Category: Business Law

In the Matter of the Application of El Piscis, Inc.

LIQUOR LICENSES; RENEWAL—When a liquor license’s viability is under litigation, there is no administrative need for the license holder to attempt to renew the license; therefore, once the litigation is resolved favorably to the license holder, the holder should be able to pursue renewal even if deadlines for that renewal have already passed.

• Opinion Date: January 21, 2004

Rivera v. Dubell Lumber Co.

WORKERS COMPENSATION; RIDE SHARING—When a company provides an employee with a car and, known or unknown to the company, that employee drives another employee to work on a daily basis, the passenger, if injured during such a ride, is entitled to workers compensation benefits.

• Opinion Date: December 31, 2003

Furst v. Einstein Moomjy, Inc.

CONSUMER FRAUD; DAMAGES—The original pre-sale price of a consumer good is indicative of the replacement price of the merchandise for the purpose of determining contract damages.

• Opinion Date: January 16, 2004

P&A Construction, Inc. v. Township of Woodbridge

PUBLIC BIDDING—The fact that a soliciting public entity lists the requirement to furnish financial statements with a bid as an item for which the entity “may” reject a bid does not make submission optional.

• Opinion Date: January 6, 2004

Kinoian v. Independent Home Inspection Service, Inc.

CORPORATIONS; SUCCESSOR LIABILITY—Where a corporation’s owner, shortly after the corporation is sued and without any apparent legitimate business purpose, creates a new company to conduct the same business from the same address with the same personnel using the same equipment and phone numbers, the new company may be liable for the obligations of the predecessor company.

• Opinion Date: January 5, 2004

Perez v. Professionally Green, LLC

CONSUMER FRAUD ACT; ATTORNEYS FEES — A Consumer Fraud Act claimant does not need to overcome the double hurdle of surviving both a summary judgment motion and a motion for involuntary dismissal to demonstrate a bona fide claim of ascertainable loss, because so long as the claim was bona fide, though not allowed, the consumer is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees when there has been a violation of the Consumer Fraud Act.

• Opinion Date: October 13, 2011

CFG Health Systems, LLC v. County of Hudson

PUBLIC BIDDING — Just because a publically bid requirements contract has its estimated requirement substantially reduced after the contract had been awarded does not mean that a substantial post-award change to the Request for Proposal has been made and therefore the contract does not need to be rebid because it still controls the rights and obligations of the parties.

• Opinion Date: May 14, 2010