PHILIP KOZMA V. STARBUCKS (A-3908-08T3 ) 3-19-10
The opinion upholds a jury verdict of no compensatory
damages where the jury assigned sixty percent fault to defendant
and forty percent to plaintiff. We determine that the jury was
properly instructed and there was no inconsistency in its
determinations. Satisfied that no miscarriage of justice
occurred, we affirm the denial of plaintiff's application for a
new trial on damages only.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
City of Atlantic City v. Zachirias Trupos (A-23-09)
City of Atlantic City v. Zachirias Trupos (A-23-09) 4-26-10
For purposes of RPC 1.9, matters are “substantially
related” if (1) the lawyer for whom disqualification
is sought received confidential information from the
former client that can be used against that client in
the subsequent representation of parties adverse to
the former client, or (2) facts relevant to the prior
representation are relevant and material to the
subsequent representation. Disqualification is
unwarranted here because, during its representation of
the City in 2006-2007, the law firm did not receive
confidential information from the City which can be
used against it in the prosecution of the 2009 tax
appeals adverse to the City. Also, the facts relevant
to the law firm’s prior representation of the City are
not relevant and material to its representation of the
taxpayers in the 2009 tax appeals.
For purposes of RPC 1.9, matters are “substantially
related” if (1) the lawyer for whom disqualification
is sought received confidential information from the
former client that can be used against that client in
the subsequent representation of parties adverse to
the former client, or (2) facts relevant to the prior
representation are relevant and material to the
subsequent representation. Disqualification is
unwarranted here because, during its representation of
the City in 2006-2007, the law firm did not receive
confidential information from the City which can be
used against it in the prosecution of the 2009 tax
appeals adverse to the City. Also, the facts relevant
to the law firm’s prior representation of the City are
not relevant and material to its representation of the
taxpayers in the 2009 tax appeals.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
BORDEN, VS. CADLES OF GRASSY MEADOWS
BORDEN, ET AL. VS. CADLES OF GRASSY MEADOWS
II, LLC, ET AL. A-2386-08T1 4-5-10
Defendant was the assignee of a judgment in favor of the
Howard Savings Bank (the Howard) and its initial assignee, the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Defendant
appealed from a judgment extinguishing and discharging a
judgment in a foreclosure action on a commercial mortgage note
and guaranties entered in favor of the Howard and the FDIC.
Plaintiffs were two of the guarantors of the note against whom
the summary judgment was entered. The judge vacated the summary
judgment because no deficiency hearing was sought by the Howard
or the FDIC after a final judgment of foreclosure was entered
and the mortgaged property was sold at a sheriff's sale. Upon
examination of how New Jersey courts have applied FMV credits to
commercial notes and mortgages, we reverse and reinstate the
summary judgment because the Howard and the FDIC had no duty to
trigger a deficiency hearing after the sale of the property and
the burden to seek a hearing rested on plainttimely objection to the sheriff's sale.
II, LLC, ET AL. A-2386-08T1 4-5-10
Defendant was the assignee of a judgment in favor of the
Howard Savings Bank (the Howard) and its initial assignee, the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Defendant
appealed from a judgment extinguishing and discharging a
judgment in a foreclosure action on a commercial mortgage note
and guaranties entered in favor of the Howard and the FDIC.
Plaintiffs were two of the guarantors of the note against whom
the summary judgment was entered. The judge vacated the summary
judgment because no deficiency hearing was sought by the Howard
or the FDIC after a final judgment of foreclosure was entered
and the mortgaged property was sold at a sheriff's sale. Upon
examination of how New Jersey courts have applied FMV credits to
commercial notes and mortgages, we reverse and reinstate the
summary judgment because the Howard and the FDIC had no duty to
trigger a deficiency hearing after the sale of the property and
the burden to seek a hearing rested on plainttimely objection to the sheriff's sale.
Hermes Reyes, et al. v. Harry C. Egner, et al. (A-90-08)
Hermes Reyes, et al. v. Harry C. Egner, et al.
(A-90-08)
4-8-10
The members of the Supreme Court being equally
divided, the judgment of the Appellate Division is
affirmed. The Hopkins duty of care to warn of any
reasonably discoverable dangerous condition in the
home does not extend to a real estate agent
facilitating a short-term lease of a summer rental.
(A-90-08)
4-8-10
The members of the Supreme Court being equally
divided, the judgment of the Appellate Division is
affirmed. The Hopkins duty of care to warn of any
reasonably discoverable dangerous condition in the
home does not extend to a real estate agent
facilitating a short-term lease of a summer rental.
In re: Petition for Referendum of the City of Trenton Ordinance 09-0
In re: Petition for Referendum of the City of Trenton
Ordinance 09-02 4-6-10
The relevant provision of the Municipal Utilities Law,
N.J.S.A. 40:62-3.1, eliminates only the mandatory
requirement of a referendum; it does not affect the
citizens’ right to contest an ordinance as provided by
the Faulkner Act. Ordinance 09-02 of the City of
Trenton, which authorizes the sale of a municipal
water utility system to a private entity, must be
submitted to the voters.
Ordinance 09-02 4-6-10
The relevant provision of the Municipal Utilities Law,
N.J.S.A. 40:62-3.1, eliminates only the mandatory
requirement of a referendum; it does not affect the
citizens’ right to contest an ordinance as provided by
the Faulkner Act. Ordinance 09-02 of the City of
Trenton, which authorizes the sale of a municipal
water utility system to a private entity, must be
submitted to the voters.
Marina Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc. (A-16-09)
Marina Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc. (A-16-09) 3-30-10
Under the circumstances, Stengart could reasonably
expect that e-mail communications with her lawyer
through her personal, password-protected, web-based
e-mail account would remain private, and that sending
and receiving them using a company laptop did not
eliminate the attorney-client privilege that protected
them. By reading e-mails that were at least arguably
privileged and failing to promptly notify Stengart
about them, Loving Care’s counsel violated RPC 4.4(b).
Under the circumstances, Stengart could reasonably
expect that e-mail communications with her lawyer
through her personal, password-protected, web-based
e-mail account would remain private, and that sending
and receiving them using a company laptop did not
eliminate the attorney-client privilege that protected
them. By reading e-mails that were at least arguably
privileged and failing to promptly notify Stengart
about them, Loving Care’s counsel violated RPC 4.4(b).
Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Township of Berkeley Heights (A-95-08
Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Township of Berkeley
Heights (A-95-08) 3-17-10
Although the municipality’s dismissal motion was not
untimely, the Court reverses the appellate panel’s
judgment that that tax appeal be dismissed in its
entirety and remands to the Tax Court for a
reasonableness hearing consistent with the Court’s
holding in Ocean Pines, Ltd. V. Borough of Point
Pleasant.
Heights (A-95-08) 3-17-10
Although the municipality’s dismissal motion was not
untimely, the Court reverses the appellate panel’s
judgment that that tax appeal be dismissed in its
entirety and remands to the Tax Court for a
reasonableness hearing consistent with the Court’s
holding in Ocean Pines, Ltd. V. Borough of Point
Pleasant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)