NEWS Notes green


Appellate Division Affirms Trial Court’s Dismissal Of Plaintiff’s Complaint As Barred By The Entire Controversy Do CT Rine In Contra CT Ual Dispute

November 14, 2018

ROBERT B. SPAWN reports on a recent unpublished decision from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. A recent New Jersey case involved a Plaintiff whose home in Sayreville suffered significant damage in Superstorm Sandy. In December 2012, Plaintiff hired Third-Party Defendant ("Contractor A") to repair her home. Contractor A partially completed the repairs before requesting additional money from Plaintiff to continue working on her home. Plaintiff refused Contractor A's request because she was dissatisfied with the quality of the work, and, consequently, Contractor A walked off the job prior to April 2013. Subsequently, in April 2013, Plaintiff hired Defendant ("Contractor B") to finish repairing her home, and Contractor B completed its work in May 2013. Then,(...)

Tenant Evicted For Damage Caused By Subtenant

November 9, 2018

WILLIAM H. MONE reports on a recent published decision from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. A New Jersey man was evicted from his residential apartment by order of the Superior Court because of the actions of his subtenant. The man allowed the subtenant to occupy the apartment for a six-month period in 2016. During that time the subtenant caused severe damage to the rear door of the apartment and the surrounding molding. The Landlord brought the eviction suit after serving a notice to quit on both the man and his subtenant. The man appealed the judgment of the trial court, arguing that only the subtenant could be evicted from the apartment because he was the one who caused the damage that gave rise to the eviction proceedings. The man relied on the(...)

Appellate Division Affirms Trial Court’s Grant Of Summary Judgment To Dog Owners In Personal I NJ Ury Case

November 5, 2018

ROBERT B. SPAWN reports on a recent unpublished decision from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. A recent New Jersey case involved a Plaintiff-dog groomer who filed a complaint against Defendants-dog owners after Defendants' dog bit Plaintiff during the course of a grooming session. At the trial level, Plaintiff claimed that Defendants were strictly liable for her injuries under the "dog-bite" statute, N.J.S.A. 4:19-16. Plaintiff also claimed that Defendants were negligent in failing to control their dog and allowing the dog to bite her. After both parties engaged in discovery, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on the factual record laid out below. When Defendants first brought their dog to Plaintiff's business in 2011, they informed(...)

Barry A. Kozyra, Esq. Was Interviewed And Quoted On Magone & Company’s Tax Information Blog – Employee Non Compete Agreements: Enforceable Or Not? September 27, 2018

October 31, 2018

Barry A. Kozyra, Esq. was interviewed and quoted on Magone & Company's Tax Information Blog dated September 27, 2018, regarding Employee Non-Compete Agreements: Enforceable or Not?, The Three Factors a Court Will Examine During a Non-Compete Case Hearing and the State's Requirements. 1) Time. Mr. Kozyra stated, "It's unreasonable to take somebody out of the workplace for one or two years if they only worked at your business for a month. You would have to demonstrate that you have very fragile intellectual property or confidential information that could be stolen." 2) Geography. Mr. Kozyra stated, "We routinely see situations where an employer wants to restrict someone from working anywhere on the planet because the company has such wide-ranging reach. While it's not commonplace,(...)

Appellate Division Resolves Brothers’ Fight Over Father’s Estate

October 16, 2018

WILLIAM H. MONE reports on a recent decision from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Following the death of his father in 2014, a New Jersey man submitted his father's will to probate as the executor of the estate. The man's brother filed a petition challenging the will. The two brothers subsequently filed a consent order with the court settling their dispute, which revolved around the disposition of real property owned by their father. The consent order granted the brother the option to purchase the deceased father's property, subject to several conditions. In order to exercise his right to purchase the property, the brother had to first (1) obtain financing by a date certain, (2) pay outstanding taxes he owed relative to the disposition of the estate of the(...)