NJ Family Issues Information and Opinions 2017-08-21T13:40:16Z http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/feed/atom/ WordPress PaulKostro <![CDATA[Customer lists of services business have been afforded protection as trade secrets]]> http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/?p=30484 2017-08-21T13:40:16Z 2017-08-21T13:40:16Z ]]>
Law Lessons from Stankovych v. Bardakh, N.J. Super. Chancery Div., Contillo, P.J. Ch., DOCKET No. BER-C-113-16, August 16, 2017:

Customer lists of services business have been afforded protection as trade secrets. LaMorte Burns & Co., Inc. v. Walters, 167 N.J. 286, 298-299 (2001).

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.

Customer lists of services business have been afforded protection as trade secrets originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on August 21, 2017.

]]>
PaulKostro <![CDATA[The predominant measure of damages in cases involving the destruction or removal of trees and ornamental shrubs is the diminution-of-market-value measure]]> http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/?p=30477 2017-08-18T15:11:06Z 2017-08-12T15:09:42Z ]]>
Law Lessons from Burke v. Donlon, N.J. Super. App. Div., No. A-3802-15T2, August 11, 2017:

“The predominant measure of damages in cases involving the destruction or removal of trees and ornamental shrubs is the diminution-of-market-value measure. Although various other measures have been applied by courts, the law is not rigid and “ordinarily the measure of damages is the resulting depreciation in the value of the land on which the trees or shrubs stood.” Mosteller v. Naiman, 416 N.J. Super. 632, 639 (App. Div. 2010) (citing Kristine Cordier Karnezis, Annotation, Measure of Damages for Injury to or Destruction of Shade or Ornamental Tree or Shrub, 95 A.L.R. 3d 508 § 2 (2008)).

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 predominant measure of damages in cases involving the destruction or removal of trees and ornamental shrubs is the diminution-of-market-value measure originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on August 12, 2017.

]]>
PaulKostro <![CDATA[The right to specific performance turns not only on whether a plaintiff has demonstrated a right to legal relief, but also whether the performance of the contract represents an equitable result]]> http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/?p=30475 2017-08-18T15:09:21Z 2017-08-12T15:07:15Z ]]>
Law Lessons from Burke v. Donlon, N.J. Super. App. Div., No. A-3802-15T2, August 11, 2017:

In general, to establish the remedy of specific performance, a party must demonstrate that the contract in question is valid and enforceable at law. Marioni v. 94 Broadway, Inc., 374 N.J. Super. 588, 598 (App. Div. 2005), certif. denied, 183 N.J. 591 (2005). See 25 Williston, Contracts (Lord ed., 2002) § 67:2 at 186.

Further, the party must show that “the terms of the contract are expressed in such fashion that the court can determine, with reasonable certainty, the duties of each party and the conditions under which performance is due.” Salvatore v. Trace, 109 N.J. Super. 83, 90 (App. Div. 1969), aff’d o.b., 55 N.J. 362 (1970).

Lastly, the party must demonstrate that an order compelling performance of the contract will “not be harsh or oppressive.” Stehr v. Sawyer, 40 N.J. 352, 357 (1963); Ridge Chevrolet-Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Scarano, 238 N.J. Super. 149, 155 (App. Div. 1990).

The right to specific performance turns not only on whether a plaintiff has demonstrated a right to legal relief, but also whether the performance of the contract represents an equitable result. Marioni, supra, 374 N.J. Super. at 599. That is, after determining that the purchaser has a legal right to recovery, a court of equity must make a further determination that has been deemed to be discretionary. See, e.g., Friendship Manor, Inc. v. Greiman, 244 N.J. Super. 104, 113 (App. Div. 1990) (specific performance is a discretionary remedy resting on equitable principles), certif. denied, 126 N.J. 321 (1991).

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 right to specific performance turns not only on whether a plaintiff has demonstrated a right to legal relief, but also whether the performance of the contract represents an equitable result originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on August 12, 2017.

]]>
PaulKostro <![CDATA[When the parties did not agree on a specific time for performance under a contract, the law infers the contract will be performed within a reasonable amount of time]]> http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/?p=30473 2017-08-18T15:06:51Z 2017-08-12T15:05:21Z ]]>
Law Lessons from Burke v. Donlon, N.J. Super. App. Div., No. A-3802-15T2, August 11, 2017:

When the parties did not agree on a specific time for performance under a contract, the law infers the contract will be performed within a reasonable amount of time. River Dev. Corp. v. Liberty Corp., 45 N.J. Super. 445, 464 (Ch. Div. 1957), aff’d, 51 N.J. Super. 447 (App. Div. 1958), aff’d 29 N.J. 239 (1959). “What constitutes a reasonable time . . . `is usually an implication of fact, and not of law, derivable from the language used by the parties considered in the context of the subject matter and the attendant circumstances, in aid of the apparent intention.'” Mazzeo v. Kartman, 234 N.J. Super. 223, 231 (App. Div. 1989) (citing West Caldwell v. Caldwell, 26 N.J. 9, 28 (1958)). The “intent expressed or apparent in the writing” memorializing an agreement controls. Friedman v. Tappan Dev. Corp., 22 N.J. 523, 531 (1956).

Terms are generally implied because:

the parties must have intended them and have only failed to express them . . . because they are necessary to give business efficacy to the contract as written, or to give the contract the effect which the parties, as fair and reasonable [people], presumably would have agreed on if, having in mind the possibility of the situation which has arisen, they contracted expressly in reference thereto.

[Mazzeo, supra, 234 N.J. Super. at 231 (quoting William Berland Realty Co. v. Hahne & Co., 26 N.J. Super. 477, 487 (Ch. Div. 1953), modified, 29 N.J. Super. 316 (App. Div. 1954)).]

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.

When the parties did not agree on a specific time for performance under a contract, the law infers the contract will be performed within a reasonable amount of time originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on August 12, 2017.

]]>
PaulKostro <![CDATA[The objective in construing a contractual provision is to determine the intent of the parties]]> http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/?p=30471 2017-08-18T15:04:54Z 2017-08-12T15:03:13Z ]]>
Law Lessons from Burke v. Donlon, N.J. Super. App. Div., No. A-3802-15T2, August 11, 2017:

The objective in construing a contractual provision is to determine the intent of the parties. Mantilla v. NC Mall Assocs., 167 N.J. 262, 272 (2001) (citation omitted).

The judicial task is simply interpretative; it is not to rewrite a contract for the parties better than or different from the one they wrote for themselves. See Zacarias v. Allstate Ins. Co., 168 N.J. 590, 595 (2001) (citation omitted). Thus, we should give contractual terms “their plain and ordinary meaning[,]” M.J. Paquet, Inc. v. N.J. DOT, 171 N.J. 378, 396 (2002) (citation omitted), unless specialized language is used peculiar to a particular trade, profession, or industry. See VRG Corp. v. GKN Realty Corp., 135 N.J. 539, 548 (1994) (citation omitted).

“Courts cannot make contracts for parties. They can only enforce the contracts which the parties themselves have made.” Kampf v. Franklin Life Ins. Co., 33 N.J. 36, 43 (1960) (citation omitted).

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 objective in construing a contractual provision is to determine the intent of the parties originally appeared on NJ Family Issues on August 12, 2017.

]]>
PaulKostro <![CDATA[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/?p=30432 2017-08-11T15:07:04Z 2017-08-11T15:07:04Z ]]>
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.

]]>
PaulKostro <![CDATA[Claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing]]> http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/?p=30430 2017-08-11T15:02:54Z 2017-08-11T15:02:54Z ]]>
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.

]]>
PaulKostro <![CDATA[A bank does not owe a legal duty to a borrower]]> http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/?p=30428 2017-08-11T15:01:33Z 2017-08-11T15:01:33Z ]]>
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.

]]>
PaulKostro <![CDATA[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/?p=30426 2017-08-11T14:59:57Z 2017-08-11T14:59:57Z ]]>
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.

]]>
PaulKostro <![CDATA[Courts lack jurisdiction to hear matters that are subject to exclusive agency jurisdiction]]> http://www.kostrolaw.com/NJFamilyIssues/?p=30424 2017-08-11T14:57:47Z 2017-08-11T14:57:47Z ]]>
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.

]]>