Skip to main content



Amirata v. Pine

LEASES; TERMINATION — Where a lease is on a month-to-month basis, the common law rule is that a notice of intent to vacate is given during the same month in which the tenant is to leave, it will be effective as of the end of the month following that month in which the short notice is given.

Chaudhry Corporation v. City of Newark

CONTRACTS; SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE —The doctrine of laches can bar the grant of specific performance where a buyer waits ten years to sue and where it would be inequitable and prejudicial to the seller to grant such a remedy.

Krebs v. The City of Long Branch

REDEVELOPMENT; STANDING —Unless a property owner takes action with respect to its property that leads to an adverse administrative finding by a municipality, the owner does not have a justiciable claim that its property should not be included within an area being designated as in need of redevelopment.

ADS Associates Group, Inc. v. Oritani Savings Bank

BANKS; CUSTOMERS —One can assert a “non-customer” claim against a bank based upon the nature of the contact between the bank and the non-customer and the surrounding circumstances of that contact, such as information that the non-customer may have received when an account was opened by a bank customer.

Munoz v. Perla

PARTNERSHIPS; FIDUCIARY DUTY — The fiduciary duties from one partner to another may change over time if the relationship between those partners and in other businesses changes.

Henderson v. Weinstein & Riley, P.S., PC

FDCPA; BANKRUPTCY —The Bankruptcy Act does not preclude a debtor’s claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act where the claims are that a creditor was in violation of the Act by reason of actions the creditor took during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings.

Manning v. Lithium Technology Corporation

CONTRACTS; GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING — Parties are not bound by what they think, but rather by what they say, meaning that there is no contract if people have not agreed on the terms of such a contract and, in the absence of a contract, there is no implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Ramsey v. Lindenwold Borough

SIDEWALKS — It is well settled that an abutting homeowner is not liable for the condition of the sidewalk caused by the action of the elements or by wear and tear incident to public use, but only for the negligent construction or repair of the sidewalk by the homeowner or certain predecessors in title and there is no liability just because a homeowner is aware of a dangerous and unsafe condition on the sidewalk.

Newark Housing Authority v. Martinez-Vega

EVICTION; HOUSING AUTHORITY — A landlord-tenant court adopts a list of nine factors that a housing authority, in its own regulations, set out as considerations that must be taken into account before choosing to evict a public housing tenant.

Reddick v. Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company

CONTRACTS; INTERPRETATION — Just because a contract could have included more language to reiterate an already-clear meaning does not mean that it must do so, so long as the contract language is clear, a draftsperson need not always use the same formulation of words simply because it chose to use that formulation in another context.

Page 1 of 600 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

MEISLIK & MEISLIK
66 Park Street • Montclair, New Jersey 07042
tel: 973-783-3000 • fax: 973-744-5757 • info@meislik.com