Full Service Law Firm in Mt. Laurel Township, NJ | Capehart Scatchard

Notable Wins

View OTHER BLOGS

Notable Win: Francesco Satiro v. American European Insurance Group

Client: American European Insurance Group

Court: Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Norristown, PA

Trial Attorney: Christopher J. Hoare, Esq.

Brief Attorney: Christina M. Dewland, Esq. 

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

This matter arises out of an alleged insurance coverage issue. Plaintiff, Francesco Satiro was the owner of a building located in Pottstown, PA (the “Property”).  In February 2015, Plaintiff claims that the Property suffered water damage due to “frozen pipes.” Plaintiff’s insurance company, American European Insurance Group (“AEIG”) subsequently paid Plaintiff for his property damage claim due to the frozen pipes.  AEIG informed Plaintiff in writing that it required additional documentation from Plaintiff in order to evaluate Plaintiff’s claims for lost rent and depreciation. For over 8+ years, Plaintiff had failed to provide the missing documentation necessary for any further payments to Plaintiff, despite numerous requests from AEIG and its defense counsel.  Plaintiff’s Complaint had alleged that AEIG was in breach of contract (the Policy) in regards to non-payment for Plaintiff’s depreciation/lost rental claims, as well as Plaintiff’s claims of bad faith against AEIG.

Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim and bad faith claim were bifurcated. A jury trial was held for Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. A bench trial on Plaintiff’s remaining bad faith claim will be held later this month.

After a three day jury trial on Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, the jury had delivered a verdict in favor of AEIG. The jury found that AEIG did not breach the terms of its insurance policy with respect to handling, payment and communications with Plaintiff. Verdict for the Defense!

Notable Win: R.P. and S.P. o/b/o J.P. v. Florence Township Board of Education and Burlington County Vocational Board of Education

Client: Florence Township Board of Education

Court:  Office of Administrative Law

Attorneys: Joseph F. Betley, Esq. and Stacey R. Gorin, Esq.

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

Parents of a special education student filed a lawsuit against Burlington County Institute of Technology (BCIT) and our client, Florence Board of Education. The parents dismissed their claims against Florence. However, BCIT filed a Third-Party Complaint against Florence to bring them back into the lawsuit. The Administrative Law Judge denied BCIT’s third-party complaint to bring Florence back into the case and ruled in our favor. This decision prevents our client from being engaged in an expensive due process litigation.

Notable Win: Successfully Obtained an Application for a Use Variance on Behalf of School District

Client: Haddonfield Board of Education

Entity: Haddonfield Zoning Board of Adjustment

Attorneys: Alan P. Fox, Esq. and Kelly Ann Dugan, Esq.

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

This matter involves an application by the Haddonfield Board of Education to the Haddonfield Zoning Board of Adjustment for a use variance to repurpose a former private school to a Public school dedicated for preschool and kindergarten classes.

On August 22, 2023, via unanimous decision by the Haddonfield Zoning Board of Adjustment, our firm successfully obtained an application for a use variance on behalf of the Haddonfield Board of Education to repurpose a former private school to become a public school for the purpose of full-time preschool and kindergarten classes.

The proposed improvements will include removal of a 2-story detached structure to make room for a new playground area, more open space, and expansion of an existing parking area. Most of the renovation will be limited to the interior of the existing 2-story brick building located on Kings Highway (formerly the Kingsway Learning Center). The new child development center is proposed to open by September 2025.

The application will promote the purposes of zoning in Haddonfield since a public school is an inherently beneficial use.  This is the first time Haddonfield will offer full-time preschool — an important public benefit to the residents of Haddonfield, consistent with the state policy encouraging all school districts to offer full-time preschool classes.

The proposed development will also improve the appearance of the site, improve the exiting setbacks, and offer free bus transportation for the students, with an added benefit to minimizing the impact of existing traffic.

Notable Win: McCall v. Township of Ewing, et al.

Client: Township of Ewing, NIP Group, Garden State Municipal Joint Insurance Fund

Court: Mercer County Superior Court

Trial Attorney: Christopher J. Carlson, Esq.

Brief Attorney: Christopher J. Carlson, Esq. 

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

Plaintiff instituted suit initially bringing multiple claims against the Township of Ewing Police Department and two of its officers arising from his arrest following a domestic violence call. These included false arrest, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and a violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  Through Motion practice, the claims were essentially whittled down to malicious prosecution.

Following extensive discovery, utilizing incident video and depositions, a thorough Motion for Summary Judgment was granted by the Court.  As Plaintiff has agreed not to appeal, this matter has now successful been closed.

Notable Win: Estate of Tori Gerstenacker v. Township of Evesham, et al.

Client: Township of Evesham

Court: Superior Court of New Jersey – Burlington County 

Brief Attorney: Edward F. Kuhn III, Esq.

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

On September 28, 2019,  Tori Gerstenacker was a pedestrian crossing Route 70 at its intersection with Troth Road in Evesham Township when she was struck and killed by a car driven by Clay Erickson. Mr. Erickson alleges that he was traveling eastbound on Route 70 and had a green light as he was about to enter the intersection at Troth Road. He did not see Ms. Gerstenacker who was crossing Route 70 in the crosswalk but crossing against a red light.

Plaintiff’s counsel alleges that there were three overhead streetlights at the intersection that were inoperable at the time of the accident making the intersection extremely dark and creating a dangerous condition for motorists and pedestrians. Plaintiff sued numerous entities including Evesham Township and the State of New Jersey.

Route 70 is a state-owned and maintained road. The state also owned and maintained the overhead streetlights. We moved for summary judgment on behalf of Evesham Township arguing that it did not own or control either Route 70 or the overhead streetlights. Plaintiff argued that Evesham Township should have been on notice of the inoperable streetlights because of the number of times its police officers travel through that intersection daily.

The court granted our summary judgment holding that Evesham Township cannot be held liable under the Tort Claims Act when it does not own or control any of the property in question unless it had actual notice of the inoperable streetlights and failed to provide proper warnings. There was no evidence that Eveshsam Township had any notice of the inoperable streetlights and summary judgment was granted.

Notable Win: R.G. o/b/o R.G. v. Florence Township Board of Education

Client: Florence Township Board of Education 

Court: Office of Administration Law

Trial Attorneys: Joseph F. Betley, Esq. and Sanmathi (Sanu) Dev, Esq.

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

A parent of a preschool student eligible for special education services, filed a due process petition contending the District denied a free and appropriate education (FAPE) as required under the IDEA because speech therapy was not part of the student’s IEPs. The matter was transferred to the OAL as a contested case.

After testimony and considerable evaluation, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the student was not eligible for speech therapy. The District implemented a program and placement that was reasonably calculated to provide the student with significant learning and meaningful educational benefits considering his individual needs and potential. The ALJ denied the parent’s request that the District provide speech therapy and dismissed the due process petition.

Notable Win: Craig v. State of New Jersey, et al.

Client: Captain Robert Forrester and Lieutenant Orlando Ramos of the New Jersey State Police

Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division – Mercer County

Trial Attorney: Betsy G. Ramos, Esq. 

Brief Attorney: Patrick J. Graham, Esq. 

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

Plaintiff, a Sergeant First Class with the New Jersey State Police, filed a Complaint alleging that he was subject to retaliation for his claimed refusal to obey an order to discriminate against a subordinate State Police Sergeant on the basis of that Sergeant’s ethnicity. Specifically, Plaintiff contended that Captain Robert Forrester and Lieutenant Orlando Ramos, among other defendants, played vital roles in retaliating against him, preventing his promotion to Lieutenant and ultimately having him transferred for the alleged refusal to cooperate in discriminating against a subordinate Hispanic Sergeant.

After reviewing the moving papers and considering the arguments of counsel, the Court granted Summary Judgment in favor of both Captain Forrester and Lieutenant Ramos.

Notable Win: Retail Cannabis License Granted by Borough of Pennington

Client: Jersey Meds Management LLC

Entities: Borough of Pennington Planning Board and Council for the Borough of Pennington

Representing Attorneys: Alan P. Fox and Sheila M. Mints, Esqs. 

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

On May 2, 2022, the Pennington Borough Council approved our request and granted a Resolution of Support of the Application of Jersey Meds Management LLC submitted to the state for a Class 5 Cannabis Retail license.

On June 10, 2022, we obtained a letter from the Pennington Borough Zoning Officer certifying that the Jersey Med’s proposed location for the retail cannabis business conformed with local zoning requirements allowing the operation of a cannabis retailer as a “conditional use.”

On July 29, 2022 , the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission (CRC) issued to Jersey Meds a Final Agency Decision- Approval of a Conditional License Application for the proposed retail cannabis operation located in the Borough of Pennington.

On December 14, 2022, the Pennington Planning Board granted Jersey Med’s Application for Conditional Use Approval for the operation of a licensed retail cannabis business, by a vote of 8-0 (unanimous approval).

On April 27, 2023, we filed on behalf of Jersey Meds with the Pennington Council an application for a local retail cannabis license.

On June 5, 2023, the Pennington Council granted our request and adopted a Resolution authorizing the Clerk of the Borough of Pennington to issue a local cannabis license, with conditions, to Jersey Meds.

Since obtaining the Conditional Use Approval from the Pennington Planning Board, Jersey Meds was permitted to and has submitted to the CRC an application to convert the conditional state license to a final state license. The expectation is the CRC will issue to Jersey Meds the final state Class 5 Retail Cannabis license this summer.

Jersey Meds will become the first licensed Retail Cannabis business in the Borough of Pennington.

Rotimi Owoh, o/b/o African American Data and Research Institute, and Baffi Simmons v. City of Camden

Client: City of Camden 

Court: New Jersey Appellate Division 

Trial Attorney: Voris M. Tejada, Esq.

Brief Attorney: Lauren E. Tedesco-Dallas, Esq. 

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

Plaintiff-Respondents, Rotimi Owoh, o/b/o African American Data and Research Institute, and Baffi Simmons (“Owoh”) filed an Open Public Records Act request with the City of Camden (“City”) back in November of 2018 for various police department records.  The City directed the requestor to the proper custodian of the requested records, the County of Camden, as the City had not had its own police force since 2013 when the County assumed all police services for the City.  The requestor filed a denial of access complaint with the Government Records Council (“GRC”) and the GRC determined the City denied access to the requested records, were obligated to retrieve the records from the County because of the Police Services Agreement between the City and the County and awarded attorneys’ fees to Owoh.

The City appealed the GRC’s determination to the Appellate Division on the basis Owoh did not serve the proper custodian with the request, the City was not the custodian of the records and the City could not be under an obligation to retrieve records from a separate public entity.  The Appellate Division found in the City’s favor in all regards and reversed the GRC’s decision finding the City denied Owoh access to the requested records.  The Appellate Division determined the City did not unlawfully deny access to records which were made and maintained by the County and that once the City received the request properly meant for the County, the City’s Custodian complied with the statute by directing the requestor to the proper County Custodian.  Importantly, the Appellate Division vacated the award of attorneys’ fees to Owoh.

To view the case, please click here.

Notable Win: Bjourn Avery v. Next Mile, LLC/DSP

Client:  Next Mile LLC 

Court: Workers’ Compensation 

Trial Attorney: Ashley T. Mollenthiel Fiore, Esq.

Brief Attorney: Brian P. Berkoff, Esq. 

**Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances**

In Claim Petition No. 2020-31237, the petitioner while sitting on the rear bumper of his truck, was shot by a gun and had sustained orthopedic and neurological injuries. Respondent filed an Answer asserting a general denial to the allegation of the claim petition and putting the petitioner to his proofs on all issues.

The basis for respondent’s denial was that this shooting did not arise out of the petitioner’s employment. Rather, it was respondent’s position that petitioner was personally targeted and shot for reasons unrelated to his employment and that it was as likely the shooting could have occurred during everyday life.  To address the issue of compensability, Judge Thuring commenced bifurcated trial to determine whether or not the alleged incident arose out of and in the course of the petitioner’s employment for respondent, Next Mile.

After a grueling cross-examination of the petitioner, the respondent was able to prove to the Court that the facts did not contain any evidence whatsoever causally relating the shooting to the Petitioner’s employment with the Respondent.  Petitioner testified that he had no issues with an alleged former co-worker while they were both working for Respondent, yet a few minutes prior to the alleged shooting, he conceded that he got in an argument with the former co-worker regarding the purchase of seemingly illegal credit cards. Furthermore, the respondent successfully argued that the shooting appeared to have been a targeted act and was just as likely to have occurred outside the workplace.

The Judge of Compensation found that it was more likely than not that the shooting was related to the credit card purchase from petitioner’s former co-worker.  Even if the shooting was unrelated to this card purchase scheme, the record was still void of any evidence connecting the incident to the Petitioner’s employment with the Respondent. Accordingly, the Judge of Compensation found that the injury did not arise out of the Petitioner’s employment with Respondent and is therefore not compensable. An Order for Dismissal with prejudice was entered due to lack of compensability.

Capehart Blogs

Insurance
Bicyclists Covered by Auto Insurance with Limited Tort Must Establish a Permanent Injury to Sue for Pain and Suffering
Firm News
Shareholder Claire Ringel Retires
Liability
Municipality Found Immune From Liability for Pedestrian Accident Under Both Tort Claims Act and Landowners’ Liability Act

Bicyclists Covered by Auto Insurance with Limited Tort Must Establish a Permanent Injury to Sue for Pain and Suffering

Municipality Found Immune From Liability for Pedestrian Accident Under Both Tort Claims Act and Landowners’ Liability Act

Driver Not Liable for Failing to See or Interpret Another Vehicle’s Swerve as Evidence of a Pedestrian in the Roadway

Subscribe to Blog Updates

Categories

Tags
Alternative Energy Alternative Energy - Solar Alternative Energy - Wind Appellate Division automobile accident automobile insurance Burlington County Bar Association Cannabis Law Charity constructive notice coverage discovery dismissal Diversity & Inclusion Diversity & Inclusion Committee duty of care employees employers Employment Law evidence insurance Liability Litigation Litigation Quarterly Lorman Millennium Seminars NBI negligence New Jersey Workers' Compensation Act New York Law NJ Law notice Pennsylvania Law personal injury Public Entity Newsletter Real Estate and Land Use school law slip and fall statute of limitations summary judgment Taxes Tort Claims Act trip and fall Workers' Compensation Workers' Compensation Newsletter