Central Registry prior to
any trial-type hearing of the matter constitutes a deprivation
of due process rights under the federal or state constitution or
is fundamentally unfair. However, we ultimately determine that
the matter is not ripe for our consideration, since J.L. did not
challenge her interim inclusion on the Registry either before
DYFS or by order to show cause in Superior Court, and her appeal
was only from the Director's final decision.

Assistant Editor: Umair Hussain

Monday, September 28, 2009

I/M/O OF J.W. A-5458-08T1

DATE NAME OF CASE (DOCKET NUMBER)
09-28-09 I/M/O OF J.W. A-5458-08T1
Internet and area notification consistent with moderate risk of recidivism is warranted under Megan's
Law for this registrant both by reason of his RRAS tiering score and because of uniquely serious factors
which bring the matter further out of "heartland" contemplated by the RRAS.

Edited by Umair Hussain

Joan Marino v. Larry L. Marino, et al.

DATE NAME OF CASE (DOCKET NUMBER)
9-24-09 Joan Marino v. Larry L. Marino, et al. (A-18-08)
The plain language of the statutory provisions relating to interment and disinterment expresses that a different regulatory scheme applies to each; therefore, the Appellate Division erred in determining that the provisions must be read in pari materia.

Edited by Umair Hussain

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Saduk v Huckleberry Thermogram properly considered

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1977-08T3


JOANNE JIMENEZ SADUK
AND ANTHONY SADUK, H/W,

Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v.

JAMES HUCKLEBERRY,

Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________

Argued August 4, 2009 - Decided

Before Judges Lihotz and Baxter.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Cumberland County,
Docket No. L-122-06.

Harold H. Thomasson argued the cause for
appellant (David B. Wright & Associates,
attorneys; Mr. Thomasson, on the brief).

Louis J. DeVoto argued the cause for
respondents (Rossetti & DeVoto, P.C.,
attorneys; Mr. DeVoto, on the brief).

PER CURIAM
This is a verbal threshold case. The matter proceeded to
trial on the issues of liability, permanency, proximate cause
and damages. Defendant James R. Huckleberry appeals from the
August 25, 2009
A-1977-08T3
2
jury verdict in favor of plaintiff Joanne Jimenez Saduk1 and the
denial of his motion for a new trial or, in the alternative,
remittitur. On appeal, defendant argues plaintiff's trial
evidence that included results of a thermogram, which showed she
suffered mediated pain syndrome, did not evince a permanent
injury, as required by N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a)(6). Following our
review of the arguments advanced on appeal, the record and the
applicable law, we affirm.
The following evidence was presented at trial. On April
20, 2004, at approximately 4:23 p.m., plaintiff, then age 31,
was traveling South on State Highway 47, or Delsea Drive, in
Millville. She was approaching South Street and slowing her
vehicle to make a left turn when defendant's vehicle struck her
from behind. The collision pushed plaintiff's vehicle onto the
shoulder. As a result of the impact, the passenger seat
occupied by plaintiff's mother was dislodged. Plaintiff
recalled defendant was "just really apologetic. He just kept
saying he was sorry and he also asked us if we were okay."
Defendant testified that right before the collision, he was
rounding a curve in the road and something drew his attention
off to the left. When he refocused on the road ahead,

1
In our opinion, "plaintiff" refers to Joanne Jimenez Saduk,
understanding the asserted per quod claim on behalf of
plaintiff Anthony Saduk was dismissed.
A-1977-08T3
3
plaintiff's vehicle was directly in front of him. Defendant
stated, "I could[] [not] stop and I hit her square in the back
of her vehicle." Defendant described the force of impact as
"heavy" and recalled he was "dazed" when the accident occurred.
His airbag deployed upon impact, after which he could not see
anything. Defendant stated he was aware his "foot had been on
the brake" because his vehicle did not "careen wildly off
anywhere."
Plaintiff and her mother were taken by ambulance to the
emergency room of Newcomb Hospital. Plaintiff complained of
neck, lower back and knee pain. She underwent x-rays and was
released with pain medication and given instructions to follow
up with her family doctor, as necessary. Plaintiff saw her
family doctor, Emanuel Petrolokis, M.D., who changed plaintiff's
medication and instructed her to take two weeks off from work
and rest. Dr. Petrolokis referred plaintiff to James Beebe,
D.C.
Dr. Beebe examined plaintiff on July 21, 2004. She
continued to complain of "pain primarily in the low back, as
well as the neck, and mostly on the right side, radiating pain
going down the right leg as well as predominately pain from the
neck on the right side[.]" His examination revealed muscle
spasms and "a reduction of her ranges of motion, both in the
A-1977-08T3
4
cervical and in the lumbar spine[.]" Both the cervical and
lumbar spine functioned at approximately eighty percent of the
normal range. Dr. Beebe ordered additional x-rays and mapped
out a treatment plan for plaintiff, which consisted of
chiropractic spinal adjustments, electric muscle stimulation,
and traction three times per week for twelve weeks.
Dr. Beebe referred plaintiff for an orthopedic
consultation. Plaintiff underwent Magnetic Resonance
Imaging (MRI), which showed no neuro-compression and was
otherwise negative. Dr. Beebe's final clinical evaluation of
plaintiff on December 20, 2004, revealed improvement in
plaintiff's cervical and lumbar ranges of motion showing
plaintiff's lumbar spine was functioning at ninety percent and
her cervical spine at eighty-five percent. He opined plaintiff
suffered a "permanent injury from the traumatic accident that
she had back in April[.]"
Plaintiff was referred to Philip Getson, D.O., for an
examination on December 8, 2004. She complained of "neck pain,
shoulder pain, weakness in the right arm, mid[-]back pain, low
back pain, which to her was her major problem[]. . . . She had
pain in the leg and hand, weakness in the right lower extremity,
right leg, headaches, [and] sleep interruption." Dr. Getson
observed spasms and limitations in the range of motion in
A-1977-08T3
5
plaintiff's neck, right shoulder, thoracic and lumbar spine.
Plaintiff showed no orthopedic symptoms, however, "there were a
number of abnormalities suggestive of nerve-related problems."
Dr. Getson initially believed plaintiff suffered from
reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD). He revised that diagnosis
to a brachial plexus2 injury, which evolved into sympathetically
mediated pain syndrome, a malfunction of the sensory nervous
system and a form of RSD, resulting from the injury plaintiff
sustained in the automobile collision.
He ordered a second MRI and an electromyogram (EMG) to
measure muscle function, as well as a nerve study. All were
negative and, he, therefore, ruled out motor nerve injury as the
source of plaintiff's pain. Dr. Getson referred plaintiff to
David Lopresti, D.O., an interventional pain management
specialist, who performed two series of epidural and facet
injections. Plaintiff had a positive response to the treatments
but did not complete the injection series due to her pregnancy.
Dr. Getson also prescribed physical therapy, Topamax, a drug
used to relieve nerve pain, and ordered a thermogram. The
thermogram confirmed Dr. Getson's diagnosis.

2
The brachial plexus is a network of nerves that conducts
signals from the spine to the shoulder, arm, and hand.

A-1977-08T3
6
Plaintiff did not return to Dr. Getson until February 2007,
at which point he observed her lower back pain remained
problematic, but "her neck pain was pretty much gone. And that
was not surprising to me at all because for some reason . . .
pregnancy improves sympathetic dysfunction." Before suggesting
further injection treatments, Dr. Getson ordered a follow-up
MRI, which was unremarkable. Dr. Getson noted a normal MRI did
not preclude the sympathetic abnormality, but ruled out a
pinched nerve, disc herniation or other motor function
abnormalities.
At trial, Dr. Getson's de bene esse deposition was played
for the jury. He discussed the thermogram results, explaining
a thermogram or infrared imaging was an objective test measuring
the sensory portion of the nerves and sympathetic portion of the
nervous system to diagnose sympathetically mediated pain
syndrome. Dr. Getson showed some of the thermographic images
taken on February 16, 2005, and interpreted the images
explaining to the jury the various abnormalities between
plaintiff's left versus her right side. The thermography
results showed "abnormalities in the neck and the legs
predominantly, and . . . in the hands; . . . in the neck and
upper back they were significant in scope."
A-1977-08T3
7
Following plaintiff's examinations and the two thermogram
tests, Dr. Getson opined, "[b]ased upon the history [plaintiff]
gave . . . and the absence of prior neuromuscular abnormalities,
review of medical records, diagnostic tests[] [and] consultant
reports, it [wa]s [his] opinion to a reasonable degree of
medical probability that the accident of April 20[], 2004, was
the reason for [plaintiff's] sympathetic dysfunction," and the
condition of sympathetic mediated pain syndrome would "continue
to be so." Additionally, in his experience of treating
sympathetically mediated pain syndromes, Dr. Getson noted
"virtually every case of sympathetic dysfunction is the result
of some kind of trauma." Although treatable, it remains "an
incurable entity."
At trial, plaintiff testified she continued to experience
daily pain in her lower back, which radiates down her right leg.
The pain is exacerbated by long car rides, excessive walking or
standing. Plaintiff stated she lost time from work as a
corrections officer following the accident, and it was
stipulated her lost wages amounted to $36,000.
Plaintiff's husband, Anthony Saduk, and her mother, Carol
Jimenez, also testified. Mr. Saduk testified his wife is in
constant pain in her neck, back and legs, and, as a result, her
life has been dramatically altered. Carol Jimenez testified she
A-1977-08T3
8
witnessed her daughter's pain and has seen her cry a lot. She
helps her daughter with activities such as grocery shopping,
lifting and cleaning.
Defendant testified on his own behalf. The defense
presented Gerald Packman, M.D., an orthopedist. Dr. Packman
admitted he would not take issue with the accuracy of Dr.
Getson's diagnoses. When asked his opinion on whether
plaintiff's pain would dissipate, he stated, "the statistics are
that pain that has lasted four years is not going to go away
very quickly." Defendant provided no testimony to challenge Dr.
Getson's review of plaintiff's thermogram.
At the close of plaintiff's case, the defense moved to
dismiss the complaint. In support of the motion, defendant
maintained the thermogram results were insufficient to establish
plaintiff suffered a permanent injury. The trial judge denied
counsel's motion, again affirming the question would be
presented to the jury for determination.
Neither the color thermogram images nor Dr. Getson's
thermogram report were offered into evidence. However, during
summation, defense counsel attempted to show the jury an
enlarged portion of Dr. Getson's thermogram report. Plaintiff
objected, as Dr. Getson had testified regarding the conclusions
he reached based upon the thermogram test results; he did not
A-1977-08T3
9
read from his report. The trial judge sustained plaintiff's
objection and determined that while the hearsay enlargement
could not be used, defendant could argue from facts already in
evidence regarding the thermogram test, the results, or its
value in diagnosing plaintiff's condition.
After deliberating for approximately three hours, the jury
returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $486,000, which the
court molded to $450,000, the court deducted $36,000 for
plaintiff's lost wages because she had already received
reimbursement. The court added $69,503.41 in prejudgment
interest plus taxed costs and entered a Final Order of Judgment
on October 17, 2008 for $519,703.41. Defendant filed a motion
for a new trial, which was denied on November 21, 2008. This
appeal ensued.
On appeal, defendant presents two issues for our
consideration. First, he suggests a new trial is necessary
because the verdict was against the weight of the evidence,
arguing plaintiff's proofs were insufficient to support the
necessary finding of permanent injury to satisfy the verbal
threshold. Second, he maintains the trial court abused its
discretion in preventing the utilization of a copy of the
enlarged summary themography report during closing argument.
A-1977-08T3
10
A trial court's decision on a motion for a new trial on the
basis that the jury verdict is against the weight of the
evidence will not be reversed "unless it clearly appears that
there was a miscarriage of justice under the law." R. 2:10-1;
R. 4:49-1; Johnson v. Scaccetti, 192 N.J. 256, 280 (2007);
Caldwell v. Haynes, 136 N.J. 422, 431 (1994); Baxter v. Fairmont
Food Co., 74 N.J. 588, 596 (1977). In correcting any clear
error or mistake of the jury, the trial judge may not substitute
his judgment for that of the jury merely because he would have
reached the opposite conclusion. Dolson v. Anastasia, 55 N.J.
2, 6 (1969). Thus, a trial judge must "'canvass the record, not
to balance the persuasiveness of the evidence on one side as
against the other, but to determine whether reasonable minds
might accept the evidence as adequate to support the jury
verdict.'" Ibid. (quoting Kulbacki v. Sobchinsky, 38 N.J. 435,
445 (1962)); Baxter, supra, 74 N.J. at 597-98.
Therefore, "'[t]he standard for appellate review of a trial
court's decision on a motion for a new trial is substantially
the same as that controlling the trial court except that due
deference should be made to its 'feel of the case,' including
credibility.'" Caldwell, supra, 136 N.J. at 432 (quoting
Feldman v. Lederle Lab., 97 N.J. 429, 463 (1984)); Johnson,
supra, 192 N.J. at 282. Beyond these "intangibles," an
A-1977-08T3
11
appellate court is to make its own independent determination of
whether a miscarriage of justice occurred. Carrino v. Novotny,
78 N.J. 355, 360 (1979); Dolson, supra, 55 N.J. at 6-7. It is
within this context that this court should consider defendant's
argument.
At the time of the accident, plaintiff was covered by an
automobile insurance policy wherein she elected the "limitation
on lawsuit" or verbal threshold coverage. This coverage
comports with the Legislature's declaration under the Automobile
Insurance Cost Reduction Act (AICRA), N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a), that
no damages claimed for injuries sustained in an automobile
accident shall be awarded unless the injured person satisfies
the verbal threshold. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-1.1 to -35. Only a person
who suffers a "permanent injury" qualifies for an award of non-
economic damages. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a).
Under AICRA, the court must decide whether the medical
evidence shows plaintiff's injury or injuries fall within at
least one of the established threshold categories. Oswin v.
Shaw, 129 N.J. 290, 294 (1992). N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a) sets forth
the following six threshold categories: "death; dismemberment,
significant disfigurement or significant scarring; displaced
fractures; loss of a fetus; or a permanent injury within a
reasonable degree of medical probability, other than scarring or
A-1977-08T3
12
disfigurement." The statute further states, "[a]n injury shall
be considered permanent when the body part or organ, or both,
has not healed to function normally and will not heal to
function normally with further medical treatment." Ibid. Thus,
a plaintiff must show, within a reasonable degree of medical
probability, a permanent injury by objective credible evidence
that is causally related to the crash. Davidson v. Slater, 189
N.J. 166, 189 (2008).
Defendant's objection implicitly attacks the thermogram as
evidence of permanent injury. Defendant asserts a thermogram is
accepted only for the purpose of diagnosing RSD, which was not
established in this matter. We reject this argument.
A thermogram has been accepted as an objective diagnostic
test relied upon by physicians. See Procida v. McLaughlin, 195
N.J. Super. 396, 398 (Law Div. 1984) (the thermogram is a
diagnostic tool with a sufficient scientific basis to produce
uniform and reasonably reliable results). Ibid. Also, in the
context of personal injury protection payments, N.J.A.C. 11:3-
4.5(b)(9) states a thermogram is an accepted "diagnostic test"
"determined to have value in the evaluation of injuries". . .
"only when used to evaluate pain associated with reflex
sympathetic dystrophy ("RSD"), in a controlled setting by a
physician experienced in such use and properly trained." Ibid.
A-1977-08T3
13
The trial judge accepted the evidence to allow plaintiff to
vault the verbal threshold when he denied summary judgment. Any
dispute as to the results of the thermogram or its
interpretation goes to its weight, which was properly left to be
determined by the jury. The record reflects Dr. Getson's
diagnosis that plaintiff suffered sympathetically mediated pain
syndrome, a form of RSD, went unrefuted. The jury received and
assessed all the evidence of the medical testing performed
including the negative MRIs, EMG, x-rays and nerve study, as
well as the abnormal thermogram results, as interpreted by Dr.
Getson. The jury evaluated the credibility of the witnesses,
including the experts, to which we give "the utmost regard."
Love v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 366 N.J. Super. 525, 532
(App. Div.), certif. denied, 180 N.J. 355 (2004). Accordingly,
as found by the trial court, the jury verdict was properly
grounded in the evidence and it did not constitute a miscarriage
of justice.
We also reject defendant's contention that the trial court
abused its discretion in preventing defense counsel from showing
the jury a copy of Dr. Getson's summary report during summation.
The determination was a matter that lies within the sound
discretion of the trial judge, "and the exercise of that
discretion will not ordinarily be disturbed unless there is a
A-1977-08T3
14
marked abuse of discretion. Reversal will follow only in cases
of a clear abuse." Purdy v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 184 N.J.
Super. 123, 130 (App. Div. 1982) (internal citations omitted).
We do not discern an abuse in the court's exercised discretion
restraining comment during summation to the facts shown or
reasonably suggested by the actual evidence introduced. R. 1:7-
1(b).
Affirmed.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

NJ Assoc. v. Davy

09-02-09 NEW JERSEY ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BUSINESS OFFICIALS V.
LUCILLE E. DAVY, COMMISSIONER, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION
A-6074-07T2
The Commissioner of the Department of Education has adopted
regulations entitled "Fiscal Accountability, Efficiency and
Budgeting Procedures," N.J.A.C. Title 6A, Chapter 23A, to
implement laws enacted to revise the school funding formula and
reduce property taxes, in part, through oversight and limitation
of government spending by school districts. See L. 2007, c. 53,
63, 92 and 260. We reject a challenge to the Commissioner's
authority to adopt regulations that set standards for payments
in lieu of unused sick and vacation leave to school district
business administrators, N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-3.1(e)(6)-(8), and
condition a school district's receipt of state aid on its
adoption of a nepotism policy, N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-6.2.

Umair Hussain, Assistant Editor of NJ Personal Injury and Civil Cases

Board of Ed. v. Zoning Board of Adj.

09-02-09 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CLIFTON V. ZONING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF CLIFTON
A-0717-07T3
Due to overcrowding at Clifton High School, the Board of
Education of the City of Clifton acquired property, which housed
a vacant warehouse that the Board would convert into a 500-
student ninth-grade annex. Because the property was located in
an industrial zone, where schools are not permitted, a use
variance was required. The Department of Education (DOE)
approved the project but the Zoning Board denied the variance
based on, among other things, on- and off-site safety issues.
We affirmed Judge Passero's reversal of the denial and
grant of the variance, concluding, in part, that the Zoning
Board could not consider on and off-site safety issues because
the Educational Facilities Construction and Financing Act,
N.J.S.A. 18A:7G-1 to -48, gave the DOE exclusive jurisdiction
over such issues.

Umair Hussain, Assistant Editor of NJ Personal Injury and Civil Cases

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Thursday, August 27, 2009

08-26-09 WYCKOFF v. PBA LOCAL 261 A-2268-07T2/A-2527-07T2

08-26-09 TOWNSHIP OF WYCKOFF v. PBA LOCAL 261, ET AL.
A-2268-07T2/A-2527-07T2 (consolidated)

In these consolidated appeals from a trial court
determination that an arbitrator had exceeded his powers in
affording relief to the union and its member, Brenda Groslinger,
we conclude, following federal law, that the standard of review
of an arbitrator's interpretation of the issue submitted to him
is a deferential one. Utilizing that standard, we reverse.

Chase Smith assistant editor

08-24-09 HOMES OF HOPE. V. EASTAMPTON A-5551-07T2

08-24-09 HOMES OF HOPE, INC. V. EASTAMPTON TOWNSHIP LAND USE
PLANNING BOARD
A-5551-07T2

The issue presented is whether affordable housing continues
to constitute an inherently beneficial use for purposes of
obtaining a use variance, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70d(2), after the
municipality in which the property is located has met its fair
share obligation under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), N.J.S.A.
52:27D-301 to -329.19, and its concomitant regulations. We
conclude that a municipality's compliance with the FHA by
meeting its fair share obligation does not impact affordable
housing's inherently beneficial use status for purposes of
obtaining a use variance. Affordable housing continues to
foster the general welfare and constitutes a special reason to
support a use variance.

Chase Smith assistant editor

08-20-09 BURNETT V. GLOUCESTER COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS A-6131-07T

08-20-09 DAVID B. BURNETT V. GLOUCESTER COUNTY BOARD OF
CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS, ET AL.
A-6131-07T2

In this Open Public Meeting Act, N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 to -21
challenge, plaintiff successfully proved one violation of the
Act occurring within forty-five days of the action being filed.
We concluded the remaining allegations of violations occurred
more than forty-five days prior to the filing of plaintiff's
complaint, making them untimely for relief pursuant to N.J.S.A.
10:4-15. Nevertheless, they were evidential of an alleged past
pattern of defendant's noncompliance with the Act presented to
support plaintiff's request for prospective injunctive relief
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:4-16.
We reversed the Law Division's summary judgment dismissal
because the alleged violative actions were too remote. When
examining the timeliness of plaintiff's request, we concluded
the limitations period in Rule 4:69-6 does not preclude
consideration of the defendant's past conduct when determining
the appropriateness of an injunctive remedy.

Chase Smith assistant editor

08-19-09 READINGTON V. SOLBERG AVIATION A-3083-07T3/A-1537-08T3

08-19-09 TOWNSHIP OF READINGTON, ET AL. V. SOLBERG AVIATION
CO., ET AL.
A-3083-07T3/A-1537-08T3 (consolidated)

This appeal challenging a condemnation judgment granting,
among other things, title and possession of a portion of
defendant Solberg Aviation Co.'s ("defendant" or "Solberg")
property to plaintiff Township of Readington ("plaintiff" or
"the Township"), raises two critical issues of law. The first
is the preemptive effect of state aviation statutes,
specifically the Air Safety and Zoning Act (ASZA), N.J.S.A. 6:1-
80 to 84, -88, and the State Aviation Act, N.J.S.A. 6:1-20 to -
44, and regulations on land use authority. The second is the
application of the principles enunciated in Mount Laurel Twp. v.
MiPro Homes, L.L.C., 379 N.J. Super. 358 (App. Div. 2005),
aff'd, 188 N.J. 531 (2006), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.
Ct. 46, 169 L. Ed. 2d 242 (2007). Defendant claims that the
taking was pretextual in an attempt to limit the use of airport
property. As to this claim, we conclude that defendant
presented a sufficient factual basis to overcome a motion for
summary judgment; we further conclude that state statutes
preempt certain aspects of local land use, constraining a
municipality's exercise of its condemnation authority, Garden
State Farms, Inc. v. Bay, 77 N.J. 439, 449 (1978). In a
consolidated appeal, we further conclude that under the Eminent
Domain Act of 1971 (EDA), N.J.S.A. 20:3-1 to -50, title passed
to the Township upon the filing of the Declaration of Taking,
and the Township improperly assessed taxes against defendant.

Chase Smith assistant editor

Monday, August 24, 2009

How to File a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint or to Strike the Answer for Failure to Answer Interrogatories in the Special Civil Part - 10915

CIVIL – SCP
MOTION TO DISMISS/
SUPPRESS – FAILURE
TO ANSWER
INTERROGATORIES
DECEMBER 28, 2006




HOW TO FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT OR TO STRIKE
THE ANSWER FOR FAILURE TO ANSWER INTERROGATORIES IN THE
SPECIAL CIVIL PART


A MOTION is a written request that asks the court to issue an order or to change an
order the court has already issued.

WHO SHOULD USE THIS PACKET?

You may use this packet only in cases where the other party has failed to provide you
with complete answers to interrogatories and you have either (a) made an unsuccessful
attempt to confer with that party to get the answers or (b) sent the party a letter stating
that continued failure to answer the interrogatories will result in a motion being made to
dismiss the complaint or to strike the answer.


GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING A MOTION:

When you file a motion, you must complete and submit the following papers, all
of which are contained in this packet:

1. Notice of Motion
2. Certification in Support of the Motion
3. Certification of Service
4. Order

NOTE: These materials have been prepared by the New Jersey Administrative Office of
the Courts for use by self-represented litigants. The guides, instructions and forms will be
periodically updated as necessary to reflect current New Jersey statutes and court rules.
The most recent version of the forms will be available at the county courthouse or on the
Judiciary=s Internet site (www.njcourtsonline.com). However, you are ultimately
responsible for the content of your court papers.

Send your completed forms to:








2


THINGS TO THINK ABOUT BEFORE YOU REPRESENT YOURSELF IN COURT

TRY TO GET A LAWYER
The court system can be confusing and
it is a good idea to get a lawyer if you can.
If you cannot afford a lawyer, you may
contact the legal services program in your
county to see if you qualify for free legal
services. The telephone number can be
found in your local yellow pages under
Legal Aid or Legal Services.
If you do not qualify for free legal
services and need help in locating an
attorney, you can contact the bar
association in your county. Their
telephone number can also be found in
your local yellow pages. Most county bar
associations have a Lawyer Referral
Service. The County Bar Lawyer Referral
Service can supply you with the names of
attorneys in your area willing to handle
your particular type of case and who may
sometimes consult with you at a reduced
fee.
There are also a variety of
organizations of minority lawyers
throughout New Jersey, as well as
organizations of lawyers who handle
specialized types of cases. Ask your
county court staff for a list of lawyer referral
services that include these organizations.



WHAT YOU SHOULD EXPECT IF YOU
REPRESENT YOURSELF
While you have the right to represent
yourself in court, you should not expect
any special treatment, help, or attention
from the court. You must still comply with
the Rules of the Court, even if you are not
familiar with them. The following is a list of
some things the court staff can and cannot
do for you. Please read it carefully before
asking the court staff for help.


- We can explain and answer questions
about how the court works.
- We can tell you what the requirements
are to have your case considered by the
court.
- We can give you some information from
your case file.
- We can provide you with samples of
court forms that are available.
- We can provide you with guidance on
how to fill out forms.
- We can usually answer questions about
court deadlines.
- We cannot give you legal advice. Only
your lawyer can give you legal advice.
- We cannot tell you whether or not you
should bring your case to court.
- We cannot give you an opinion about
what will happen if you bring your case to
court.
- We cannot recommend a lawyer, but we
can provide you with the telephone
number of a local lawyer referral service.
- We cannot talk to the judge for you about
what will happen in your case.
- We cannot let you talk to the judge
outside of court.
- We cannot change an order issued by a
judge.


KEEP COPIES OF ALL PAPERS
Make and keep for yourself copies of all
completed forms and any canceled checks,
money orders, sales receipts, bills, contract
estimates, letters, leases, photographs,
and other important documents that relate
to your case. Bring all documents to court
if you are notified that an appearance is
necessary.

++++++++



3

DEFINITIONS OF WORDS THAT MAY BE USED IN THIS PACKET
Answer: An answer is a written response which explains why you believe you do
not owe the money to the other party in the case.

Complaint: A complaint is a written document in which you briefly tell the court the
facts in your case and the remedy you want the court to give you.

Default: When the defendant does not appear in court to respond to the
complaint or does not file an answer, a judge may immediately enter an
order giving a remedy to the plaintiff. This is called a default. Also, if the
plaintiff does not show up in court, the court may dismiss the case.

Defendant: The defendant is the person (party) against whom the court action
(complaint) was filed.

Docket Number: The number the court assigned to this case when the complaint
was filed. The docket number is listed on the complaint and answer.

File: To file means to give the appropriate forms and fee to the court to begin
the court’s consideration of your request.

Judgment: A judgment is the official decision of a court in a case.

Motion: A motion is a written request in which you ask the court to issue an
order, or to change an order it has already issued.

Oral
Argument: Personally appearing in court to explain what you want the court
to do.

Order: An order is a signed paper from the judge telling someone they must do
something.

Party: A party is a person, business or governmental agency involved in a
court action.

Plaintiff: The plaintiff is the person (party) who started the court action by filing
the complaint.

Return Date: The date the parties are ordered to appear in court.

Service: Mailing or delivering copies of your papers to the lawyer for the other
party or to the other party if there is no lawyer.





4
HOW TO FILE A MOTION IN THE SPECIAL CIVIL PART

The numbered steps listed below tell you
what forms you will need to fill out and what to
do with them.

Each form should be typed or clearly printed
on 8 1⁄2” x 11” white paper only.

STEPS FOR FILING YOUR MOTION IN
THE SPECIAL CIVIL PART

STEP 1: Fill out the NOTICE OF MOTION
(FORM A)
The Notice of Motion tells the court what you
want the court to do. Make sure to include the
docket number of your case and sign your
name where requested. (Step 4 explains how
to complete the Certification of Service at the
bottom of Form A.)

STEP 2: Fill out the CERTIFICATION IN
SUPPORT OF A MOTION (FORM B)
The Certification in Support of a Motion tells the
court why you think you are entitled to what you
are asking for in your Notice of Motion. You
must attach a copy of any document to which
you refer in the certification. Attach copies of
any additional documents you have that may
help support your motion.

STEP 3: Fill out the top portion of the
ORDER (FORM C)
The Order is the document that grants or denies
what you are asking for in the case. You must
fill out the top portion of the Order. The
instructions will tell you how. Leave the bottom
half of the Order blank for the judge to
complete.

STEP 4: Fill out the Certification of Service
The Certification of Service is located at the
bottom of FORM A. All parties to the case are
required to receive a copy of this motion. The
date you put on your Certification of Service
MUST be the same day you personally give
these papers to the other party or his or her
lawyer OR you deliver these papers to the post
office for mailing. (See the instructions for
FORM A for more information about this.)

STEP 5: Check your completed forms
Check your forms and make sure they are
complete. Remove all instruction sheets. Make
sure you have signed the forms where you are
asked to sign them.

You must have all of the following items in
this order:
__ Notice of Motion(Form A)
__ Certification of Service signed and
dated (Form A, second page)
__ Certification in Support of the Motion
(Form B) and attached copies of
documents
__ Order (Form C)

STEP 6: Mail or deliver your package of
completed papers to the court and all other
parties in the case.
You can deliver or mail your motion papers to
the court. You must mail the motion to all other
parties in the case by certified mail, return
receipt requested, and regular mail. You will
receive a green receipt card, which can serve
as proof that you mailed the motion to the other
party. Your post office can tell you how to send
certified mail, return receipt requested.

In the motion papers you mail to the court,
include two more additional copies of the Order
along with original motion papers and a self-
addressed, stamped envelope. The court will
return the extra copies of the Order to you
along with the court’s decision only if a self-
addressed stamped envelope is provided.
When you receive a copy of the court’s
Order signed by the judge, you are
required, as the moving party, to provide a
copy to all other parties involved in this
case.



STEP 7: Requesting Oral Argument
You may ask for oral argument, which means
you are asking to personally appear in
court to explain what you want the court to do



5
Motions may be decided by the judge without
oral argument unless the motion is opposed and
one of the parties requests it. Even if no one
requests oral argument, the court may still
require oral argument. If there is to be oral
argument, you will be notified of the date, time
and place. Check whether or not you want to
request oral argument on the Notice of Motion.
(FORM A)



CHECKLIST:

__ Make enough copies of the forms
so that you will have two copies for
every party in the case (one for
certified mail and one for regular
mail) including yourself.

__ Mail or deliver all of the original
motion papers to the court (FORM
A, FORM B, FORM C). Note:
Make certain that you have signed
all forms which require your
signature.

__ Keep at least one copy of the
completed motion packet for your
own records.


++++++++












































6
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM A
(NOTICE OF MOTION)

A. Type or print the Plaintiff’s name, current address and telephone number where Form A asks you to
do so at the top of the form. If you are the Plaintiff in the case, type or print your name, current
address and telephone number. If you are not the Plaintiff, type or print the name, current address
and telephone number of the person who is the Plaintiff.

B. Type or print the Defendant’s name, current address and telephone number where Form A asks you
to do so. If you are the Defendant in the case type or print your name, current address and telephone
number. If you are not the Defendant, type or print the name, current address and telephone number
of the person who is the Defendant.

C. Where it says County, type or print the name of the county where you are filing your motion.

D. Where it says Docket No., fill in the docket number of your case. (You can get this number from the
Complaint or Answer you received in the case, or, if necessary, you can call the court for this
information.)

E. Check off whether or not you want to request Oral Argument. (See Step 7 on page 6 for more
information about oral argument.)

F. Where it says: “Please Take Notice,” type or print the name of the county where you are filing your
motion and put in the address of the courthouse.

G. Where it lists the various motions you may file in the case, put a check next to the motion you want to
file.

H. Sign and date the form where it asks you to do so and check whether you are the Plaintiff or
Defendant.

I. IMPORTANT NOTE: Certification of Service (See Step 4 on page 5): Fill in the required
information being sure to include the certified mail number(s) and the person(s) to whom Forms A, B
and C were sent or personally delivered. Sign your name on the line above where it says Signature.
Type or print your name above the line that says Type or Print Name. Fill in the date you are signing
the form. When you sign and date this form, the date you put down MUST be the same date
that you personally gave these papers to the other party or his or her lawyer OR the date that
you delivered these papers to the post office.

Review all steps to make sure the forms are properly filled out and complete before mailing
(certified mail, return receipt requested and regular mail - see step 6 on page 5). (Keep copies of
the completed forms for your records.)



7

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM B
(CERTIFICATION IN SUPPORT OF A MOTION)

A. Type or print the Plaintiff’s name, address and telephone number where Form B asks you to do so at
the top of the form. If you are the Plaintiff in the case, type or print your name, current address and
telephone number. If you are not the Plaintiff, type or print the name, current address and telephone
number of the person who is the Plaintiff.

B. Type or print the Defendant’s name, current address and telephone number where Form B asks you
to do so. If you are the Defendant in the case, type or print your name, current address and
telephone number. If you are not the Defendant, type or print the name, current address and
telephone number of the person who is the Defendant.

C. Where it says County, type or print the name of the county where you are filing your motion.

D. Where it says Docket No., fill in the docket number of your case. (You can get this number from the
Complaint or Answer you received in the case, or, if necessary, you can call the court for this
information.)

E. In the section which lists the various motions, below “Certification in Support of a Motion To,” put a
check next to the motion you want to file in the case. What you check off here must be what you
checked off on Form A.

F. In the blank spaces, give the reasons why you think your motion should be granted.

G. If you need additional pages to complete your motion, you may attach additional sheets of 8 1⁄2 " x 11"
white paper.

If you do attach additional sheets, you must also copy at the bottom of those sheets the language:
“I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the
foregoing statements made by me are wilfully false, I am subject to punishment.”

You must sign, date and type or print your name below the language above which you must put at the bottom of
each additional page you use. Also, type or print whether you are the Plaintiff or Defendant.

H. Complete the paragraph regarding your attempts to confer with the other party to get answers to your
interrogatories or the letter you sent to that party stating that you would file this motion without further attempt
to resolve the matter.

I. Sign and date the form where it asks you to do so and check whether you are the Plaintiff or Defendant.

Review all steps to make sure the forms are properly filled out and complete before mailing (certified
mail, return receipt requested and regular mail - see step 6 on page 5). (Keep copies of the completed
forms for your records.)








8
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM C
(ORDER)

A. Type or print the Plaintiff’s name, address and telephone number where FORM C asks you to do
so at the top of the form. If you are the Plaintiff in the case, type or print your name, current
address and telephone number. If you are not the Plaintiff, type or print the name, current
address and telephone number of the person who is the Plaintiff.

B. Type or print the Defendant’s name, current address and telephone number where FORM C asks
you to do so. If you are the Defendant in the case, type or print your name, current address and
telephone number. If you are not the Defendant, type or print the name, current address and
telephone number of the person who is the Defendant.

C. Where it says County, type or print the name of the county where you are filing your motion.

D. Where it says Docket No., fill in the docket number of your case. (You can get this number from
the Complaint or Answer you received in the case, or, if necessary, you can call the court for this
information.)

E. Check off the type of motion you are filing. What you check off here must be what
you checked off on FORM A and FORM B. If you check “Other,” you must again type or print the
name of the motion you are filing.

F. Leave the form blank where it says, “Do not write below this line-for court use only.” The judge
will complete this section.

Review all steps to make sure the forms are properly filled out and complete before mailing
(certified mail, return receipt requested and regular mail - see step 6 on page 5). (Keep
copies of the completed forms for your records.)















9
FORM A
NOTICE OF MOTION

Plaintiff’s Name SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION, SPECIAL CIVIL PART
Address COUNTY
_______________________________
City, State and Zip Code DOCKET NO.:
Telephone No.:
CIVIL ACTION
vs.
NOTICE OF MOTION

Defendant’s Name I DO NOT request Oral Argument
I request Oral Argument
Address
If you requested Oral Argument do you wish
City, State and Zip Code to request:

Telephone No.: An interpreter: Yes No
Indicate Language:

An accommodation for a disability: Yes No

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I will apply to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part
County located at ,
(Courthouse Address)
NJ, in the above entitled matter for an Order to:
(Zip code)

Dismiss Complaint for failure to answer interrogatories
Strike Answer for Failure to Answer Interrogatories

NOTICE: IF YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO THIS MOTION YOU MUST DO SO IN WRITING. Your written
response must be in the form of a certification or affidavit. That means that the person signing it swears to the
truth of the statements in the certification or affidavit and is aware that the court can punish him or her if the
statements are knowingly false. You may ask for oral argument, which means you can ask to appear before
the court to explain your position. If the court grants oral argument, you will be notified of the time, date and
place. Your response, if any, must be in writing even if you request oral argument. Any papers you send to the
court must also be sent to the opposing party=s attorney, or the opposing party if not represented by an
attorney.
We are requesting that your complaint be dismissed or your answer not be considered for failure to answer
the interrogatories (questions) we sent you. In order to avoid this you must, within 10 days, either (a) send us
answers to the questions and inform the court that you have fully answered the questions; or, (b) respond to
the motion. If you choose to respond, you must state your opposition in writing and send copies to us and to
the court.

DATE: SIGNATURE:
Type or Print Your Name:

(Check One) Plaintiff Defendant

(Continued on next page)



10
FORM A
(Second page)


CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE



I certify that I served a copy of this motion and any accompanying pages (check one) personally
on the person(s) or attorney(s) listed below, by mailing it to the person(s) or attorney(s) listed below by
regular and certified mail. I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any
of the foregoing statements made by me are wilfully false, I am subject to punishment.



(Name) (Name)


(Certified Mail Number) (Certified Mail Number)


(Address) (Address)


(City, State & Zip Code) (City, State & Zip Code)




(Name) (Name)


(Certified Mail Number) (Certified Mail Number)


(Address) (Address)


(City, State & Zip Code) (City, State & Zip Code)






DATE: SIGNATURE:
Type or Print Name:

Check One: Plaintiff Defendant




11
FORM B
CERTIFICATION IN SUPPORT OF A MOTION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
Plaintiff’s Name LAW DIVISION, SPECIAL CIVIL PART
COUNTY
Address DOCKET NO.:


City, State and Zip Code
Telephone No.: CIVIL ACTION

vs. CERTIFICATION IN SUPPORT OF A MOTION TO

Strike Answer for Failure to Answer Interrogatories
Dismiss for Failure to Answer Interrogatories


Defendant’s Name

Address

City, State and Zip Code
Telephone No.:
, of full age, being the (check one) Plaintiff Defendant in the above case, states:
(Your Name)





(You may attach more sheets if you need to, but you must copy the certification language below onto any additional sheets you use, and you
must sign and date each additional sheet)

On ______, 20__, I (check one):

__ made an unsuccessful attempt to confer with the other party to get the answers to my interrogatories.

__ sent the other party a letter (copy attached) stating that continued failure to answer the interrogatories would
result in a motion to (check one) __dismiss the complaint, or __ suppress the answer without further attempt to
resolve the matter.


I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements
made by me are wilfully false, I am subject to punishment.




DATE: SIGNATURE:
Type or Print Name:
Check One: Plaintiff Defendant








12

FORM C
ORDER


SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
Plaintiff’s Name LAW DIVISION, SPECIAL CIVIL PART
COUNTY
Address DOCKET NO.:

City, State and Zip Code
Telephone No.:

v.
CIVIL ACTION
ORDER
Defendant’s Name

Address

City, State and Zip Code
Telephone No.:

This matter being opened to the court by , the (check one) Plaintiff
(Your name)
Defendant in the matter by way of motion seeking an order to:

Strike Answer for Failure to Answer Interrogatories
Dismiss for Failure to Answer Interrogatories

and the court having considered the motion, pleadings on file and/or argument of the moving party and for good
cause appearing;

(Do not write below this line- for court use only)


On this day of 20 ,

It is ORDERED that:


This order can be vacated only by a formal motion. You must supply fully responsive and certified answers to the
interrogatories served on behalf of prior to the filing of such a motion and you must pay a
restoration fee of $25.00 if the motion to vacate is made within 30 days after entry of this order and in the amount
of $75.00 if the motion is made thereafter. Failure to file such a motion within 90 days after the entry of this order
may result in the imposition of counsel fees and the assessment of costs against you or may forever preclude the
restoration of the pleading(s) filed by you or on your behalf.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order be served by the moving party upon all other parties or
their attorneys, if any, within days of the date listed above.

The motion was:
Opposed Unopposed ,
J.S.C.