Melanie J. Scroble recently attended the 2013 ICSC U.S. Shopping Center Law Conference in San Diego, California as a speaker. Ms. Scroble led a roundtable discussion on the topic of Tenants In Common (TIC’s) – A Discussion of the Popular Trend for Purchasing and Exchanging Commercial Property. The discussion included the related topic of utilizing TIC’s in a 1031 exchange setting and the newer trend Delaware Statutory Trusts. The conference is held by the International Council of Shopping Centers and hosts over 1,200 legal professionals in the retail real estate industry.
In “New Jersey Modernizes Partial Takings Compensation,” published in the November 2013 issue of the American Planning Association’s Planning and Environmental Law Journal, Lawrence Shapiro and Heather Garleb analyze the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Harvey Cedars v. Karan and the impact it will have on future condemnation cases.
Concluding that the Harvey Cedars v. Karan decision has brought the evidence that may be presented to a jury in line with what the law requires that jury to consider, Shapiro and Garleb analyzed New Jersey’s prior “special benefits” standard and its deficiencies. Post Karan, a jury will now hear and consider evidence of both the negative impact of a project on the remaining property and the positive impact of a project on that same remaining property.
Accordingly, now determinations of just compensation in partial takings cases will more accurately reflect the realities of the real estate market. In practice, this shift in the law will allow for fairer determinations in terms of awards to be paid for property taken by eminent domain, for both property owners and condemning authorities.
To read full article, please click here.
Heather L. Garleb, Esq., an associate in the litigation department of Ansell Grimm & Aaron, P.C. recently had an article published in the November/December issue of the Monmouth County Woman magazine. In this article, Ms. Garleb addresses some of the things you should be knowledgeable about before hiring a contractor. To read more on What to Know When Hiring a Home Improvement Contractor, please click here.
Joshua S. Bauchner, Esq. recently published an article in the September 27, 2013 issue of the New York Law Journal entitled “The False Hope of Lost Profits.” Lost profits damages are frequently sought by clients who have suffered a business interruption due to another’s negligence or contractual breach. However, Courts often are reluctant to award such damages finding they are speculative and “icing” — they do not make the prospective plaintiff whole, but instead permit a surplus recovery in addition to compensatory or consequential damages. For these reasons, Courts have restricted lost profits damages requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate their loss with “reasonable certainty” and ensuring such losses are not recoverable under other theories or in other ways.
This article is intended to guide the practitioner through the pitfalls of lost profits damages and ensure the focus is on recovery, regardless of how it is characterized. As an initial matter, cases addressing lost profits distinguish between damages resulting from tortious conduct and those arising from a breach of contract. Although in both situations a plaintiff has the burden of proving lost profits with reasonable certainty, the underlying causes of action recommend separate treatment.
For full article click here.
Reprinted with permission from the September 27, 2013 edition of the “New York Law Journal.” © 2013 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. ALMReprints.com – 877-257-3382 – firstname.lastname@example.org.
Kristine M. Bergman, Esq., an associate with the Firm, had an article published in the September/October Edition of The Monmouth County Woman‘s magazine titled “What You Don’t Know About Your Car Insurance May Hurt You”. In this article, Ms. Bergman covers “Verbal and Non-Verbal Threshold”, also known as, Limitation on Lawsuit option. To read the article in it’s entirety, please click here.
Mitchell Ansell, Chairman of the Criminal Defense Department, recently tried a first degree robbery, second degree aggravated assault and second degree burglary Jury trial in Monmouth County Superior Court before Judge Joseph Oxley. The case was tried during the week of August the 29th 2013 and our client was facing well over 20 years in State Prison based upon all the charges.
The Jury came back with a not guilty verdict on all first and second degree charges after the trial, thus sparing the client any exposure to any State Prison whatsoever.
There are instances where an individual’s First Amendment Right to Free Speech may run into conflict with New Jersey’s Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights (“ABR”). The ABR makes incidents of harassment, bullying and/or intimidation unlawful in certain settings and requires school districts to prevent and punish such incidents. The question thus becomes, what speech is an example of harassment, bullying and/or intimidation and is such speech otherwise protected under the First Amendment? This article addresses how, from both a practical and legal standpoint, the ABR can be administered to prevent running afoul of the First Amendment.
This article was written by Luanne Peterpaul, Esq. and Michael H. Ansell, Esq. and was originally published in the June 2013 issue of New Jersey Lawyer Magazine, a publication of the New Jersey State Bar Association, and is reprinted here with permission.