Case Law Summaries

Najduch v. Township of Independence Planning Board

ZONING; VARIANCES; SITE PLAN APPROVAL —Under the Municipal Land Use Law, a planning board does not have the jurisdiction to grant a use variance and therefore cannot grant site plan approval that is conditioned upon the applicant later obtaining a use variance or zoning change because to allow an applicant to bifurcate its application would circumvent the legislative intent that zoning boards have the exclusive power to hear such applications.

• Opinion Date: December 30, 2009
• Real Property Law

Robert DeRuggiero, Inc. v. Sanchez

BROKERS; COMMISSIONS — Under the “substantial break doctrine,” a broker will be entitled to a commission if it produced a willing buyer, able to consummate a sale, and facilitated negotiations that led to the sale without a substantial break in negotiations even after the brokerage agreement has expired.

• Opinion Date: December 24, 2009
• Real Property Law

Stryker Spine v. Surgical Orthomedics, Inc.

NON-COMPETITION; INJUNCTIONS — Where a party violates a non-competition agreement, but the protected party allows a long period of competitive conduct before suing, the otherwise protected party may lose the right to obtain injunctive relief while retaining the right to seek damages.

• Opinion Date: October 19, 2009
• Business Law

South Brunswick Center, L.L.C. v. Township of South Brunswick

ZONING; DEVELOPERS — A developer’s agreement is not an independent source of rights either as to its substantive provisions or as a basis for denying an opportunity to be heard by an appropriate governmental agency to develop a factual basis for relief from its terms.

• Opinion Date: December 28, 2009
• Real Property Law

Estate of Cohen v. Booth Computers

PARTNERSHIPS; BUY-SELL — A partnership agreement need not use any commonly understood meaning for the term “net worth” and can give that term the meaning that the partners choose to use and, unless a court’s conscience has been shocked, a court will not write a fairer buy-out provision for the partners.

• Opinion Date: August 4, 2009
• Business Law

Godfrey v. Martin

ARBITRATION; UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT — New Jersey’s version of the Uniform Arbitration Act mandates that a court grant a stay of arbitration rather than a dismissal in a judicial proceeding.

• Opinion Date: December 17, 2009
• Business Law

Pathmark Stores, Inc. v. Bernard Oster, Inc.

EASEMENTS — Where a tenant also has an easement across parts of the improved land, its landlord may not construct improvements upon the encumbered land in contradiction to the terms of the easement unless the easement holder grants its consent.

• Opinion Date: July 29, 2009
• Real Property Law

IDT Telecom, Inc. v. CVT Prepaid Solutions, Inc.

CONSUMER FRAUD ACT —Competitors do not have standing to assert claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act because they are not consumers as defined by the Act, and only consumers have standing to sue under the Act.

• Opinion Date: December 28, 2009
• Business Law

Weissglass v. Deloitte & Touche USA LLP

ACCOUNTANTS; LIABILITY; STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS — The statute of limitations accrues on claims of accounting malpractice in contested federal tax proceedings when the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service issues a deficiency notice, and not the earlier date when an examination has begun.

• Opinion Date: December 15, 2009
• Business Law

Mount Laurel Township v. Burlington County Board of Taxation

TAXATION; ASSESSMENTS — Not only must a county board consider all twelve criteria set forth in the New Jersey Administrative Code before deciding whether a municipality must conduct a municipality-wide revaluation property assessments, but the board’s hearing record must demonstrate that those factors have been considered.

• Opinion Date: December 15, 2009
• Real Property Law