Willingboro Mall, LTD. v. 240/242 Franklin Avenue, L.L.C. (A-62-11

 Willingboro Mall, LTD. v. 240/242 Franklin Avenue, L.L.C. (A-62-11; 069082) 

Plaintiff expressly waived the mediation-communication privilege and disclosed privileged communications. The oral settlement agreement reached by the parties is upheld. Going forward, however, a settlement that is reached at mediation but not reduced to a signed written agreement will not be enforceable. 

Karen Cole v. Jersey City Medical Center (A-6-12;

 Karen Cole v. Jersey City Medical Center (A-6-12; 070542) 

Evaluating the totality of the circumstances and applying a fact-sensitive analysis, Liberty’s active participation in the litigation for twenty-one months before invoking the arbitration provision on the eve of trial constituted a waiver of its right to arbitrate. 

Harlan W. Waksal v. Director, Div. of Taxation (A-103-11;

 Harlan W. Waksal v. Director, Div. of Taxation 

(A-103-11; 069599) 

In accordance with the plain language of N.J.S.A. 54A:5-1c, the worthless nonbusiness debt at issue is not a “sale, exchange or other disposition of property.” Section 5-1c does not integrate into the Act every provision of the Internal Revenue Code governing capital gains and losses, and 26 U.S.C.A. § 166(d)(1)(B) does not constitute a federal “method of accounting” for purposes of this case. 

Paul Emma v. Jessica Evans (A-112-11

Paul Emma v. Jessica Evans (A-112-11; 070071) 

In a dispute to rename a child of divorced parents, the party seeking to alter the surname jointly given to the child at birth bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the change is in the child’s best interest. Irrespective of whether the parents were married at the time of the child’s birth, the best-interests-of-the-child test should be applied in a renaming dispute without a presumption in favor of the custodial parent’s decision to change the jointly given surname of the child. 

Michael E. Hirsch v. Amper Financial Services, LLC (A-9-12

Michael E. Hirsch v. Amper Financial Services, LLC 

(A-9-12; 070751) 

Although traditional contract principles may in certain cases warrant compelling arbitration absent an arbitration clause, the intertwinement of the parties and claims in a dispute, viewed in isolation, is insufficient to warrant application of equitable estoppel to compel arbitration. 

Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Intermodal Properties, LLC (A-117-11;

Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Intermodal Properties, LLC (A-117-11; 

Norfolk Southern’s proposed use meets the requirement of N.J.S.A. 48:3-17.7 that the taking be “not incompatible with the public interest.” Intermodal may not invoke the prior public use doctrine because it lacks the power to condemn and its proposed use is neither prior nor public. As used in N.J.S.A. 48:12-35.1, “exigencies of business” does not necessitate an urgent need for land in order to justify a taking. Rather, it limits a railroad’s power to condemn to those circumstances where the general needs or ordinary course of business require it. 

Ten Stary Dom Partnership v. T. Brent Mauro (A-52-11;

Ten Stary Dom Partnership v. T. Brent Mauro (A-52-11; 069079) 

Defendant satisfied the positive and negative criteria and is therefore entitled to a bulk variance from a frontage zoning requirement. The trial court’s affirmance of the Board’s denial of the variance without prejudice violated the principle of res judicata.