Search Results
| Case name | Citation | Summary |
| [New Jersey] JOSEPH DIPASQUALE V. BOARD OF REVIEW | 1996/01/05 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none When an employee attempts to return to work after a period of temporary disability resulting from a work connected injury and is terminated because he is unable to perform the same job due to this injury, his employment is no longer available to him in the context of the Unemployment Compensation Act. N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(c)(3). Therefore, the worker is entitled to alternate base year rate calculation and unemployment compensation benefits. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] ANTOINETTE NISIVOCCIA V. ADEMHILL ASSOC | 1996/01/05 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Summation comments made about the failure of an adversary to produce a witness at trial of personal injury action held harmless error, notwithstanding noncompliance with adverse inference procedures in State v. Clawans, 38 N.J. 162 (1962), and summation comment procedure in State v. Irving, 114 N.J. 427 (1989). In a civil case a party need not request an adverse inference charge from the trial judge or give notice before making summation comments on non-production of a witness. Attorneys in civil cases are charged with knowledge that an adversary may comment upon the failure to call a witness. Judgment granting motion for new trial reversed and jury verdict reinstated because jury was not prejudiced by defense counsel's summation comment about plaintiff's failure to call her best friend as a witness where plaintiff had offered explanation to jury. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] RICHARD GILLMAN V. BALLY MANUFACTURING CORP | 1996/01/05 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Plaintiff, a top executive of a large corporation, signed Option Agreements which granted him options to purchase stock in the corporation. Under the terms of the Option Agreements, if plaintiff retired, the options were only exercisable for one year after retirement. Subsequently, plaintiff retired from the corporation pursuant to a retirement agreement which vested those of his stock options which had not yet matured and which provided that he could exercise these options according to the terms of the Option Agreements. However, plaintiff did not exercise a portion of his options until sixteen days after the one year period had expired, and the corporation refused to permit the purchase of the stock. The express, bargained-for terms of plaintiff's Option Agreements should be enforced. Plaintiff had the benefit of experienced counsel, and should not be afforded equitable relief from the consequences of his neglect. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] EDWARD BOJEKIAN AND FLORENCE BOJEKIAN V. FORT LEE PLANNING BOARD | 1996/01/05 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none A settlement of Mount Laurel litigation may be approved by a trial court after proper notice to the public and a hearing, if it is fair and reasonable, that is, if it adequately protects lower-income persons on whose behalf the action was brought. However, the trial court should not approve the proposed amendment to the master plan and zoning ordinance necessary to implement the settlement. Entry of the Judgment of Compliance should be withheld until the municipality adopts its master plan and ordinance amendments. If any interested party challenges the amendments based on the well-established criteria for testing the validity of land use ordinances, the trial court should hear and decide that challenge as part of the Mount Laurel litigation. If the master plan and zoning amendments are sustained, a Judgment of Compliance may then be entered. Specific provisions of the settlement agreement, including the grant to the builder of a ten-year vesting period, are sustained. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] EAST/WEST VENTURE V. BORO OF FORT LEE | 1996/01/05 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none A settlement of Mount Laurel litigation may be approved by a trial court after proper notice to the public and a hearing, if it is fair and reasonable, that is, if it adequately protects lower-income persons on whose behalf the action was brought. However, the trial court should not approve the proposed amendment to the master plan and zoning ordinance necessary to implement the settlement. Entry of the Judgment of Compliance should be withheld until the municipality adopts its master plan and ordinance amendments. If any interested party challenges the amendments based on the well-established criteria for testing the validity of land use ordinances, the trial court should hear and decide that challenge as part of the Mount Laurel litigation. If the master plan and zoning amendments are sustained, a Judgment of Compliance may then be entered. Specific provisions of the settlement agreement, including the grant to the builder of a ten-year vesting period, are sustained. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] BODIES BY LEMBO, INC. V. COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX | 1996/01/04 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Under the Local Public Contracts Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:11-1 to -49, a public entity under certain circumstances has the right to reject all bids, but that discretionary privilege is not without limit and must be exercised in good faith. Here, since the County's purchasing agent recommended that the County accept plaintiff as the lowest responsible bidder and the monetary difference between plaintiff's bid and the non conforming alternate bid accepted by the County was de minimis, i.e., $2,848, or only $356 per truck, the trial court sua sponte should not have required the County to readvertise for new bids, thereby rejecting plaintiff's bid. No cogent or compelling reason was present to justify this rejection. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] WELLS H. KEDDIE, ET AL V. RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY | 1996/01/04 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Rutgers, the State University, is for purposes of the Right-To-Know Law, a public body and, therefore, any citizen of this State has a right to materials which that law classifies as public records. Records pertaining to billing and payments made on account of legal fees in employment cases involving the University are deemed to be public records, as they must be made, maintained, and kept on file because of the statutory requirement that all accounts of the University shall be subject to audit by the State at any time. See N.J.S.A. 47:1A-2 and N.J.S.A. 18A:65-25(d). Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] JOAN GUIDI V. CITY OF ATLANTIC CITY | 1996/01/03 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Section of ordinance prohibiting an annoyance or anything interfering with inhabitants' comfort or general well-being, challenged by person arrested for feeding pigeons on a public street, was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] CECIL WITTY V. FORTUNOFF | 1996/01/02 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none When an employer has provided medical treatment at its expense after an on-the-job injury and then notifies the employee that he must submit to an examination by a new physician and that physician shall be the dispenser of all future treatment, the statute of limitation does not begin to run until the employer informs the employee that no further treatment is authorized. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] N.E.R.I. Corporation v. New Jersey Highway Authority | 1996/12/31 | Docket No: SYLLABUS N.J.S.A. 27:12B-5.2 requires public bidding for all Garden State Parkway towing and storage contracts. |
| [New Jersey] State v. Kim Finklea | 1996/12/30 | Docket No: SYLLABUS A defendants failure to appear on the original trial date, after being notified of that date and the consequences of his absence, constituted a waiver of his right to appear at the trial. The adjournment of the trial at the request of defense counsel does not vitiate a defendants knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to be present at the trial. |
| [New Jersey] Ivaldi v. Ivaldi | 1996/12/23 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: SYLLABUS The jurisdictional provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (N.J.S.A. 2A:34-29 to -52) vest the Family Part with subject-matter jurisdiction to determine an international child custody dispute. In light of the circumstances of this case, the matter is remanded to the trial court to determine whether New Jersey or Morocco provides a more appropriate forum. |
| [New Jersey] Kelly v. Geriatric and Medical Services, Inc. | 1996/12/19 | Docket No: SYLLABUS The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in the reported opinion below. Kellys voluntary acceptance of work at CRCC gave rise to an implied contract of employment, making her a special employee of the center. Her personal injury suit against CRCC was, thus, barred by the New Jersey Workers Compensation Law. |
| [New Jersey] New Jersey Carpenters Apprentice Training and Education Fund v. Borough of Kenilworth | 1996/12/17 | Docket No: SYLLABUS The training facility owned by the Fund does not qualify as a school under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6 and is operated primarily to benefit a particular profit-making sector of the economy. It is, therefore, not exempt from the payment of real property taxes. |
| [New Jersey] Reinhart v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours | 1996/12/16 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: SYLLABUS The trial judges use of the 1986 transcript to buttress his conclusion that petitioner had the tendency to be untruthful was error. However, error does not require reversal because there is sufficient credible evidence, independent of the improper evidence, that supports the findings made by the trial judge. |
| [New Jersey] Ravich v. Gourvitz | 1996/12/16 | Docket No: SYLLABUS reasons set forth in the written opinion below. According to its plain meaning and prior to its recent amendments, Rule 1:39-6(d) did not prohibit the forwarding of a referral fee by a certified civil trial attorney in a matrimonial action. |
| [New Jersey] Del Tufo v. Twp. of Old Bridge | 1996/12/12 | Docket No: SYLLABUS click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] IMO the Liquidation of Integrity Insurance Company | 1996/12/12 | Docket No: SYLLABUS Credit Lyonnais is entitled to file a claim for an amount equal to each bonds face value less the sum of payments already made by Integrity and the debtor and assets recoverable from the debtor. |
| [New Jersey] In the Matter of Registrant G.B.: Application for Judicial Review of Notification and Tier Designation | 1996/12/11 | Docket No: SYLLABUS In limited circumstances, a registrant may introduce expert testimony at the judicial hearing in order to establish the existence of unique aspects of his or her offense or character that render the Scale score assigned under the Registrant Community Notification Law suspect. |
| [New Jersey] State v. Roosevelt Grey | 1996/12/11 | Docket No: SYLLABUS The unusual circumstances in the sequence and delivery of the instructions to the jury led the jury to predicate its conviction of felony murder on its conviction of conspiracy to commit aggravated arson, which is not permitted. The felony murder convictions cannot stand. |