NEWS Notes green


Appellate Division Finds No Harmful Error In Trial Court’s Refusal To Play Back Testimony For Jury During Deliberations

April 8, 2019

ROBERT B. SPAWN reports on a recent unpublished decision from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. In a recent New Jersey case, a Plaintiff was driving in the westbound lane of 150th Avenue near John F. Kennedy Airport when his car collided with a twenty-seven-foot-long truck owned by a Defendant-Port Authority and operated by its Defendant-Employee (collectively, "Defendants"). The Employee was turning the truck left onto 148th Street from the eastbound lanes of 150th Avenue just before the accident occurred. Plaintiff alleged injuries resulting from the accident and filed suit. At the trial level, a jury found that Plaintiff had failed to prove that the Employee was negligent, and, consequently, the judge dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. (...)

The Use Of Surveillance By A Spouse Is Considered Stalking And Harassment Under The Prevention Of Domestic Violence Act

March 28, 2019

MARGARITA ROMANOVA reports on a recent unpublished decision from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. More often than not, contentious matrimonial disputes involve the use of a GPS tracking device (or a similar mechanism) and the retention of private surveillance services by the spouses. In a recent unpublished New Jersey Appellate Division decision, the Court reminded litigants of the Legislature's intent to "cast a wide net of protection for stalking victims by broadly prohibiting and punishing persistent, unwanted, and frightening behaviors" in the context of domestic violence by affirming the entry of a Final Restraining Order ("FRO") against the Husband, who authorized his father to retain a private investigator and to install a GPS tracking device on a vehicle(...)

A Court’s Use Of The Term “And/Or” In Its Instructions To The Jury Is Improper

March 26, 2019

STELIOS STOUPAKIS reports on a recent unpublished decision from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, which reversed a Defendant's convictions because the trial court's use of the term "and/or" regarding evidence from two different counts was clearly capable of producing an unjust result. The Appellate Division, in this case, reasserted the fundamental principle of proper jury charges as a necessity for a fair trial. During a trial, the court will provide instructions to the jury. Jury instructions may range anywhere from whether taking notes are allowed to advise the jury that certain evidence is only to be considered for a certain purpose to every element of a crime that must be established for a jury to convict a Defendant. The court's instructions to a jury(...)

Kozyra & Hartz, LLC Congratulates Attorneys Named To 2019 New Jersey Super Lawyers List, 2019 Top 50 Women’s New Jersey Super Lawyers List & 2019 New Jersey Rising Stars List

March 25, 2019

Kozyra & Hartz, LLC wishes to congratulate Barry A. Kozyra, Judith A. Hartz and Margarita Romanova. Barry A. Kozyra was named to the 2019 New Jersey Super Lawyers list, Judith A. Hartz was named to the 2019 New Jersey Super Lawyers List and to the 2019 Top 50 Women's New Jersey Super Lawyers list, and Margarita Romanova was named to the 2019 New Jersey Rising Stars 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.

Appellate Division Finds Offer, Acceptance, And Binding Oral Contract In Home Repair Case

March 18, 2019

ROBERT B. SPAWN reports on a recent unpublished decision from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. In a recent New Jersey case, a Defendant-Building Company ("Builder") appealed a $2,836 Special Civil Part judgment in favor of a Plaintiff-Installation Company ("Installer") regarding the installation of cabling at a home the Builder had constructed for a Defendant-Homeowner. At trial, the Installer's Managing Member testified that he sent the Builder a written estimate of $5,404 for the installation of an alarm system in the Homeowner's new house. Upon receiving the estimate, an employee of the Builder orally told the Managing Member of the Installer to proceed with the work, and the Installer then discussed the details of the installation with the Homeowner. (...)