Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C.
2053 Woodbridge Avenue - Edison, NJ 08817
(732) 572-0500 www.njlaws.com
Kenneth Vercammen was included in the “Super Lawyers” list published by Thomson Reuters

Showing posts with label INC.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label INC.. Show all posts

Sunday, April 19, 2015

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. WESTERN WORLD, INC.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. WESTERN WORLD, INC.
          A-3007-12T2/M-0474-13
As a matter of first impression, we hold that the Office of the Public Defender (OPD) is not required to represent an "indigent" corporation charged with an indictable offense, because construing the Public Defender Act (PDA), N.J.S.A. 2A:158A-1 to -25, to require OPD's representation of indigent defendants who are not natural persons is repugnant to the subject and context of the PDA, and contrary to the Legislature's intent.
We also hold, however, that, when charged with a crime or when facing a "consequence of magnitude," an "indigent" corporation has a right to appointed counsel under our state Constitution and prior precedent. 3/30/15  

Thursday, May 19, 2011

PORT IMPERIAL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. VS. K. HOVANIAN PORT IMPERIAL URBAN RENEWAL, INC., ET AL. A-1013-10T1

PORT IMPERIAL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. VS. K. HOVANIAN PORT IMPERIAL URBAN RENEWAL, INC., ET AL. A-1013-10T1

We uphold summary judgment in favor of defendants under the statute of repose, N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1.1, which precludes construction defect claims against subcontractors who completed improvements to real property more than ten years before the filing of complaints against them, regardless of when the injury occurred or the cause of action otherwise accrued. For the statute to apply, these improvements must have resulted in a defective and unsafe condition that is hazardous to the well- being and safety of persons or property. Here, we reject plaintiff condominium association's contention that ongoing settlement of buildings into the soil created merely expensive and inconvenient repairs. We find the nature of the allegations and the supporting evidence substantiate the finding that defendants' improvements caused both functional impairment, with consequential economic losses, and a hazardous condition, qualifying defendants for protection under the statute. 5-02-11