NEWS Notes green


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STELIOS STOUPAKIS reports on a recent unpublished decision from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, which reversed a Defendant's convictions because the trial court's use of the term "and/or"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ROBERT B. SPAWN reports on a recent unpublished decision from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.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. (...)

A Police Officer’s Disposal Of Alleged Open Alcohol Containers Found In Defendant’s Vehicle Is Deemed A Violation Of Defendant’s Right Due To Process

March 11, 2019

Stelios Stoupakis reports on a recent unpublished decision from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, dealing with a police officer's handling of alleged open bottles of wine and vodka located in the vehicle operated by the Defendant, who was charged with driving while intoxicated ("DWI"). The Appellate Division recently maintained the importance of a Defendant's due process rights against the "policy" of a certain police department in matters involving open alcohol containers. The police allegedly found Defendant sleeping in his automobile with the engine running and vomit located within the interior of the vehicle. Upon being woken up, Defendant was speaking incoherently, had bloodshot/watery eyes, and smelled of alcohol. Notably, two open alcohol containers(...)

Appellate Division Affirms Trial Court’s Grant Of Summary Judgment To Movie Theater In Slip And Fall/Premises Liability Case

March 11, 2019

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-Patron who sustained injuries after slipping and falling on the premises of a Defendant-Movie Theater. Plaintiff testified in his deposition that, as he was attempting to exit one of Defendant's theaters after seeing a 6:30 p.m. show, he "saw trash or debris on the floor, tripped over it, and fell right into the emergency exit door on a metal bar." Plaintiff also indicated in testimony that he had seen "litter" when he first sat down in the theater before the movie, but "paid it no mind." Plaintiff, however, was unable to precisely define what he had seen on the floor, further stating that the trash or litter "could(...)