November 6, 2012
To Our Clients, Friends, Supporters and Their Families,
Please know that everyone at Kozyra & Hartz joins in sending their prayers and best wishes to all of those affected by Hurricane Sandy. We hope that you are all safe and that you are able to recover quickly from this catastrophic event. We, like many, experienced disruption in communicating due to electrical outages. We are back to work and stand ready to meet with existing and new clients who are in need of our diverse services. We know that many of you will be facing short and long term issues in the next weeks and months as to the hurricane's impact and want to be there to help you. We have put together this webpage to assist in answering general questions and to provide guidance in addressing your legal problems. For(...)
September 14, 2012
On Friday, September 14, 2012, Barry A. Kozyra and Judith A. Hartz appeared as guest speakers to lecture on: Techniques for Proving the Family Law Case: Using Forensics to Present a Winning Hand.
Mr. Kozyra explained how to use third party sources to prove aspects of the case. Among other sources of information, he discussed the importance of loan, mortgage, and credit applications, financial statements, accountant work papers, and bankruptcy petitions, as well as examples of case law.
Ms. Hartz spoke about how to use direct sources, such as case information statements, interrogatories, requests for admissions, document requests, tax returns, bank records, certifications, and depositions while referencing case law examples.
Together, with their knowledge and a created(...)
January 31, 2012
Barry A. Kozyra, Esq., attorney for the Nutley Planning Board in Nutley, New Jersey, had the honor and privilege of introducing Joanne Cocchiola at her swearing in ceremony as Nutley's Municipal Judge on January 31, 2012. Read more
May 18, 2010
FAMILY LAW — SPOUSAL SUPPORT
20-2-7816 Halaka v. Halaka, App. Div. (per curiam) (21 pp.) Defendant appeals from portions of a final judgment of divorce (FJD) awarding plaintiff $55,000 in annual permanent alimony and $40,000 in counsel fees, and obligating him to pay a greater share of the marital debt. Plaintiff cross-appeals from that portion of the FJD requiring her to pay fifty-percent of the parties' home equity line of credit. Where it was neither reasonable nor plausible to infer that the couple's yearly expenses were met entirely by defendant's income, the appellate panel finds the trial court's calculation of defendant's gross income is erroneous, reverses the alimony award and remands for reconsideration. The panel affirms the FJD in all other respects.