New clients email us evenings and weekends go to www.njlaws.com/ContactKenV.htmKenneth Mr. Vercammen was included in the 2017 “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, January 26, 2012

PAUL EMMA VS. JESSICA EVANS A-2303-10T3

PAUL EMMA VS. JESSICA EVANS           A-2303-10T3 
     In Ronan v. Adely, 182 N.J. 103 (2004) and Gubernat v. Deremer, 140 N.J. 120 (1995), the Court established a presumption in favor of the choice of a parent of primary residence (PPR) when seeking a change of the surname of a child born out of wedlock.  In this appeal, the court rejected the argument that this presumption should be applied when, following a divorce, the PPR seeks to change the surname of children born during the course of a marriage.  01-20-12  

IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF U.C. A-5012-09T2

IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF U.C.           A-5012-09T2 
     The Legislature has delegated exclusive authority to the Division of Developmental Disabilities to determine the appropriate placement of a developmentally disabled person eligible for its services.  Therefore, a trial court that has placed a developmentally disabled civil committee on "continued extension pending placement" (CEPP) status lacks the authority to order the Division to fund that person's placement in a particular facility the court determines to be most appropriate.  01-20-12  

A&M FARM & GARDEN CENTER VS. AMERICAN SPRINKLER MECHANICAL, L.L.C. A-2921-10T1

 A&M FARM & GARDEN CENTER VS. AMERICAN SPRINKLER           MECHANICAL, L.L.C. 

A-2921-10T1

Rule 4:23-5(a)(3), which governs the dismissal or suppression of pleadings with prejudice for failure to provide discovery, requires a motion judge to take action to obtain compliance with the requirements of the rule. Despite obvious breaches of the rule's requirements, the motion judge here granted an unopposed motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint with prejudice without taking any action to secure compliance. We hold that, when a court considers such a motion and there is nothing before the court showing that a litigant has received notice of its exposure to the ultimate sanction, the court must take some action to obtain compliance with the requirements of the rule before entering an order of dismissal or suppression with prejudice. 01-17-12

BELL TOWER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION VS. PAT HAFFERT A-3218-10T2

BELL TOWER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION VS. PAT HAFFERT           A-3218-10T2 
     Although a portion of the Condominium Act (Act) requires condominium associations to establish a "fair and efficient procedure for the resolution of housing-related disputes" between individual unit owners and the association, or between unit owners, "as an alternative to litigation," the Act does not define the term "housing-related disputes" contained in N.J.S.A. 46:8B-14(k).  Because the long-established public policy of this State favors alternative dispute resolution, and because the Legislature chose broad and unconditional language when it required the arbitration of "housing-related disputes," we construe the term broadly.  We hold that "housing-related disputes" refers to any dispute arising directly from the condominium relationship.  Without limitation, our opinion provides examples of disputes that would not be "housing- related," such as automobile accidents in the condominium parking lot, crimes committed by one unit owner against another, or a commercial dispute arising from a failed business venture between two unit owners.  01-12-12  

REPOSSESSION SPECIALISTS, ET AL. VS. GEICO INSURANCE COMPANY ANNETTA JACKSON VS. REPOSSESSION SPECIALISTS INC., ET AL.

REPOSSESSION SPECIALISTS, ET AL. VS. GEICO INSURANCE           COMPANY 
          ANNETTA JACKSON VS. REPOSSESSION SPECIALISTS INC., ET           AL.           A-2712-10T1 
     Interpreting the omnibus clause of a personal automobile insurance policy, the court determines that an entity that repossessed the policy holder's automobile after the policy holder defaulted under a secured car loan, was not a user "with permission" under the policy and therefore was not entitled to coverage.  The court reasons that the repossessor's use was not permissive because the repossessor's use was as of right under both the installment credit agreement and the Uniform Commercial Code, and the policy holder lacked the power to revoke the repossessor's right to use.  The court therefore affirmed the 
page2image19000
page2image19272
page2image19544
page2image19816
page2image20088
page2image20360
trial court's grant of summary judgment to the policy holder's insurer.  01-12-12  

May L. Walker v. Carmelo Guiffre (066969; A-72-10) Bobbie Humphries v. Powder Mill Shopping Plaza (067267; A-100-10)

 May L. Walker v. Carmelo Guiffre (066969; A-72-10)           Bobbie Humphries v. Powder Mill Shopping Plaza           (067267; A-100-10) 
          The mechanisms for awarding attorneys’ fees, including           contingency enhancements, adopted in Rendine remain in           full force and effect as the governing principles for           awards made pursuant to New Jersey fee-shifting           statutes.   1-25-12  

Borough of Sayreville v. 35 Club, L.L.C. (067092; A-66-10)

 Borough of Sayreville v. 35 Club, L.L.C.           (067092; A-66-10) 
          In evaluating the adequacy of alternative channels of           communication when deciding an as-applied           constitutional challenge to the State’s statute 
page1image14256
page1image14528
page1image14800
page1image15072
page1image15344
page1image15616
page1image15888limiting the places where sexually-oriented businesses
          may operate, trial courts are not precluded from           considering the existence of sites that are located           outside of New Jersey but that are found within the           relevant market area as defined by the parties’           experts.  1-19-12  

Selective Insurance Company of America v. Arthur C. Rothman, M.D.

Selective Insurance Company of America v. Arthur C.           Rothman, M.D. (066630; A-60-10) 
          Physician Assistants are not authorized to perform the           electrodiagnostic test known as needle           electromyography (EMG).  The Court declines to           consider defendant’s application that its decision be           given only prospective effect.  1-18-12   

Donald T. Polzo v. County of Essex

Donald T. Polzo v. County of Essex (066910;           A-74/75-10) 
          Viewing the record in the light most favorable to           plaintiff, it cannot be concluded that the County was           on constructive notice of a “dangerous condition” on           the shoulder of its roadway that “created a reasonably           foreseeable risk” of death, or that the failure to           correct the depression before the accident was           “palpably unreasonable.”  1-18-12   

Sunday, January 8, 2012

JOHN CAMBRIA VS. TWO JFK BLVD, LLC, ET AL. VS. JFK FOOD & DELI, INC., ET AL. A-0802-10T2

JOHN CAMBRIA VS. TWO JFK BLVD, LLC, ET AL. VS. JFK

FOOD & DELI, INC., ET AL.

A-0802-10T2

In this action, plaintiff was injured as a result of a slip

and fall on ice in the parking lot of a strip mall. In the

appeal, the court considered whether a tenant's insurer owed any

duty to the landlord and the landlord's real estate manager

where the record revealed that, despite agreement, the tenant

had failed to have the landlord named as an additional insured.

The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the

landlord and real estate manager based on the tenant's insurer's

policy term that it would provide coverage for "[a]ny person

. . . acting as your real estate manager." The court reversed,

finding there could only be coverage if it could be shown that

the real estate manager was the tenant's real estate manager and

concluding that the evidence did not support a finding that the

tenant bore any responsibility for the parking lot area. As a

result, the real estate manager did not act for the tenant, only

the landlord, in maintaining the parking lot. 01-05-12