NJ Family Issues http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues Information and Opinions Fri, 11 Aug 2017 18:12:58 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.8.1 49324227 If the allegations do not set forth with specificity, or constitute as pleaded, satisfaction of the elements of legal or equitable fraud, a court may dismiss the complaint http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/2017/08/11/if-the-allegations-do-not-set-forth-with-specificity-or-constitute-as-pleaded-satisfaction-of-the-elements-of-legal-or-equitable-fraud-a-court-may-dismiss-the-complaint/ Fri, 11 Aug 2017 15:07:04 +0000 http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/?p=30432 ]]>
Law Lessons from Res v. Bank of America, N.A., N.J. Super. Law Div. (Wilson, J.S.C.), DOCKET NO. BER-L-3346-17, August 8, 2017:

In order to state a claim for violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. §§ 56:8-1, et. seq., (“CFA”), a plaintiff must allege

(1) an unlawful practice;
(2) that he suffered an ascertainable loss; and
(3) a causal relationship between the unlawful practice and the ascertainable loss.

Dabush v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 378 N.J. Super. 105, 114 (App. Div. 2005); New Jersey Citizen Action v. Schering-Plough Corp., 367 N.J. Super. 8, 12-13 (App. Div. 2003), cert. denied, 178 N.J. 249 (2003).

The Supreme Court of New Jersey stated that “[t]o violate the Act, a person must commit an ‘unlawful practice’ as defined in the legislation. Unlawful practices fall into three general categories: affirmative acts, knowing omissions, and regulation violations.” Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 138 N.J. 2, 17 (1994). The CFA defines “unlawful practice” as:

The act, use or employment by any person of any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing, concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise or real estate.

N.J.S.A. § 56:8-2 (emphasis added).

In addition to alleging each of the elements of common law fraud, allegations of fraud must be pled with particularity, pursuant to the New Jersey Court Rules. R. 4:5-8; Levinson v. D’Alfonso & Stein, 320 N.J Super. 312, 315 (App. Div. 1999). Mere conclusory statements are insufficient to satisfy the particularity requirement of R. 4:5-8. Rego Indus., Inc. v. Am. Mod. Metals Corp., 91 N.J. Super. 447, 456 (App. Div. 1966).

If “the allegations do not set forth with specificity,[]or … constitute as pleaded, satisfaction of the elements of legal or equitable fraud[,]” a court may dismiss the complaint. State, Dep’t of Treasury, Div. of Inv. ex rel. McCormac v. Qwest Commc’ns Intern., Inc., 387 N.J. Super. 469, 484-85 (App. Div. 2006); see also Lippmann v. Hydro-Space Tech., Inc., 77 N.J. Super. 497, 505 (App. Div. 1962) (finding that a complaint which “consisted of no more than only general and entirely conclusory charges of fraud” fails to plead such material facts as necessary to state a claim upon which relief could be granted).

NOTE from Paul G. Kostro, Esq.: If you are interested in Mediation; or have issues relating to Divorce, Domestic Violence, Child Support; Landlord-Tenant Matters; Contracts; Business Formation or Disputes; or Other Legal Matters, please call me to schedule an appointment — I can be reached by telephone at (908)232-6500; or by Email.


[HOME]

NOTE: My Law Office is located at 116 South Euclid Avenue, Westfield, Union County, NJ. Telephone: 908-232-6500; Paul@Kostro.com

NOTE: This Blog/Blawg, NJ Family Issues, is managed by Paul G. Kostro, Esq., an attorney/lawyer/mediator and collaborative law practitioner in Westfield, Union County, New Jersey.

If the allegations do not set forth with specificity, or constitute as pleaded, satisfaction of the elements of legal or equitable fraud, a court may dismiss the complaint originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on August 11, 2017.

]]>
30432
Claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/2017/08/11/claim-for-breach-of-the-implied-covenant-of-good-faith-and-fair-dealing/ Fri, 11 Aug 2017 15:02:54 +0000 http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/?p=30430 ]]>
Law Lessons from Res v. Bank of America, N.A., N.J. Super. Law Div. (Wilson, J.S.C.), DOCKET NO. BER-L-3346-17, August 8, 2017:

In order to succeed on a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, a plaintiff must prove:

(1) a contract exists between the plaintiff and defendant;
(2) the plaintiff performed under the terms of the contract [unless excused];
(3) the defendant engaged in conduct, apart from its contractual obligations, without good faith and for the purpose of depriving the plaintiff of the rights and benefits under the contract; and
(4) defendant’s conduct caused the plaintiff to suffer injury, damage, loss or harm.

Coyle v. Englander’s, 199 N.J. Super. 212, 223 (App. Div. 1985).

NOTE from Paul G. Kostro, Esq.: If you are interested in Mediation; or have issues relating to Divorce, Domestic Violence, Child Support; Landlord-Tenant Matters; Contracts; Business Formation or Disputes; or Other Legal Matters, please call me to schedule an appointment — I can be reached by telephone at (908)232-6500; or by Email.


[HOME]

NOTE: My Law Office is located at 116 South Euclid Avenue, Westfield, Union County, NJ. Telephone: 908-232-6500; Paul@Kostro.com

NOTE: This Blog/Blawg, NJ Family Issues, is managed by Paul G. Kostro, Esq., an attorney/lawyer/mediator and collaborative law practitioner in Westfield, Union County, New Jersey.

Claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on August 11, 2017.

]]>
30430
A bank does not owe a legal duty to a borrower http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/2017/08/11/a-bank-does-not-owe-a-legal-duty-to-a-borrower/ Fri, 11 Aug 2017 15:01:33 +0000 http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/?p=30428 ]]>
Law Lessons from Res v. Bank of America, N.A., N.J. Super. Law Div. (Wilson, J.S.C.), DOCKET NO. BER-L-3346-17, August 8, 2017:

It is well-established in New Jersey that a bank does not owe a legal duty to a borrower. United Jersey Bank v. Kensey, 306 N.J. Super. 540, 552 (App. Div. 1997).

There is a general presumption that the “relationship between lenders and borrowers is conducted at arms-length, and the parties are acting in their own interest.” Id. at 553.

NOTE from Paul G. Kostro, Esq.: If you are interested in Mediation; or have issues relating to Divorce, Domestic Violence, Child Support; Landlord-Tenant Matters; Contracts; Business Formation or Disputes; or Other Legal Matters, please call me to schedule an appointment — I can be reached by telephone at (908)232-6500; or by Email.


[HOME]

NOTE: My Law Office is located at 116 South Euclid Avenue, Westfield, Union County, NJ. Telephone: 908-232-6500; Paul@Kostro.com

NOTE: This Blog/Blawg, NJ Family Issues, is managed by Paul G. Kostro, Esq., an attorney/lawyer/mediator and collaborative law practitioner in Westfield, Union County, New Jersey.

A bank does not owe a legal duty to a borrower originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on August 11, 2017.

]]>
30428
The statute of limitations for negligence accrues either: on the date of the act or omission giving rise to the claim, or on the date the injured party discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, that he may have a basis for an actionable claim http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/2017/08/11/the-statute-of-limitations-for-negligence-accrues-either-on-the-date-of-the-act-or-omission-giving-rise-to-the-claim-or-on-the-date-the-injured-party-discovers-or-reasonably-should-have-discovered/ Fri, 11 Aug 2017 14:59:57 +0000 http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/?p=30426 ]]>
Law Lessons from Res v. Bank of America, N.A., N.J. Super. Law Div. (Wilson, J.S.C.), DOCKET NO. BER-L-3346-17, August 8, 2017:

The statute of limitations for negligence accrues either: on the date of the act or omission giving rise to the claim, or on the date the injured party discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, that he may have a basis for an actionable claim. See Hardwicke v. Am. Boychoir Sch., 188 N.J. 69, 109 (2006).

To state a claim for negligence in New Jersey, a plaintiff must allege facts to support such a claim. These facts must demonstrate :

(1) a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff;
(2) a breach of that duty by the defendant;
(3) proximate causation; and
(4) injury or harm to the plaintiff as a result of the breach.

Anderson v. Sammy Redd & Associates, 278 N.J. Super. 50, 56 (App. Div. 1995).

NOTE from Paul G. Kostro, Esq.: If you are interested in Mediation; or have issues relating to Divorce, Domestic Violence, Child Support; Landlord-Tenant Matters; Contracts; Business Formation or Disputes; or Other Legal Matters, please call me to schedule an appointment — I can be reached by telephone at (908)232-6500; or by Email.


[HOME]

NOTE: My Law Office is located at 116 South Euclid Avenue, Westfield, Union County, NJ. Telephone: 908-232-6500; Paul@Kostro.com

NOTE: This Blog/Blawg, NJ Family Issues, is managed by Paul G. Kostro, Esq., an attorney/lawyer/mediator and collaborative law practitioner in Westfield, Union County, New Jersey.

The statute of limitations for negligence accrues either: on the date of the act or omission giving rise to the claim, or on the date the injured party discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, that he may have a basis for an actionable claim originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on August 11, 2017.

]]>
30426
Courts lack jurisdiction to hear matters that are subject to exclusive agency jurisdiction http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/2017/08/11/courts-lack-jurisdiction-to-hear-matters-that-are-subject-to-exclusive-agency-jurisdiction/ Fri, 11 Aug 2017 14:57:47 +0000 http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/?p=30424 ]]>
Law Lessons from Res v. Bank of America, N.A., N.J. Super. Law Div. (Wilson, J.S.C.), DOCKET NO. BER-L-3346-17, August 8, 2017:

Courts lack jurisdiction to hear matters that are subject to exclusive agency jurisdiction. See Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, Comment 2.6 to R. 4:6-2, at 1559 (2016). In Wallace v. City of Bridgeton, 121 N.J. Super. 559, 561 (Law Div. 1972), the Court noted that a motion filed under R. 4:6-2(e) for failure to state a claim could have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to exclusive agency jurisdiction under R. 4:6-2(a). In the event that the Court tries a matter judicially despite clear exclusive agency jurisdiction, the ensuing judgment must be vacated. See Cortes v. Interboro Mut., 232 N.J. Super. 519 (App. Div. 1988).

NOTE from Paul G. Kostro, Esq.: If you are interested in Mediation; or have issues relating to Divorce, Domestic Violence, Child Support; Landlord-Tenant Matters; Contracts; Business Formation or Disputes; or Other Legal Matters, please call me to schedule an appointment — I can be reached by telephone at (908)232-6500; or by Email.


[HOME]

NOTE: My Law Office is located at 116 South Euclid Avenue, Westfield, Union County, NJ. Telephone: 908-232-6500; Paul@Kostro.com

NOTE: This Blog/Blawg, NJ Family Issues, is managed by Paul G. Kostro, Esq., an attorney/lawyer/mediator and collaborative law practitioner in Westfield, Union County, New Jersey.

Courts lack jurisdiction to hear matters that are subject to exclusive agency jurisdiction originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on August 11, 2017.

]]>
30424
Under the New Jersey Court Rules, a Complaint may only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if, after an in-depth and liberal search of its allegations, a cause of action cannot be gleaned from even an obscure statement in the Complaint, particularly if additional discovery is permitted http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/2017/08/11/under-the-new-jersey-court-rules-a-complaint-may-only-be-dismissed-for-failure-to-state-a-claim-if-after-an-in-depth-and-liberal-search-of-its-allegations-a-cause-of-action-cannot-be-gleaned-from-e/ Fri, 11 Aug 2017 14:56:41 +0000 http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/?p=30422 ]]>
Law Lessons from Res v. Bank of America, N.A., N.J. Super. Law Div. (Wilson, J.S.C.), DOCKET NO. BER-L-3346-17, August 8, 2017:

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to R. 4:6-2(e), the Court must treat all factual allegations as true and must carefully examine those allegations “to ascertain whether the fundament of a cause of action may be gleaned even from an obscure statement of claim. . . .” Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elec. Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 746 (1989). After a thorough examination, should the Court determine that such allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court must dismiss the claim. Id.

Under the New Jersey Court Rules, a Complaint may only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if, after an in-depth and liberal search of its allegations, a cause of action cannot be gleaned from even an obscure statement in the Complaint, particularly if additional discovery is permitted. R. 4:6-2(e); see Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, Comment 4.1.1. to Rule 4:6-2(e), at 1513 (2016) (citing Printing Mart, 116 N.J. at 746).

Thus, a Court must give the non-moving party every inference in evaluating whether to dismiss a Complaint. See NCP Litigation Trust v. KPMG, LLP, 187 N.J. 353, 365 (2006); Banco Popular No. America v. Gandi, 184 N.J. 161, 165-66 (2005); Fazilat v. Feldstein, 180 N.J. 74, 78 (2004). The “test for determining the adequacy of a pleading [is] whether a cause of action is suggested by the facts.” Printing Mart, 116 N.J. at 746. However, “a court must dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint if it has failed to articulate a legal basis entitling plaintiff to relief.” Sickles v. Carbot Corp., 379 N.J. Super. 100, 106 (App. Div. 2005).

NOTE from Paul G. Kostro, Esq.: If you are interested in Mediation; or have issues relating to Divorce, Domestic Violence, Child Support; Landlord-Tenant Matters; Contracts; Business Formation or Disputes; or Other Legal Matters, please call me to schedule an appointment — I can be reached by telephone at (908)232-6500; or by Email.


[HOME]

NOTE: My Law Office is located at 116 South Euclid Avenue, Westfield, Union County, NJ. Telephone: 908-232-6500; Paul@Kostro.com

NOTE: This Blog/Blawg, NJ Family Issues, is managed by Paul G. Kostro, Esq., an attorney/lawyer/mediator and collaborative law practitioner in Westfield, Union County, New Jersey.

Under the New Jersey Court Rules, a Complaint may only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if, after an in-depth and liberal search of its allegations, a cause of action cannot be gleaned from even an obscure statement in the Complaint, particularly if additional discovery is permitted originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on August 11, 2017.

]]>
30422
Conjecture and speculation cannot be used as a basis for damages http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/2017/08/11/conjecture-and-speculation-cannot-be-used-as-a-basis-for-damages/ Fri, 11 Aug 2017 14:53:23 +0000 http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/?p=30420 ]]>
Law Lessons from Tech. Dynamics Inc. v. Master, N.J. Super. Law. Div. (Wilson, J.S.C.), DOCKET NO. BER-L-4328-16, August 9, 2017:

It is well-settled that “[c]onjecture and speculation cannot be used as a basis for damages.” Brach, Eichler, Rosenberg, Silver, Bernstein, Hammer & Gladstone, P.C. v. Ezekwo, 345 N.J. Super. 1, 11 (App. Div. 2001). An essential element for a claim of lost profit damages is proof of the relevant costs or expenses that must be set-off from the gross revenues. Specifically,

To recover lost profits, a party must show that profits were lost as a result of the actionable conduct complained of. “Lost Profits” signifies the difference between gross income and the costs or expenses which had to be expended to produce the income. Proof of relevant costs or expenses is not a matter of mitigation. It is part of the damage case of the party seeking to recover lost profits.

Cromartie v. Carteret Savings & Loan, 277 N.J. Super. 88, 103 (App. Div. 1994).

NOTE from Paul G. Kostro, Esq.: If you are interested in Mediation; or have issues relating to Divorce, Domestic Violence, Child Support; Landlord-Tenant Matters; Contracts; Business Formation or Disputes; or Other Legal Matters, please call me to schedule an appointment — I can be reached by telephone at (908)232-6500; or by Email.


[HOME]

NOTE: My Law Office is located at 116 South Euclid Avenue, Westfield, Union County, NJ. Telephone: 908-232-6500; Paul@Kostro.com

NOTE: This Blog/Blawg, NJ Family Issues, is managed by Paul G. Kostro, Esq., an attorney/lawyer/mediator and collaborative law practitioner in Westfield, Union County, New Jersey.

Conjecture and speculation cannot be used as a basis for damages originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on August 11, 2017.

]]>
30420
There is no implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing under New Jersey law in the absence of a contract http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/2017/08/11/there-is-no-implied-warranty-of-good-faith-and-fair-dealing-under-new-jersey-law-in-the-absence-of-a-contract/ Fri, 11 Aug 2017 14:51:43 +0000 http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/?p=30418 ]]>
Law Lessons from Tech. Dynamics Inc. v. Master, N.J. Super. Law. Div. (Wilson, J.S.C.), DOCKET NO. BER-L-4328-16, August 9, 2017:

There is no implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing under New Jersey law in the absence of a contract. Noye v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., 238 N.J. Super. 430, 434 (App. Div. 1990).

Even if there was a contract, the implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing is inapplicable to employment at will situations. Specifically, the Appellate Division noted:

Since Plaintiff was working without a contract as an at-will employee, his argument that every contract imposes a duty of good faith and fair dealing is irrelevant. One cannot read terms into a nonexistent contract. Defendant had an absolute right to terminate Plaintiff without cause.

McQuitty v. General Dynamics Corp., 204 N.J. Super. 514, 520 (App. Div. 1985).

NOTE from Paul G. Kostro, Esq.: If you are interested in Mediation; or have issues relating to Divorce, Domestic Violence, Child Support; Landlord-Tenant Matters; Contracts; Business Formation or Disputes; or Other Legal Matters, please call me to schedule an appointment — I can be reached by telephone at (908)232-6500; or by Email.


[HOME]

NOTE: My Law Office is located at 116 South Euclid Avenue, Westfield, Union County, NJ. Telephone: 908-232-6500; Paul@Kostro.com

NOTE: This Blog/Blawg, NJ Family Issues, is managed by Paul G. Kostro, Esq., an attorney/lawyer/mediator and collaborative law practitioner in Westfield, Union County, New Jersey.

There is no implied warranty of good faith and fair dealing under New Jersey law in the absence of a contract originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on August 11, 2017.

]]>
30418
A party bringing a claim of breach of contract has the burden of proving all elements of its cause of action http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/2017/08/11/a-party-bringing-a-claim-of-breach-of-contract-has-the-burden-of-proving-all-elements-of-its-cause-of-action/ Fri, 11 Aug 2017 14:49:36 +0000 http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/?p=30416 ]]>
Law Lessons from Tech. Dynamics Inc. v. Master, N.J. Super. Law. Div. (Wilson, J.S.C.), DOCKET NO. BER-L-4328-16, August 9, 2017:

A party bringing a claim of breach of contract has the burden of proving all elements of its cause of action. Cumberland Cnty. Improvement Auth. v. GSP Recycling Co., 358 N.J Super. 484, 503 (App. Div. 2003).

Under New Jersey law, a plaintiff must plead and prove the following elements for a valid breach of contract claim:
“(1) a contract between the parties;
(2) a breach of that contract;
(3) damages flowing therefrom; and
(4) that the party stating the claim performed its own contractual obligations.”
Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188, 203 (3d Cir. 2007).

An enforceable bilateral agreement requires an offer, an acceptance, consideration and a meeting of the minds upon all the essential terms of the agreement. Weichert Co. Realtors v. Ryan, 128 N.J. 427, 435 (1992). The terms “must be sufficiently definite that performance to be rendered by each party can be ascertained with reasonable certainty.” Id. at 435 (holding that buyer and broker did not enter into an enforceable agreement because they had not agreed on essential terms). Therefore, “where the parties do not agree to one or more essential terms … courts generally hold that the agreement is unenforceable.” Id. (citing Heim v. Shore, 56 N.J. Super. 62, 72-73 (App. Div. 1959)).

NOTE from Paul G. Kostro, Esq.: If you are interested in Mediation; or have issues relating to Divorce, Domestic Violence, Child Support; Landlord-Tenant Matters; Contracts; Business Formation or Disputes; or Other Legal Matters, please call me to schedule an appointment — I can be reached by telephone at (908)232-6500; or by Email.


[HOME]

NOTE: My Law Office is located at 116 South Euclid Avenue, Westfield, Union County, NJ. Telephone: 908-232-6500; Paul@Kostro.com

NOTE: This Blog/Blawg, NJ Family Issues, is managed by Paul G. Kostro, Esq., an attorney/lawyer/mediator and collaborative law practitioner in Westfield, Union County, New Jersey.

A party bringing a claim of breach of contract has the burden of proving all elements of its cause of action originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on August 11, 2017.

]]>
30416
A court shall grant summary judgment if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter of law http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/2017/08/11/a-court-shall-grant-summary-judgment-if-the-pleadings-depositions-answers-to-interrogatories-and-admissions-on-file-together-with-the-affidavits-if-any-show-that-there-is-no-genuine-issue-as-to-a-2/ Fri, 11 Aug 2017 14:47:34 +0000 http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/?p=30414 ]]>
Law Lessons from Tech. Dynamics Inc. v. Master, N.J. Super. Law. Div. (Wilson, J.S.C.), DOCKET NO. BER-L-4328-16, August 9, 2017:

The New Jersey procedural rules state that a court shall grant summary judgment “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter of law.” N.J.S.A. § 4:46-2(c). In Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Co., 142 N.J. 520 (1995), the Supreme Court set forth a standard for courts to apply when determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists that requires a case to proceed to trial. Justice Coleman, writing for the Court, explained that a motion for summary judgment under N.J.S.A. § 4:46-2 requires essentially the same analysis as in the case of a directed verdict based on N.J.S.A. § 4:37-2(b) or N.J.S.A. § 4:40-1, or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict under N.J.S.A. § 4:40-2. Id. at 535-536. If, after analyzing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the motion court determines that “there exists a single unavoidable resolution of the alleged dispute of fact, that issue should be considered insufficient to constitute a ‘genuine’ issue of material fact for purposes of N.J.S.A. § 4:46-2.” Id. at 540.

NOTE from Paul G. Kostro, Esq.: If you are interested in Mediation; or have issues relating to Divorce, Domestic Violence, Child Support; Landlord-Tenant Matters; Contracts; Business Formation or Disputes; or Other Legal Matters, please call me to schedule an appointment — I can be reached by telephone at (908)232-6500; or by Email.


[HOME]

NOTE: My Law Office is located at 116 South Euclid Avenue, Westfield, Union County, NJ. Telephone: 908-232-6500; Paul@Kostro.com

NOTE: This Blog/Blawg, NJ Family Issues, is managed by Paul G. Kostro, Esq., an attorney/lawyer/mediator and collaborative law practitioner in Westfield, Union County, New Jersey.

A court shall grant summary judgment if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter of law originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on August 11, 2017.

]]>
30414