McGivney, Kluger, Clark & Intoccia and its clients are always moving forward. This page features recent articles, news releases, and links to sites and blogs, as well as information about upcoming and recent events. Please check back often to see what we and our clients are doing.
This week, New Jersey’s Supreme Court issued a decision in the matter of Friedman v. Martinez, (A-37/81-18) (081093), which affirmed a trial court’s dismissal of a number of claims made alleging “intrusion upon seclusion.” The plaintiffs were women who worked in an office building, where the defendant, Teodoro Martinez, while working as a janitor in the building, had allegedly implanted a camera in several women’s’ restrooms and locker rooms.
In a recently decided appeal in the matter of Minelli v. Harrah’s Resort Atlantic City, A-4431-18T1, the Appellate Division reinstated a personal injury claim filed by a claimant more than two (2) years after the accident, but after one of the defendants had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
New Jersey’s Supreme Court yesterday published a decision in the matter of Henry Sanchez v. Fitness Factory Edgewater, et al., issuing new guidance in interpreting New Jersey’s “Retail Installment Sales Act,” or “RISA,” codified at N.J.S.A. 17:16C-1, et seq. The case at issue was a putative class action brought by Plaintiff Henry Sanchez on behalf of himself, and as class representative of all others similarly situated in Morris County, against Defendant Fitness Factory.
New York, in enacting the Child Victims Act (the “CVA”), created a one-year “look back” window, permitting civil claims alleging the sexual abuse of a minor to be filed even if the claims were previously time-barred.
In an opinion published on April 9, 2020 in Pareja v. Princeton International Properties, et al., the Appellate Division held that the ongoing storm defense asserted by defendants in snow and ice slip-and-fall cases does not apply in New Jersey.
New Jersey’s state court system has reacted repeatedly – and aggressively – to keep the proverbial courthouse “doors” open during the COVID-19 outbreak, even though the court buildings, like most of the rest of the heavily impacted Northeast, are themselves closed.
McGivney, Kluger, Clark & Intoccia, P.C. is proud to share that Dean Pillarella, an associate in the firm’s New York City office, was recently published in the New York Law Journal.
As a reported third of the world is locked down, and practicing “social distancing” during the novel coronavirus pandemic, doctors, nurses, physician’s assistants and others are on the front lines treating those most seriously ill.
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey is home to Multi-District Litigation relating to thousands of claims against Johnson & Johnson and others, alleging that ovarian cancer was caused by exposure to cosmetic talcum powder products. On April 27, 2020, Chief U.S. District Judge Freda L. Wolfson ruled on Daubert motions filed by the defense, seeking to bar the testimony of five experts used by the plaintiffs in the MDL.
In the matter of Mejia v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., decided March 16, 2020 (2020), New Jersey’s Supreme Court has clarified the standing of a third-party defendant in civil litigation, when the plaintiff has not directly named that party as a defendant in the case.
Intrusion Upon Seclusion Can Be Proven by Circumstantial Evidence, NJ Court Rules
New Jersey Court Clarifies Effect of Automatic Bankruptcy Stay on Timeliness of Lawsuits
New Jersey Applies Retail Installment Sales Act to Retail Services Contracts
New York Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Child Victims Act Claims on Constitutional Grounds
In a Cold Blow to Commercial Landowners, New Jersey Appellate Division Rejects the Ongoing Storm Defense
Trial “From Home” In New Jersey – A Possible Future
Dean Pillarella Published in New York Law Journal
New Jersey Immunizes Medical Providers for Treatment of COVID-19 Patients
District of New Jersey Permits Testimony of Experts in Talc Litigation Over Daubert Challenges
N.J. Supreme Court Clarifies Standing of Third-Party Defendants’ Participation at Trial