VALLEY NATIONAL BANK VS. J. RONALD MEIER, ET AL. A-0305-13T1

VALLEY NATIONAL BANK VS. J. RONALD MEIER, ET AL. 

A-0305-13T1 

The court held that defendant's pay off of a first mortgage – assigned to him rather than discharged – merged into defendant's ownership of the burdened property and, if anything, preserved only defendant's right to reimbursement from his wife, the cotenant. Accordingly, the trial judge correctly determined that the plaintiff-bank, which foreclosed on the second mortgage, was entitled to a post-judgment order barring defendant's demand for relief from the bank on the assigned first mortgage. 

R. NEUMANN & CO. VS. CITY OF HOBOKEN, ET AL. A-2775-12T1

R. NEUMANN & CO. VS. CITY OF HOBOKEN, ET AL. 

A-2775-12T1 

This appeal concerns a resolution delineating an area in need of rehabilitation pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-14, a provision of the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law (LRHL), 

N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 to -49. Because the resolution, on its face, raises a significant question as to whether the resolution is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable due to the governing body's disregard or misunderstanding of the statutory standard upon which it relied, we vacate the resolution without prejudice to reconsideration in conformity with the law. 

ADS Associates Group, Inc. v. Oritani Savings Bank (A-114-11;

 ADS Associates Group, Inc. v. Oritani Savings Bank 

(A-114-11; 069987) 

Allen may not assert a UCC Article 4A claim against Oritani because he is not a bank “customer” under the statute. Allen also may not assert a common law negligence claim against Oritani because such a claim would contravene the objectives of Article 4A. Even if Article 4A did not bar Allen’s negligence claim, no “special relationship” existed to create a duty of care between Oritani and Allen under City Check Cashing, 166 N.J. 49. 

Janet Henebema v. South Jersey Transportation Authority (A-7-13;

Janet Henebema v. South Jersey Transportation Authority (A-7-13; 072545) 

The individual defendants’ liability and plaintiff’s comparative negligence are not intertwined with the issues to be determined on remand and therefore do not need to be considered by the jury at the retrial. The purpose of the retrial is to have the jury determine, from the evidence, whether the public entities’ employees were performing either ministerial or discretionary actions. Once the appropriate standard 

is identified, the jury can determine, based upon the applicable standard, whether the public-entity defendants are liable. 

C.A. v. Eric Bentolila, M.D. (a-32-12

C.A. v. Eric Bentolila, M.D. (a-32-12; 071702) 

The Hospital’s evaluative process in this case conformed to the Patient Safety Act’s requirements. The memorandum at issue is privileged, not subject to discovery, and should not be used for any purpose in this case. 

Beverly Maeker v. William S. Ross (A-1-13;

Beverly Maeker v. William S. Ross (A-1-13; 072185) 

The 2010 Amendment to the Statute of Frauds, N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h), does not render oral palimony agreements that predate it unenforceable because the Legislature did not intend the Amendment to apply retroactively. 

Patricia Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services Group, L.P. (A-64-12

Patricia Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services Group, L.P. (A-64-12; 072314) 

An arbitration provision – like any comparable contractual provision that provides for the surrendering of a constitutional or statutory right – must clearly and unambiguously notify the consumer that he or she is waiving the right to seek relief in a court of law. The arbitration agreement in this case is unenforceable because it failed to notify plaintiff that, by entering into the agreement, she was surrendering her right to seek relief in a judicial forum.