Skip to main content



Category: Real Property Law

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.

  • Opinion Date: October 3, 2011

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.

  • Opinion Date: December 28, 2011

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.

  • Opinion Date: December 16, 2011

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.

  • Opinion Date: December 23, 2011

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.

  • Opinion Date: October 6, 2011

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.

  • Opinion Date: December 16, 2011

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.

  • Opinion Date: January 28, 2011

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.

  • Opinion Date: September 20, 2011

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.

  • Opinion Date: December 20, 2011

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.

  • Opinion Date: December 12, 2011
Page 1 of 412 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