September 13th, 2018 | Written by Benedict F. Valliere, Esq.
One of the toughest decisions a client can make during the litigation process is, after receiving a settlement offer, whether to take the offer or continue to trial.
September 7th, 2018 | Written by Diana N. Fredericks, Esq.
Divorced parents in the midst of a contentious and lengthy custody dispute asked the Court to opine on whether it was appropriate for their 11-year-old child to attend a Pink concert. The father objected to the child’s attendance at the concert, citing concerns of profane language and sexual content. The father asked the court to find that the mother of this young girl abused her parental discretion, and that this purported abuse be considered as part of the pending custody matter.
September 5th, 2018 | Written by William W. Goodwin, Jr., Esq.
Earlier this year, Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). While many of its provisions received a great deal of media attention, one in particular has flown under the radar despite the fact that it may have a substantial impact on parties going through a divorce. That part of the Act addresses the tax treatment of alimony payments made pursuant to a court order, or under a separation or divorce settlement agreement.
August 7th, 2018 | Written by Diana N. Fredericks, Esq.
YES, finalizing your divorce in 2018 versus 2019 will make a difference, since the new tax laws will likely have many effects on divorcing couples.
August 1st, 2018 | Written by Tara St. Angelo, Esq.
The Appellate Division recently held that a municipal parking authority, the South Orange Parking Authority (SOPA), was immune from liability for injuries the plaintiff sustained after slipping and falling on an icy sidewalk adjacent to a municipal parking lot. Molino v. Twp. of South Orange, et al., Docket No. A-3548-16T2 (July 12, 2018). The parking lot was owned by a municipality and operated by SOPA.
July 20th, 2018 | Written by Daniel S. Makoski, Esq.
When you are looking to buy a business, expand your existing business via a merger or acquisition, or retire and sell your business, the need for a thorough review of the company that is buying yours, or the company that you are buying, can never be overstated.
July 12th, 2018 | Written by Tara St. Angelo, Esq.
A tenured chemistry teacher recently appealed a trial court’s decision in his case against the Hunterdon Central Regional High School District Board (the “Board”). The Board had referred tenure charges against the teacher to the Commission of Education, and the teacher alleged violations of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) and failure to send a Rice notice. On appeal in R.D.A. v. Hunterdon Central Regional High School District Bd. of Education, et al., Docket No. A-5011-16T3 (App. Div. June 28, 2018), the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s dismissal holding that the action was time-barred and that OPMA had not been violated.
July 11th, 2018 | Written by Diana N. Fredericks, Esq.
Do not bring friends/family to the courtroom. You do not need to have a fan section, which can be distracting to you and others. Discuss the specifics with your lawyer before you go to court and balance a need for support with the recommendations of your counsel.
July 10th, 2018 | Written by Tara St. Angelo, Esq.
The New Jersey Supreme Court in Gilleran v. Twp. of Bloomfield, 227, N.J. 159 (2016) set forth a test to determine whether security footage of public buildings should be disclosed pursuant to an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request. However, the Court has not opined as to whether security footage of private property obtained during police investigations is subject to OPRA.
June 29th, 2018 | Written by Tara St. Angelo, Esq.
Recently, in Kean Federation of Teachers v. Ada, 2018 WL 3062207 (N.J. June 21, 2018), the New Jersey Supreme Court overturned the Appellate Division’s decision that required all employees to receive a Rice Notice if matters affecting their employment appeared on a public body’s agenda for open session. Thereby, the Supreme Court limited a previously widely expanded interpretation of Rice Notice requirements.