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

Saturday, November 19, 2011

KANE PROPERTIES, L.L.C. VS. CITY OF HOBOKKEN, ET AL. A-3903-10T4

KANE PROPERTIES, L.L.C. VS. CITY OF HOBOKKEN, ET AL.

A-3903-10T4 11-16-11

Plaintiff, a developer, obtained variance relief from the

Hoboken Board of Adjustment, but that relief was largely

overturned on the objector's appeal to the Hoboken City Council.

Shortly after the Board issued its decision granting the

variances, the objector's attorney became the Hoboken

Corporation Counsel. Despite having recused himself, the

attorney participated, albeit to a limited extent, in the appeal

proceedings before the Council. On the facts presented, we held

that even that limited degree of participation tainted the

Council's decision, requiring a remand to the Council and

reconsideration of the appeal ab initio.

ROCKAWAY SHOPRITE ASSOCIATES, INC. VS. CITY OF LINDEN AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINDEN, ET AL. A-1345-10T4

ROCKAWAY SHOPRITE ASSOCIATES, INC. VS. CITY OF LINDEN

AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINDEN, ET AL.

A-1345-10T4 11-14-11

A public notice of a rezoning ordinance purporting to

effect a substantial alteration in the character of a district

by creating entirely new zones with different uses, that merely

advises the zoning is being amended as to properties identified

by common name and lot and block number, is legally deficient

under N.J.S.A. 40:49-2.1 because it fails to apprise the

interested public of what exactly is being proposed.

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES VS. D.P. AND O.B. IN THE MATTER OF V.B. A-4087-10T4

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES VS.

D.P. AND O.B. IN THE MATTER OF V.B.

A-4087-10T4 11-03-11

We reviewed resource parents' appeal of an order denying

their motion to intervene in a best interests hearing, which

considered whether to remove the twenty-month old child from the

resource home, her primary home since birth, or to place her

with a relative. On appeal, the resource parents assert the

trial court erroneously denied intervention, disregarding their

status as "indispensible parties" and their standing as the

child's "psychological parents."

We affirmed, concluding the right to notice of proceedings

and to inform the court granted to resource parents by the

Legislature in N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.19a, does not impart a legal

interest or an expectation to engage experts, demand discovery,

appear in the action, or cross-examine witnesses. We are

convinced the limited and temporary character of foster care

remains the legislative policy of this State. The trial court

fully abided all statutory provisions governing a resource

parent's participation in litigation involving a child entrusted

to their care by the Division, granting the resource parents all

process they were due.