NEWS Notes green


Kozyra & Hartz, LLC Congratulates Attorneys Named To 2021 New Jersey Super Lawyers List

March 26, 2021

Kozyra & Hartz, LLC wishes to congratulate Barry A. Kozyra, Judith A. Hartz, and Michael J. Rankin, who have been named to the 2021 New Jersey Super Lawyers list. Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a consumer guide to outstanding attorneys based on a multi-step selection process, including a survey and peer review.** **Super Lawyers is a registered trademark of Thomson Reuters. A description of the selection methodology can be found at www.superlawyers.com. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Mixed Messages Widespread Throughout The Nation’s Courts Regarding Restaurants And Business Interruption Insurance Claims Due To The Covid 19 Pandemic

January 29, 2021

STELIOS STOUPAKIS reports on rulings that have been creating a growing body of case law on business interruption insurance claims related to COVID-19, specifically in the restaurant industry. A pair of rulings in early November 2020 brought bad news for several New Jersey restaurants that were shut down during the COVID-19 pandemic and were seeking reimbursement for their losses by insurance. The owners of the Cara Mia restaurant in Millburn were seeking business interruption coverage from Cumberland Mutual Fire Insurance Company, but had their suit dismissed by Senior District Judge Robert Kugler. In similar fashion, Presiding Civil Judge Steven Polansky of Camden County Superior Court dismissed a suit by The Cake Boutique of Mullica Hill seeking business interruption coverage(...)

New Jersey Supreme Court Saves An Incomplete Arbitration Clause Beware The Not So Safe Harbor

October 16, 2020

BARRY A. KOZYRA reports that the New Jersey Supreme Court has decided that an arbitration clause in a contract which does not contain any direction as to who the arbitrator or arbitration entity will be or how to select that arbitrator and does not explain how the arbitration is to be conducted is still valid. In Flanzman v. Jenny Craig, Inc., --- N.J.---- (decided September 11, 2020) the Court reviewed an extensive factual history over the question of whether an 82-year-old plaintiff in an employment rights case against her employer was subject to an incomplete but broadly worded arbitration clause in her contract. The arbitration clause did cover a lot of what can be found in such clauses (e.g., waiver of trial by jury, inclusive of tort, contract and statutory claims, decision(...)

The State’s Good Faith Obligation To Preserve Evidence In Its Control During A Criminal Prosecution Is Not Offset When Evidence Is Destroyed “Without Bad Faith”

June 16, 2020

STELIOS STOUPAKIS reports on a recent unpublished decision from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, which reversed a Defendant's conviction because the trial court did not consider the prejudice to the Defendant caused by the destruction of evidence by the arresting police department. The Appellate Division reasserted the fundamental principle that when evidence has been destroyed, the Court must determine whether the Defendant was prejudiced by the destruction of the evidence. If so, such prejudice outweighs the argument that the evidence had been destroyed "without bad faith." Here the Defendant's wife telephonically obtained a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act ("PDVA"), based on an alleged incident that(...)

The Moving Party – A Convicted Murderer Serving A 40 Year Sentence For Killing Her Children’s Father – Must Show Changed Circumstances To Modify Orders That Establish Custody And Parenting Rights

June 11, 2020

RONALD J. HERMAN reports on a recent New Jersey Case, in which the Plaintiff-mother is currently serving a forty-year sentence for the 2010 murder of her two children's father. The children, who were seven years old at the time of the murder, heard gunshots in their house and entered their father's bedroom to see him dying. Following the murder, the children were placed with the Defendant, the children's paternal grandmother. A trial ensued regarding the custody of the children. During the proceedings, the court ordered an evaluation of the children by a psychologist who was jointly selected by the parties. At the evaluation, the children expressed no desire to see their mother. Furthermore, the children had been undergoing therapy for the trauma they incurred from the murder.(...)