MARY E. CAIN AND JAMES D. CAIN V. MERCK & CO., INC. f/k/a SCHERING-PLOUGH CORPORATION A-2138-08T2

MARY E. CAIN AND JAMES D. CAIN V. MERCK & CO., INC.

f/k/a SCHERING-PLOUGH CORPORATION

A-2138-08T2 08-17-10

We construe N.J.S.A. 14A:5-28(4) of the New Jersey Business

Corporate Act as allowing shareholders with a proper purpose to

inspect the minutes of the board of directors and executive

committee. However, this right of inspection is limited to

those portions of the minutes that are pertinent to the

shareholder's proper purpose and should not be confused with a

discovery order. Further, unsubstantiated allegations of

mismanagement do not constitute a proper purpose; rather, a

shareholder who asserts investigation of mismanagement as a

proper purpose must come forward with specific, supported and

credible allegations of mismanagement in order to be entitled to

the inspection.

JACQUELINE BETANCOURT V. TRINITAS HOSPITAL A-3849-08T2

JACQUELINE BETANCOURT V. TRINITAS HOSPITAL

A-3849-08T2 08-13-10

Although this appeal raises a significant issue regarding

the conflict between a patient and healthcare providers

regarding the continuation of medical treatment where the

patient is in a persistent vegetative state, we grant

plaintiff's motion to dismiss the appeal as moot. We conclude

that the following factors support such dismissal: 1) the

patient is deceased and the results of this appeal will not

affect his rights; 2) there is a dispute between the parties as

to the decedent's condition at the time medical treatment was

withdrawn; 3) the record is inadequate to address the issues in

dispute; 4) the prospect of a malpractice action by plaintiff

against the healthcare providers, as well as the substantial

outstanding medical bills, create issues that are unlikely to

reoccur.

ESTATE OF ANNA RUSZALA BY MARIE MIZERAK, (Executrix) V. BROOKDALE LIVING COMMUNITIES, ET AL. IDA AZZARO, As Proposed Administrator Ad Prosequendum

ESTATE OF ANNA RUSZALA BY MARIE MIZERAK, (Executrix)

V. BROOKDALE LIVING COMMUNITIES, ET AL.

IDA AZZARO, As Proposed Administrator Ad Prosequendum

for the Estate of Pasquale Azzaro V. BROOKDALE LIVING

COMMUNITIES, ET AL.

A-4403-08T1/A-4404-08T1 08-10-10 (consolidated)

In these consolidated appeals we must decide whether § 2 of

the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C.A. § 2, preempts the

public policy expressed in N.J.S.A. 30:13-8.1. We reverse the

court's finding that the FAA is inapplicable. We affirm,

however, the trial court's determination that these residency

agreements were contracts of adhesion. Under the doctrine of

substantive unconscionability, we strike as unenforceable the

provisions in the arbitration clause that restrict discovery,

limit compensation for non-economic damages, and outright

preclude punitive damages. Finally, we remand the Azzaro matter

to the trial court to determine whether a valid contract was

formed between the parties.

08-09-10 WILLIAM HAMMER v. DOUGLAS W. THOMAS, ET AL. PROFORMANCE INSURANCE CO. v. NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INS. CO., ET AL. A-0209-08T2/A-07

WILLIAM HAMMER v. DOUGLAS W. THOMAS, ET AL.

PROFORMANCE INSURANCE CO. v. NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS

INS. CO., ET AL.

A-0209-08T2/A-0742-08T2 08-09-10 (consolidated)

In this declaratory judgment action instituted by the

injured motorist's UM carrier, we affirm the trial court's grant

of summary judgment in favor of the tortfeasor's automobile

insurance provider who declined coverage based on the policy

exclusion for any insured "[w]ho intentionally causes bodily

injury or property damage." We hold that the policy was not

ambiguous and that the standard to be applied is that set forth

in Voorhees v. Preferred Mutual Insurance Co., 128 N.J. 165

(1992) and its progeny relating to automobile, homeowners and

related liability policies, and not that set forth in the

workers' compensation case of Charles Beseler Co. v. O'Gorman &

Young, Inc., 188 N.J. 542 (2006).

I/M/O XANADU PROJECT AT THE MEADOWLANDS COMPLEX; APPLICATION OF BENIHANA MEADOWLANDS CORPORATION FOR A SPECIAL CONCESSIONAIRE PERMIT A-2702

I/M/O XANADU PROJECT AT THE MEADOWLANDS COMPLEX;

APPLICATION OF BENIHANA MEADOWLANDS CORPORATION FOR A

SPECIAL CONCESSIONAIRE PERMIT

A-2702-08T2 08-06-10

We conclude that the Director of the Division of Alcoholic

Beverage Control properly concluded that: (1) the State or its

political subdivision entered into a contract with the applicant

Benihana Meadowlands Corp. authorizing the sale of alcoholic

beverages on the property; (2) the property, Xanadu, on which

the sale will take place is State property; and (3) Benihana is

fit to serve alcoholic beverages. N.J.A.C. 13:2-5.2. We affirm

the final decision of the Director and ABC.

DYFS v. I.H.C. and D.C. A-2208-09T

DYFS v. I.H.C. and D.C.

A-2208-09T4 08-05-10

In this abuse or neglect case, we hold that N.J.R.E. 404(b)

did not bar consideration of the father's acts of domestic

violence against his ex-wife and the children of that marriage

about seven years earlier to prove risk of harm to the children

of this marriage. We also hold that domestic violence that

presents risk to children in an abuse or neglect case can be

broader than the meaning of that term under the Prevention of

Domestic Violence Act. As testified by the experts, the

father's coercive control of the mother, together with both

parents' denial of and failure to treat their psychological

conditions, posed a risk of harm to the children. In reaching

these holdings, we address and distinguish DYFS v. H.B., 375

N.J. Super. 148 (App. Div. 2005), and DYFS v. S.S., 372 N.J.

Super. 13 (App. Div. 2004), certif. denied, 182 N.J. 426 (2005).

JEFFREY LIPKOWITZ, M.D., ET AL. V. HAMILTON SURGERY CENTER, LLC, ET AL. A-4489-08T1

JEFFREY LIPKOWITZ, M.D., ET AL. V. HAMILTON SURGERY

CENTER, LLC, ET AL.

A-4489-08T1 08-04-10

In this appeal we construe the term "financial detriment"

as found in the New Jersey Uniform Securities Law (USL),

N.J.S.A. 49:3-47 to -76, which requires that claimants prove

that they suffered a "financial detriment." N.J.S.A. 49:3-71

(b)(1). We hold that the USL indicates a legislative intent to

place investors in the same position they were in before making

the investments, not a preference of giving them the benefit of

their bargains.