Skip to main content



Dalessio v. Township of Upper Deerfield

ZONING; REDEVELOPMENT; NOTICES — Where a property owner receives timely notice of a hearing at which a zoning ordinance will be adopted, absent its ability to demonstrate true surprise, it is not entitled to an adjournment of the hearing just because it needs more time to address the impact of a zone change.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ford

FORECLOSURE; MORTGAGES — A foreclosing lender’s failure to show that it was entitled to enforce a note as if it were its holder or so that it owned the note, is a defense for a foreclosure action.

Levitan and Frieland, PC v. Valley National Bancorp

CHECKS — A counterfeit check is treated as the equivalent of a forged check and only the malefactor can be liable on a forged or counterfeit instrument; moreover, acceptance of such a check by a bank only constitutes a provisional credit and a bank may revoke the credit when a check is discovered to be counterfeit.

DeMaio Electrical Co., Inc. v. Western Monmouth Utilities Authority

PUBLIC BIDDING — The clarification memo does not expressly say that it is needs to be acknowledged by a bidder as part of its bid, such as by using those words or words such as “notice,” “revision” or “addendum,” then to acknowledge the memorandum is a material bid defect, and even if it were a material item, it might not be a material defect.

CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Rosado

FRAUD; DEEDS — A deed will be invalidated as fraudulent if the court finds “badges of fraud,” such a transfer to an obvious, trusted insider, for no consideration where payments were never made by the transferee under an “alleged” mortgage and where the transferee remains in possession of the property.

Lewis v. Rider University

ZONING; SITE PLANS — Where a site plan conforms with zoning and site plan ordinances, the applicant is not required to show that it has a need for the changes, such as a need for proposed additional parking.

Holt v. Laube

CONSUMER FRAUD ACT; BROKERS — A real estate broker is typically not in violation of the Consumer Fraud Act with respect to misrepresentations on a Seller’s Disclosure Statement because, when a claim is based on an omission, the homeowner must show that the broker had actual knowledge of the material fact and acted knowingly with an intent to deceive.

General Electric Capital Corporation v. Oncology Associates of Ocean County LLC

REPLEVIN; PERSONAL PROPERTY — Replevin only applies to personal property and a court may use the trade fixture analysis under the Uniform Commercial Code to distinguish between what constitutes a trade fixture and what constitutes a real property fixture.

Trump Taj Mahal Associates v. Allen

LOANS; CASINOS —Courts do not favor a casino catering to a compulsive gambler; therefore, a court has the discretion to reject a casino’s request for pre-judgment interest on an unpaid marker or a loan.

Daewoo Electronics America, Inc. v. T.C.L. Industries (H.K.) Holdings Limited

GUARANTIES — When a guaranty for a product will expire a certain length of time after the date of its execution and the only date on the document is at the top thereof with no other indication as to what the execution date might otherwise have been, a court will treat the guaranty as clear and ambiguous and use the printed date instead deciding whether the guaranty was signed later.

Page 2 of 600 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last »

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