NJ Laws email newsletter June 4, 2006 E216
In this issue:
1- Fractures and broken bones in Accidents
2. Federal Health Privacy Law (HIPAA)- Prepare a new Power of Attorney and Living Will
3 Recent cases "Unconditional" guilty plea barred appeal
4. new webpage School Random Drug Permissible. Joye v. Hunterdon Central Bd. of Educ.
_____________________________________
1- Fractures and broken bones in Accidents
New article on website www.njlaws.com:
Fracture vs a Break? Despite what you may have heard, a broken bone is not worse than a fracture, they both mean the same thing. In fact, the word fracture, according to the Oxford English Dictionary is defined as "the act of being broken." There are different types of fractures and broken bones, but these words mean the same thing!. See http://orthopedics.about.com/cs/otherfractures/a/fracture.htm
Fractures happen because an area of bone is not able to support the energy placed on it (quite obvious, but it becomes more complicated). Therefore, there are two critical factors in determining why a fracture occurs: * the energy of the event
* the strength of the bone
Treatment of Broken Bones
Fracture Treatment Bone is constantly in a state of turnover, even when not damaged or injured. We continually absorb and replace the cells that make up our bones. Because of this natural turnover, the process of healing bone also comes about quite naturally.
However, in order for a fracture to heal as well as possible, a good reduction, or placement, of the bones must be attained.
According to http://orthopedics.about.com, when doctors talk about reduction or a fracture, or reducing the broken bone, they are talking about improving the alignment of the broken ends of the bone. In most cases reducing a fracture involves placing the broken bone in a cast, often after a little pulling and tugging to achieve improved alignment. If the reduction cannot be satisfactorily achieved (meaning the alignment is either not adequate or not sufficiently stable), then a further procedure may be necessary.
This usually means surgery with fixation of the bone with pins, plates, screws or rods.
One potential complication of fracture treatment is either a mal-union or non-union of bone. This problem is more common in elderly individuals and in people who sustain more severe fractures. In the case of some fractures (e.g. hip fracture in elderly) the rate of non-union is high enough that instead of trying to heal the bone, the damaged segment of bone is replaced (e.g. hip replacement). See http://orthopedics.about.com/cs/otherfractures/a/fracture_2.htm
The treatment of a specific fracture is too complicated to be discussed in a general overview of broken bones, but depends on factors such as:
* Location of the fracture * Severity of angulation or deformity * Potential for healing * Other injuries * Age and activity level of the patient * And many more factors.... In order to understand your treatment, and the options you may have for treatment, you need to discuss your fracture with your doctor. Because treatments are individualized based on the patient, the x-ray appearance of the fracture, and the other factors mentioned, each case must be treated individually.
Underlying Problems The most common cause of fractures is due to trauma.
More information on our new article: Fractures and broken bones in Accidents
http://www.njlaws.com/fractures_and_broken_bones_in_accidents.htm
Kenneth Vercammen's Law Office handles accident cases involving broken bones.
_____________________________
2. Federal Health Privacy Law (HIPAA)- Prepare a new Power of Attorney and Living Will
The federal regulation known as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) was adopted regarding disclosure of individually identifiable health information. This necessitated the addition of a special release and consent authority to all healthcare providers before medical information will be released to agents and interested persons of the patients. The effects of HIPAA are far reaching, and can render previously executed estate planning documents useless, without properly executed amendments, specifically addressing these issues. As HIPAA affects not only new documents, any previously executed documents are affected as well.
Any previously executed Powers of Attorney, Living Wills, Revocable Living Trusts, and certainly all Medical Directives now require HIPAA amendments.
The following information was provided by the American Medical Association (AMA).
Today, state and federal laws also attempt to ensure the confidentiality of this sensitive information.
The federal government recently published regulations designed to protect the privacy of your health information. This “privacy rule” protects health information that is maintained by physicians, hospitals, other health care providers and health plans. As of 2003, your physician will need to comply with the privacy rule’s standards for protecting the confidentiality of your health information.
This new regulation protects virtually all patients regardless of where they live or where they receive their health care. Every time you see a physician, are admitted to the hospital, fill a prescription, or send a claim to a health plan, your physician, the hospital and health plan will need to consider the privacy rule. All health information including paper records, oral communications, and electronic formats (such as e-mail) are protected by the privacy rule.
New national health information privacy standards have been issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The new regulations provide protection for the privacy of certain individually identifiable health data, referred to as Protected Health Information (PHI).
Powers of attorneys and Living Wills should be updated to reference this New law.
In Personal Injury cases, medical authorizations should:
* specifically identify the protected privacy to be used or disclosed;
* provide the names of persons or organizations, or classes of persons or organizations, who will receive, use, or disclose the protected privacy;
* state the purpose for each request;
* notify individuals of their right to refuse to sign the authorization without negative consequences to treatment, payment, or health plan enrollment or benefit eligibility, except under specific circumstances;
* be signed and dated by the individual or the individual's personal representative;
* be written in plain language;
* include an expiration date or event;
* notify the individual of the right to revoke authorization at any time in writing, and how to exercise that right, and any applicable exceptions to that right under the Privacy Rule; and
* explain the potential for the information to be subject to redisclosure by recipient and no longer protected by the Privacy Rule.
Other information on the HIPAA law at http://www.njlaws.com/hipaa.htm
3 Recent cases "Unconditional" guilty plea barred appeal. State v. Ackerman, Appellate Division, A-759-04T2, October 18, 2005, not approved for publication.
Conviction entered in the Law Division following the defendant's unconditional guilty plea in the Municipal Court to driving while intoxicated and following a trial de novo affirmed; after a motor vehicle chase on July 21, 2001, the defendant was charged in the municipality with the indictable offense of eluding and with seven motor vehicle offenses, including DWI and reckless driving; the eluding and reckless driving charges were dismissed on March 9, 2004 after the defendant completed the Pretrial Intervention Program; the prosecution of the remaining charges in the Municipal Court was adjourned at the defendant's request on October 15, 2003 and, after several adjournments at the State's request, led to the defendant's unconditional plea to DWI on May 19, 2004 and the merger and dismissal of the other charges; contrary to the defendant's arguments on appeal, (1) she waived her right to assert a speedy trial claim when she entered an unconditional plea, and, even if the claim was addressed on the merits, her speedy trial rights were not violated and (2) jeopardy did not attach to the eluding charge, and, even if it did, her prosecution in the Municipal Court was not barred by constitutional double jeopardy principles. Not approved for publication.
source Facts-on-Call Order No. 18679.
4. new webpage School Random Drug Permissible. Joye v. Hunterdon Central Bd. of Educ.
http://www.geocities.com/kenvnjlaw/JoyeVHunterdonCentral.html
__________________________
Thank You! Thank You!
Thanks to all our clients who graciously referred their family, friends and associates to our agency. We build our firm on your positive comments. We couldn't do it without you!
Referrals are the lifeblood of any business, and there's no better source than you, our clients.
_____________________________
Thank you for reading our newsletter! God Bless America USA #1
Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.
2053 Woodbridge Ave.
Edison, NJ 08817
PHONE 732-572-0500 (Fax) 732-572-0030
website: www.njlaws.com
Saturday, September 23, 2006
NJ Laws Newsletter E217 June 19, 2006
In this issue:
1- Spine Injuries in Accidents
2. Recent cases- DOMESTIC VIOLENCE- PARCEL v. PARCEL
STATE v. ZYSK Improper behavior for refusal to submit bag to security check
3. new webpages
INJURIES WHILE RIDING A BICYCLE
MEDICAID 2006 AND NURSING HOMES
Court rules on Visitation of children
4. - BRENDAN VERCAMMEN PARTY- JUN 10 3PM
5. FOR LEASE: OFFICE SPACE
_____________________________________
1- Spine Injuries in Accidents
Persons who are in car accidents or fall down often do not feel pain in their back until the next day. Testing for back injuries could include: muscle conduction tests, MRI, CT scan, and X-ray. A person concerned about a spine injury should probably consult an orthopedic doctor who can order and read most of the above tests.
Even in a low impact accident, there can be a back injury. According to medical journal excerpts:
1) "The truth is that all driving can be dangerous. More than 80 percent of all car crashes occur at speeds less than 40 mph. Fatalities involving non-belted occupants of cars have been recorded at as low as 12 mph. That's about the speed you'd be driving in a parking lot."
Seat belt safety pamphlet, number D)T HS 802 152, distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
2) "The amount of damage to the automobile bears little relation to the force applied to the cervical spine of the occupants. The acceleration of the occupant's head depends on the force imparted, the moment of inertia of the struck vehicle, and the amount of collapse of force dissemination by the crumpling of the vehicle. The inertia of the struck vehicle is related to the weight and the relative ease with which the vehicle rolls or moves forward."
Charles Caroll, M.D., Paul McAfee, M.D., Lee Riley, Jr., M.D.: Objective findings for diagnosis of "whiplash". Journal of Musculoskeletal Medicine, March, 1986, pp. 57-74.
3) "The accident does not need to be severe in order to generate cervical trauma. Using the brakes when the light suddenly turns red and when the neck is too relaxed is enough to cause trauma.
The neck may projected backwards even though not violently. The head, which weighs five kilograms and is balanced over the cervical spine, being supported by only two small articular surfaces no greater than a thumbnail, is also thrown backwards pulling the cervical spine with it. In addition, a sudden reflex contraction of the flexors on the neck occurs with a certain delay. We shall not describe all the details of the mechanism of the production of these whiplash injuries..."
More information at: Spine Injuries in Accidents
http://www.njlaws.com/spine_injuries_in_accidents.htm
_____________________________
2. Recent cases
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE- PARCEL v. PARCEL
Appellate Division, A-6658-04T1, June 2, 2006, not approved for publication.
Final domestic violence restraining order against the defendant husband based on a finding of harassment affirmed; the parties were in the process of divorcing; the defendant called the plaintiff wife five times to ask her whether she would go to the shore; the plaintiff told the defendant to stop calling because she was going to a concert that evening instead; when the plaintiff returned home from the concert, she discovered that the defendant had called about 64 more times; based on the defendant’s history of “controlling, obsessive, and annoying behavior,” his first five calls by themselves might qualify as harassment, and the 64 more calls “unmistakably” established harassing conduct that constituted domestic violence.
Source: (3 pages). Facts-on-Call Order No. 19738 .
CRIMINAL TRIALS - STATE v. ZYSK Improper behavior for refusal to submit bag to security check
Appellate Division, A-6084-04T2, May 31, 2006, not approved for publication.
Conviction following a trial de novo of the petty disorderly persons offense of improper behavior in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2a(1) affirmed; the defendant refused to submit his binocular case to a security check at the Meadowlands Racetrack, became belligerent while in the presence of other patrons, and fled into the Racetrack before he was apprehended; the record supported the conviction because the defendant had recklessly risked public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm and had created a physically dangerous condition for himself, security personnel, and the general public nearby; the defendant argued on appeal that his conviction had to be vacated on procedural grounds because the complaint, which had been signed by a person who was not a law enforcement officer, should not have been issued until a Municipal Court judge or administrator made a finding of probable cause; however, the complaint was not legally deficient to warrant its dismissal and the reversal of the conviction.
Source: Facts-on-Call Order No. 19727 .
______________________
3. new webpages
INJURIES WHILE RIDING A BICYCLE
http://www.njlaws.com/injuries_while_riding_a_bicycle.htm
MEDICAID 2006 AND NURSING HOMES
http://www.njlaws.com/medicade.htm
Court rules on Visitation of children
http://www.njlaws.com/visitation_of_children.htm
________________________
4. reminder- FRIENDS OF VERCAMMEN FAMILY
- BRENDAN VERCAMMEN PARTY- JUN 10 3PM
TO CELEBRATE BRENDAN'S MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADUATION, CONFIRMATION AND WINNING THE COUNTY WRESTLING CHAMPIONSHIP.
______________________________
5. FOR LEASE: OFFICE SPACE
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE SPACE IS AVAILABLE IN EDISON LAW OFFICE. The building is suitable for two to three tenants.
The offices are located on the 1st floor of the building .
Front window office 12.1 x 7.5 - 90 square feet
connecting office 12.4 x 9.4 - 116 square feet
plus client use of reception room 16.6 x 7.2
$500 per month
Owner of building is local attorney, Kenneth Vercammen who handles Personal Injury, Elder Law, Criminal Law.
The following is included with rental:
1. Lighting/ Utilities
2. Bathroom Supplies
3. Landscaping / Snow Removal
4. Cleaning of Common Area
5. cold water, hot water, municipal water/sewer charges
6. Use of conference table for meetings or depositions
7. Permit you to put a sign in the front window
8. Use of our audio tape and video library.
9. Use of the front room reception area
Location is on high traffic street near Route 1 and Raritan Center.
Provides a great opportunity for referrals to Attorney, Financial Planners, Accountants, Insurance Agents, and other Business Professionals.
We also have available additional approximately 700 square feet of office space for $1,000.00 per month
Call Kenneth Vercammen Law Office at 732-572-0500 to schedule an appointment
Tenant and clients/ customers must use adjacent off street parking.
__________________________
Thank You! Thank You!
Thanks to all our clients who graciously referred their family, friends and associates to our agency. We build our firm on your positive comments. We couldn't do it without you!
Referrals are the lifeblood of any business, and there's no better source than you, our clients.
_____________________________
Thank you for reading our newsletter! God Bless America USA #1
Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.
2053 Woodbridge Ave.
Edison, NJ 08817
PHONE 732-572-0500 (Fax) 732-572-0030
website: www.njlaws.com
1- Spine Injuries in Accidents
2. Recent cases- DOMESTIC VIOLENCE- PARCEL v. PARCEL
STATE v. ZYSK Improper behavior for refusal to submit bag to security check
3. new webpages
INJURIES WHILE RIDING A BICYCLE
MEDICAID 2006 AND NURSING HOMES
Court rules on Visitation of children
4. - BRENDAN VERCAMMEN PARTY- JUN 10 3PM
5. FOR LEASE: OFFICE SPACE
_____________________________________
1- Spine Injuries in Accidents
Persons who are in car accidents or fall down often do not feel pain in their back until the next day. Testing for back injuries could include: muscle conduction tests, MRI, CT scan, and X-ray. A person concerned about a spine injury should probably consult an orthopedic doctor who can order and read most of the above tests.
Even in a low impact accident, there can be a back injury. According to medical journal excerpts:
1) "The truth is that all driving can be dangerous. More than 80 percent of all car crashes occur at speeds less than 40 mph. Fatalities involving non-belted occupants of cars have been recorded at as low as 12 mph. That's about the speed you'd be driving in a parking lot."
Seat belt safety pamphlet, number D)T HS 802 152, distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
2) "The amount of damage to the automobile bears little relation to the force applied to the cervical spine of the occupants. The acceleration of the occupant's head depends on the force imparted, the moment of inertia of the struck vehicle, and the amount of collapse of force dissemination by the crumpling of the vehicle. The inertia of the struck vehicle is related to the weight and the relative ease with which the vehicle rolls or moves forward."
Charles Caroll, M.D., Paul McAfee, M.D., Lee Riley, Jr., M.D.: Objective findings for diagnosis of "whiplash". Journal of Musculoskeletal Medicine, March, 1986, pp. 57-74.
3) "The accident does not need to be severe in order to generate cervical trauma. Using the brakes when the light suddenly turns red and when the neck is too relaxed is enough to cause trauma.
The neck may projected backwards even though not violently. The head, which weighs five kilograms and is balanced over the cervical spine, being supported by only two small articular surfaces no greater than a thumbnail, is also thrown backwards pulling the cervical spine with it. In addition, a sudden reflex contraction of the flexors on the neck occurs with a certain delay. We shall not describe all the details of the mechanism of the production of these whiplash injuries..."
More information at: Spine Injuries in Accidents
http://www.njlaws.com/spine_injuries_in_accidents.htm
_____________________________
2. Recent cases
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE- PARCEL v. PARCEL
Appellate Division, A-6658-04T1, June 2, 2006, not approved for publication.
Final domestic violence restraining order against the defendant husband based on a finding of harassment affirmed; the parties were in the process of divorcing; the defendant called the plaintiff wife five times to ask her whether she would go to the shore; the plaintiff told the defendant to stop calling because she was going to a concert that evening instead; when the plaintiff returned home from the concert, she discovered that the defendant had called about 64 more times; based on the defendant’s history of “controlling, obsessive, and annoying behavior,” his first five calls by themselves might qualify as harassment, and the 64 more calls “unmistakably” established harassing conduct that constituted domestic violence.
Source: (3 pages). Facts-on-Call Order No. 19738
CRIMINAL TRIALS - STATE v. ZYSK Improper behavior for refusal to submit bag to security check
Appellate Division, A-6084-04T2, May 31, 2006, not approved for publication.
Conviction following a trial de novo of the petty disorderly persons offense of improper behavior in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2a(1) affirmed; the defendant refused to submit his binocular case to a security check at the Meadowlands Racetrack, became belligerent while in the presence of other patrons, and fled into the Racetrack before he was apprehended; the record supported the conviction because the defendant had recklessly risked public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm and had created a physically dangerous condition for himself, security personnel, and the general public nearby; the defendant argued on appeal that his conviction had to be vacated on procedural grounds because the complaint, which had been signed by a person who was not a law enforcement officer, should not have been issued until a Municipal Court judge or administrator made a finding of probable cause; however, the complaint was not legally deficient to warrant its dismissal and the reversal of the conviction.
Source: Facts-on-Call Order No. 19727
______________________
3. new webpages
INJURIES WHILE RIDING A BICYCLE
http://www.njlaws.com/injuries_while_riding_a_bicycle.htm
MEDICAID 2006 AND NURSING HOMES
http://www.njlaws.com/medicade.htm
Court rules on Visitation of children
http://www.njlaws.com/visitation_of_children.htm
________________________
4. reminder- FRIENDS OF VERCAMMEN FAMILY
- BRENDAN VERCAMMEN PARTY- JUN 10 3PM
TO CELEBRATE BRENDAN'S MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADUATION, CONFIRMATION AND WINNING THE COUNTY WRESTLING CHAMPIONSHIP.
______________________________
5. FOR LEASE: OFFICE SPACE
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE SPACE IS AVAILABLE IN EDISON LAW OFFICE. The building is suitable for two to three tenants.
The offices are located on the 1st floor of the building .
Front window office 12.1 x 7.5 - 90 square feet
connecting office 12.4 x 9.4 - 116 square feet
plus client use of reception room 16.6 x 7.2
$500 per month
Owner of building is local attorney, Kenneth Vercammen who handles Personal Injury, Elder Law, Criminal Law.
The following is included with rental:
1. Lighting/ Utilities
2. Bathroom Supplies
3. Landscaping / Snow Removal
4. Cleaning of Common Area
5. cold water, hot water, municipal water/sewer charges
6. Use of conference table for meetings or depositions
7. Permit you to put a sign in the front window
8. Use of our audio tape and video library.
9. Use of the front room reception area
Location is on high traffic street near Route 1 and Raritan Center.
Provides a great opportunity for referrals to Attorney, Financial Planners, Accountants, Insurance Agents, and other Business Professionals.
We also have available additional approximately 700 square feet of office space for $1,000.00 per month
Call Kenneth Vercammen Law Office at 732-572-0500 to schedule an appointment
Tenant and clients/ customers must use adjacent off street parking.
__________________________
Thank You! Thank You!
Thanks to all our clients who graciously referred their family, friends and associates to our agency. We build our firm on your positive comments. We couldn't do it without you!
Referrals are the lifeblood of any business, and there's no better source than you, our clients.
_____________________________
Thank you for reading our newsletter! God Bless America USA #1
Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.
2053 Woodbridge Ave.
Edison, NJ 08817
PHONE 732-572-0500 (Fax) 732-572-0030
website: www.njlaws.com
NJ Laws Newsletter E218 July 4, 2006
In this issue:
1- Inadequate Security and Liability for Criminal Attack
2. Recent cases
Domestic violence dismissed where no danger to wife.
Factual basis required prior to guilty plea.
State v. Tutolo
3. new webpages
Job related and work site injuries
Alimony and child support in New Jersey
4. Upcoming charity races
_____________________________________
1- Inadequate Security and Liability for Criminal Attack
Many people are injured when attacked on a business property, when the property owner fails to provide adequate security. Injured persons may be able to recover damages plus payment of medical bills. The New Jersey Supreme Court in Kuzmicz v. Ivy Hill Park Apartments, 147 N.J. 510. (1997) reviewed liability for injuries suffered by people attacked. The duty of landowners for injuries that occur on their premises, the analysis no longer relies exclusively on the status of the injured party. Instead "[t]he issue is whether, 'in light of the actual relationship between the parties under all of the surrounding circumstances,' the imposition of a duty on the landowner is 'fair and just.'" Brett v. Great Am. Recreation, 144 N.J. 479, 509 (1996) (quoting Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426, 438 (1993)).
For off-premises liability, the issue is substantially the same. In both contexts, however, the analysis is fact-sensitive. Hopkins, supra, 132 N.J. at 439. Ultimately, the determination of the existence of a duty is a question of fairness and public policy. Snyder v. American Ass'n of Blood Banks, 144 N.J. 269, 292 (1996); Crawn v. Campo, 136 N.J. 494, 501 (1994); Dunphy v. Gregor, 136 N.J. 99, 108 (1994); Kelly v. Gwinnell, 96 N.J. 538, 544 (1984); Goldberg v. Housing Auth., 38 N.J. 578, 583 (1962). Foreseeability of injury to another is important, but not dispositive. Snyder, supra, 144 N.J. at 292; Carter Lincoln-Mercury v. EMOR Group, 135 N.J. 182, 194 (1994). Fairness, not foreseeability alone, is the test. Relevant to the determination of the fairness of the imposition of a duty on a landowner is the nature of the risk, the relationship of the parties, the opportunity to exercise care, and the effect on the public of the imposition of the duty. Dunphy, supra, 136 N.J. at 108; Hopkins, supra, 132 N.J. at 439; Goldberg, supra, 38 N.J. at 583.
More information at:
http://www.njlaws.com/inadequate_security.htm
_____________________________
2. Recent cases
Domestic violence dismissed where no danger to wife.
Litton v. Litton (Appellate Division, A-2054-04T2, October 6, 2005, Not approved for publication.)
Order dismissing the plaintiff wife's domestic violence complaint against the defendant affirmed; the wife's complaint alleged that, on the date in question, her husband grabbed and threw her into a wall, that he kept her from leaving the house, and that he harassed and verbally abused her; the Family Part had concluded that, although the husband acted inappropriately, his isolated actions on the date in question did not endanger the wife's life, health, or well-being, and did not pose a danger of domestic violence; the Family Part's findings of fact and conclusions of law were supported by the evidence and did not offend the interests of justice. Source: Facts On Call Order No. 18627.
14. Factual basis required prior to guilty plea.
State v. Tutolo (Appellate Division, A-1825-04T1. November 3, 2005, not approved for publication.)
Law Division order that granted the defendant's petition for post-conviction relief, that vacated her guilty plea to driving while intoxicated, and that remanded the matter to the Municipal Court for trial affirmed; the plaintiff, appearing pro se, had pleaded guilty in the Municipal Court and the Municipal court later denied her petition for post-relief to vacate the plea due to a lack of a factual basis for the plea; the Appellate Division agreed with the Law Division's determination on de novo review that there was an adequate factual basis for the plea, but it disagreed with the Law Division's conclusion that the plea was not voluntary - for the Municipal Court's failure to advise the defendant of the fundamental rights that she was waiving - because that normally is not required in the Municipal Courts; nonetheless, although it disagreed with the Law Division's rationale, the Appellate Division concluded that the plea in this case did not satisfy constitutional requirements because the municipal Court had not elicited a knowing waiver of the defendant's right to counsel.
______________________
3. new webpages
Job related and work site injuries
http://www.njlaws.com/job_related_work_site_injuries.htm
Alimony and child support in New Jersey
http://www.njlaws.com/alimony_and_child_support_in_NJ.htm
________________________
4. Upcoming charity races [more details at http://www.raceforum.com]
6/19 PRESIDENT'S CUP NIGHT RACE, 5K, 8pm, Charlie Browns, Millburn, 973-376-6094, (NBGP-700pts) Free beer, big post race party
June 24- Frog Hollow 5k South Amboy- Free food, use swim club for entire day. Applications available in Ken V office.
6/25 Sunday, Pine Beach 5k [near Toms River] Very well run shore area event. 732-505-9554
June 27 Tuesday night Raritan Valley Road Runners RVRR cross-country 5k summer series
______________________________
__________________________
Thank You! Thank You!
Thanks to all our clients who graciously referred their family, friends and associates to our agency. We build our firm on your positive comments. We couldn't do it without you!
Referrals are the lifeblood of any business, and there's no better source than you, our clients.
1- Inadequate Security and Liability for Criminal Attack
2. Recent cases
Domestic violence dismissed where no danger to wife.
Factual basis required prior to guilty plea.
State v. Tutolo
3. new webpages
Job related and work site injuries
Alimony and child support in New Jersey
4. Upcoming charity races
_____________________________________
1- Inadequate Security and Liability for Criminal Attack
Many people are injured when attacked on a business property, when the property owner fails to provide adequate security. Injured persons may be able to recover damages plus payment of medical bills. The New Jersey Supreme Court in Kuzmicz v. Ivy Hill Park Apartments, 147 N.J. 510. (1997) reviewed liability for injuries suffered by people attacked. The duty of landowners for injuries that occur on their premises, the analysis no longer relies exclusively on the status of the injured party. Instead "[t]he issue is whether, 'in light of the actual relationship between the parties under all of the surrounding circumstances,' the imposition of a duty on the landowner is 'fair and just.'" Brett v. Great Am. Recreation, 144 N.J. 479, 509 (1996) (quoting Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426, 438 (1993)).
For off-premises liability, the issue is substantially the same. In both contexts, however, the analysis is fact-sensitive. Hopkins, supra, 132 N.J. at 439. Ultimately, the determination of the existence of a duty is a question of fairness and public policy. Snyder v. American Ass'n of Blood Banks, 144 N.J. 269, 292 (1996); Crawn v. Campo, 136 N.J. 494, 501 (1994); Dunphy v. Gregor, 136 N.J. 99, 108 (1994); Kelly v. Gwinnell, 96 N.J. 538, 544 (1984); Goldberg v. Housing Auth., 38 N.J. 578, 583 (1962). Foreseeability of injury to another is important, but not dispositive. Snyder, supra, 144 N.J. at 292; Carter Lincoln-Mercury v. EMOR Group, 135 N.J. 182, 194 (1994). Fairness, not foreseeability alone, is the test. Relevant to the determination of the fairness of the imposition of a duty on a landowner is the nature of the risk, the relationship of the parties, the opportunity to exercise care, and the effect on the public of the imposition of the duty. Dunphy, supra, 136 N.J. at 108; Hopkins, supra, 132 N.J. at 439; Goldberg, supra, 38 N.J. at 583.
More information at:
http://www.njlaws.com/inadequate_security.htm
_____________________________
2. Recent cases
Domestic violence dismissed where no danger to wife.
Litton v. Litton (Appellate Division, A-2054-04T2, October 6, 2005, Not approved for publication.)
Order dismissing the plaintiff wife's domestic violence complaint against the defendant affirmed; the wife's complaint alleged that, on the date in question, her husband grabbed and threw her into a wall, that he kept her from leaving the house, and that he harassed and verbally abused her; the Family Part had concluded that, although the husband acted inappropriately, his isolated actions on the date in question did not endanger the wife's life, health, or well-being, and did not pose a danger of domestic violence; the Family Part's findings of fact and conclusions of law were supported by the evidence and did not offend the interests of justice. Source: Facts On Call Order No. 18627.
14. Factual basis required prior to guilty plea.
State v. Tutolo (Appellate Division, A-1825-04T1. November 3, 2005, not approved for publication.)
Law Division order that granted the defendant's petition for post-conviction relief, that vacated her guilty plea to driving while intoxicated, and that remanded the matter to the Municipal Court for trial affirmed; the plaintiff, appearing pro se, had pleaded guilty in the Municipal Court and the Municipal court later denied her petition for post-relief to vacate the plea due to a lack of a factual basis for the plea; the Appellate Division agreed with the Law Division's determination on de novo review that there was an adequate factual basis for the plea, but it disagreed with the Law Division's conclusion that the plea was not voluntary - for the Municipal Court's failure to advise the defendant of the fundamental rights that she was waiving - because that normally is not required in the Municipal Courts; nonetheless, although it disagreed with the Law Division's rationale, the Appellate Division concluded that the plea in this case did not satisfy constitutional requirements because the municipal Court had not elicited a knowing waiver of the defendant's right to counsel.
______________________
3. new webpages
Job related and work site injuries
http://www.njlaws.com/job_related_work_site_injuries.htm
Alimony and child support in New Jersey
http://www.njlaws.com/alimony_and_child_support_in_NJ.htm
________________________
4. Upcoming charity races [more details at http://www.raceforum.com]
6/19 PRESIDENT'S CUP NIGHT RACE, 5K, 8pm, Charlie Browns, Millburn, 973-376-6094, (NBGP-700pts) Free beer, big post race party
June 24- Frog Hollow 5k South Amboy- Free food, use swim club for entire day. Applications available in Ken V office.
6/25 Sunday, Pine Beach 5k [near Toms River] Very well run shore area event. 732-505-9554
June 27 Tuesday night Raritan Valley Road Runners RVRR cross-country 5k summer series
______________________________
__________________________
Thank You! Thank You!
Thanks to all our clients who graciously referred their family, friends and associates to our agency. We build our firm on your positive comments. We couldn't do it without you!
Referrals are the lifeblood of any business, and there's no better source than you, our clients.
NJ Laws Newsletter E223 September 19, 2006
In this issue:
1. Open Public Records Act (OPRA) Bars $55 Fee For Edison Computer Records
2 DNA test Can be Compelled on Juveniles Already Delinquent
3. Evidence Rule 104 Hearing Required on admissibility of Confessions
4 Off Duty Conduct Can Require Forfeiture of Office.
5 Intent to Obtain Prescription Drug Can be Forgery
6 Public Defender is Employee Protected by CEPA
7 Requiring felons to provide sample DNA Act Constitutional and Not Penal
8 Each Lie is Not Separate Insurance Fraud
9 Even Public Defenders Require Motion For a Substitute of Counsel
10. New webpage: Quasi criminal rights
11 Upcoming events:
_________________
1. Open Public Records Act (OPRA) Bars $55 Fee For Edison Computer Records. Libertarian Party of Central NJ v. Murphy 384 NJ Super. 136 (App Div. 2006).
The $55 fee charged to plaintiffs for a computer diskette containing the minutes of the township council meetings violates the OPRA. Source: 184 NJLJ 46.
2 DNA test Can be Compelled on Juveniles Already Delinquent. AA v. Attorney General of New Jersey 384 NJ Super. 67 (App Div. 2006)
The "special law enforcement concerns" advanced by the DNA Database and Data bank Act of 1994, N.J.S.A. 53:1-20.17, et seq., support the application of the "special needs" exception to the requirement of a warrant for a search. The database and data bank authorized by the Act advance the State's compelling interest in deterring and detecting recidivism, at least when applied to adults and to delinquent juveniles who are older than 14. There is no constitutional basis for a judicially created expungement remedy for relief from the Act.
Source: 15 NJLJ 708.
3. Evidence Rule 104 Hearing Required on admissibility of Confessions. State v. Elkwisni 384 NJ Super. 351 (App Div. 2006)
The record developed at the N.J.R.E. 104 hearing was insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant voluntarily and knowingly waived his Miranda rights; since defendant testified at trial as to his statements to police, to bolster his defense of duress, the State's cross-examination as to the statements was proper. Source: 184 NJLJ 223.
4 Off Duty Conduct Can Require Forfeiture of Office. State v. Rodriguez 383 N.J. Super. 663 (App Div. 2006).
The off-duty conduct of defendant- police officer that led to his conviction for leaving the scene of a fatal accident sufficiently "involved and touched upon" his employment to justify the order barring him from future public employment under N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2d.
Source: 183 NJL 1172.
5 Intent to Obtain Prescription Drug Can be Forgery. State v. Felsen 383 N.J. Super. 154 (App. Div. 2006).
We hold that evidence of a defendant's intent to defraud the state's regulatory program concerning the dispensing of prescription drugs by attempting to pass a forged prescription to a regulated pharmacy satisfies the statutory requirement that defendant commit the act "with purpose to defraud or injure another" under the forgery statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-1a. Source: NJ Law Journal February 20, 2006 p. 51.
6 Public Defender is Employee Protected by CEPA (Conscientious Employee Protection Act). Stomel v. The City of Camden 383 NJ Super. 615 (App Div. 2006)
Because the mayor did not possess the authority to terminate plaintiff's employment as a municipal public defender, and plaintiff has not shown any unconstitutional policy or custom engaged in by the city's governing body, he has failed to make a prima facie showing of § 1983 liability against the city; however, plaintiff is considered an employee for purposes of his whistle blowing claim.
Source: 183 NJLJ 1084.
7 Requiring felons to provide sample DNA Act Constitutional and Not Penal. State in Interest of L.R. 382 NJ Super. 605 (App Div. 2006).
The DNA Database and Data bank Act is not a penal statute and thus does not implicate constitutional ex post facto proscriptions; the absence of counsel at the juvenile's referee hearing was harmless since he was represented by counsel at the Superior Court proceeding that resulted in the order for a DNA sample, albeit based on the earlier offense. Source: 183 NJLJ 409.
8 Each Lie is Not Separate Insurance Fraud. State v. Fleischman 383 NJ Super. 396 (App Div. 2006).
Each lie told in support of one fraudulent claim in a single document cannot reasonably be seen as a separate act of insurance fraud under N.J.S.A. 2C:21-4.6b. Source: 183 NJLJ 862.
9 Even Public Defenders Require Motion For a Substitute of Counsel. State v. Noel ___ NJ Super. ___14-3-3626 ( Law Div. decided July 15, 2005, approved in April 11, 2006).
When the Office of the Public Defender seeks to reassign a case to a private pool attorney because of a conflict of interest, it must comply with Rule 1:11-2 or seek court approval.
Source: 184 NJLJ 372.
Editorial Assistance provided by Associate Editor James Durgana, a first year law student at Villanova University School of Law with an interest in criminal litigation. This summer he has gained valuable insight into the legal spectrum by engaging in various interactions at court proceedings, as well as honing his writing skills through document drafting while clerking at Ken Vercammen's Law Office in Edison, NJ.
10. New webpage:
Quasi criminal rights of persons charged with Motor vehicle offenses including DWI and Driving While Suspended
http://www.njlaws.com/quasicriminalrights.htm
11 Upcoming events:
Oct. 7 Metuchen Fair-
Oct. 7 Rat Race charity run
Oct. 7 Mike Sydor Party
Oct. 16 Edison Wills
_______
Monday, Sept 25 - Improving Driving Culture and Pedestrian Safety in NJ
Speakers: Kris Kolluri, Commissioner, Department of Transportation
Janine Bauer, Consultant to Rutgers
Time: 4:00-6:00 p.m.
Location: NJ Law Center One Constitution Square New Brunswick, NJ
There is no fee for members to attend this meeting. For more information or to register, contact the Meetings Department at 732-249-5000, or www.njsba.com.
_____________________________
1. Open Public Records Act (OPRA) Bars $55 Fee For Edison Computer Records
2 DNA test Can be Compelled on Juveniles Already Delinquent
3. Evidence Rule 104 Hearing Required on admissibility of Confessions
4 Off Duty Conduct Can Require Forfeiture of Office.
5 Intent to Obtain Prescription Drug Can be Forgery
6 Public Defender is Employee Protected by CEPA
7 Requiring felons to provide sample DNA Act Constitutional and Not Penal
8 Each Lie is Not Separate Insurance Fraud
9 Even Public Defenders Require Motion For a Substitute of Counsel
10. New webpage: Quasi criminal rights
11 Upcoming events:
_________________
1. Open Public Records Act (OPRA) Bars $55 Fee For Edison Computer Records. Libertarian Party of Central NJ v. Murphy 384 NJ Super. 136 (App Div. 2006).
The $55 fee charged to plaintiffs for a computer diskette containing the minutes of the township council meetings violates the OPRA. Source: 184 NJLJ 46.
2 DNA test Can be Compelled on Juveniles Already Delinquent. AA v. Attorney General of New Jersey 384 NJ Super. 67 (App Div. 2006)
The "special law enforcement concerns" advanced by the DNA Database and Data bank Act of 1994, N.J.S.A. 53:1-20.17, et seq., support the application of the "special needs" exception to the requirement of a warrant for a search. The database and data bank authorized by the Act advance the State's compelling interest in deterring and detecting recidivism, at least when applied to adults and to delinquent juveniles who are older than 14. There is no constitutional basis for a judicially created expungement remedy for relief from the Act.
Source: 15 NJLJ 708.
3. Evidence Rule 104 Hearing Required on admissibility of Confessions. State v. Elkwisni 384 NJ Super. 351 (App Div. 2006)
The record developed at the N.J.R.E. 104 hearing was insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant voluntarily and knowingly waived his Miranda rights; since defendant testified at trial as to his statements to police, to bolster his defense of duress, the State's cross-examination as to the statements was proper. Source: 184 NJLJ 223.
4 Off Duty Conduct Can Require Forfeiture of Office. State v. Rodriguez 383 N.J. Super. 663 (App Div. 2006).
The off-duty conduct of defendant- police officer that led to his conviction for leaving the scene of a fatal accident sufficiently "involved and touched upon" his employment to justify the order barring him from future public employment under N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2d.
Source: 183 NJL 1172.
5 Intent to Obtain Prescription Drug Can be Forgery. State v. Felsen 383 N.J. Super. 154 (App. Div. 2006).
We hold that evidence of a defendant's intent to defraud the state's regulatory program concerning the dispensing of prescription drugs by attempting to pass a forged prescription to a regulated pharmacy satisfies the statutory requirement that defendant commit the act "with purpose to defraud or injure another" under the forgery statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-1a. Source: NJ Law Journal February 20, 2006 p. 51.
6 Public Defender is Employee Protected by CEPA (Conscientious Employee Protection Act). Stomel v. The City of Camden 383 NJ Super. 615 (App Div. 2006)
Because the mayor did not possess the authority to terminate plaintiff's employment as a municipal public defender, and plaintiff has not shown any unconstitutional policy or custom engaged in by the city's governing body, he has failed to make a prima facie showing of § 1983 liability against the city; however, plaintiff is considered an employee for purposes of his whistle blowing claim.
Source: 183 NJLJ 1084.
7 Requiring felons to provide sample DNA Act Constitutional and Not Penal. State in Interest of L.R. 382 NJ Super. 605 (App Div. 2006).
The DNA Database and Data bank Act is not a penal statute and thus does not implicate constitutional ex post facto proscriptions; the absence of counsel at the juvenile's referee hearing was harmless since he was represented by counsel at the Superior Court proceeding that resulted in the order for a DNA sample, albeit based on the earlier offense. Source: 183 NJLJ 409.
8 Each Lie is Not Separate Insurance Fraud. State v. Fleischman 383 NJ Super. 396 (App Div. 2006).
Each lie told in support of one fraudulent claim in a single document cannot reasonably be seen as a separate act of insurance fraud under N.J.S.A. 2C:21-4.6b. Source: 183 NJLJ 862.
9 Even Public Defenders Require Motion For a Substitute of Counsel. State v. Noel ___ NJ Super. ___14-3-3626 ( Law Div. decided July 15, 2005, approved in April 11, 2006).
When the Office of the Public Defender seeks to reassign a case to a private pool attorney because of a conflict of interest, it must comply with Rule 1:11-2 or seek court approval.
Source: 184 NJLJ 372.
Editorial Assistance provided by Associate Editor James Durgana, a first year law student at Villanova University School of Law with an interest in criminal litigation. This summer he has gained valuable insight into the legal spectrum by engaging in various interactions at court proceedings, as well as honing his writing skills through document drafting while clerking at Ken Vercammen's Law Office in Edison, NJ.
10. New webpage:
Quasi criminal rights of persons charged with Motor vehicle offenses including DWI and Driving While Suspended
http://www.njlaws.com/quasicriminalrights.htm
11 Upcoming events:
Oct. 7 Metuchen Fair-
Oct. 7 Rat Race charity run
Oct. 7 Mike Sydor Party
Oct. 16 Edison Wills
_______
Monday, Sept 25 - Improving Driving Culture and Pedestrian Safety in NJ
Speakers: Kris Kolluri, Commissioner, Department of Transportation
Janine Bauer, Consultant to Rutgers
Time: 4:00-6:00 p.m.
Location: NJ Law Center One Constitution Square New Brunswick, NJ
There is no fee for members to attend this meeting. For more information or to register, contact the Meetings Department at 732-249-5000, or www.njsba.com.
_____________________________
NJ Laws Newsletter E222 September 12, 2006
In this issue:
1. Disfigurement or permanent injury required in car accident cases where the lawsuit threshold applies
2. Spine Injuries in Accidents
3. Inadequate Security and Liability for Criminal Attack
4. Plea Requires Defendant to Admit Essential Element of Offense.
5. New webpage: Alimony and Child Support in New Jersey
_________________
1. Disfigurement or permanent injury required in car accident cases where the lawsuit threshold applies
Kenneth Vercammen & Associates Law Office help people injured due to the negligence of others. We provide representation throughout New Jersey. The insurance companies will not help. Don't give up! Our Law Office can provide experienced attorney representation if you are injured.
In order to recover damages in most in a car Personal Injury case, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he/she sustained injuries which fit into one or more of the following categories: 1. Death; 2. Dismemberment; 3. Significant disfigurement or significant scarring; 4. Displaced fracture; 5. Loss of a fetus; 6. A permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability, other than scarring or disfigurement.
At the trial, the Judge will read the "formal instructions" to the Jury. They are called Request to Charge. The Request to Charge in an accident case was revised recently.
Disfigurement or permanent injury required in car accident cases where the lawsuit threshold applies. More information at:
http://www.njlaws.com/disfigurement_or_permanent_injury_in_car_accident.htm
2. Spine Injuries in Accidents
Persons who are in car accidents or fall down often do not feel pain in their back until the next day. Testing for back injuries could include: muscle conduction tests, MRI, CT scan, and X-ray. A person concerned about a knee injury should probably consult an orthopedic doctor who can order and read most of the above tests.
Even in a low impact accident, there can be a back injury. According to medical journal excerpts:
1) "The truth is that all driving can be dangerous. More than 80 percent of all car crashes occur at speeds less than 40 mph. Fatalities involving non-belted occupants of cars have been recorded at as low as 12 mph. That's about the speed you'd be driving in a parking lot."
Source: Seat belt safety pamphlet, number D)T HS 802 152, distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
2) "The amount of damage to the automobile bears little relation to the force applied to the cervical spine of the occupants. The acceleration of the occupant's head depends on the force imparted, the moment of inertia of the struck vehicle, and the amount of collapse of force dissemination by the crumpling of the vehicle. The inertia of the struck vehicle is related to the weight and the relative ease with which the vehicle rolls or moves forward."
Source: Charles Caroll, M.D., Paul McAfee, M.D., Lee Riley, Jr., M.D.: Objective findings for diagnosis of "whiplash". Journal of Musculoskeletal Medicine, March, 1986, pp. 57-74.
3) "The accident does not need to be severe in order to generate cervical trauma. Using the brakes when the light suddenly turns red and when the neck is too relaxed is enough to cause trauma. The neck may projected backwards even though not violently. The head, which weighs five kilograms and is balanced over the cervical spine, being supported by only two small articular surfaces no greater than a thumbnail, is also thrown backwards pulling the cervical spine with it. In addition, a sudden reflex contraction of the flexors on the neck occurs with a certain delay. We shall not describe all the details of the mechanism of the production of these whiplash injuries..."
It is easy to imagine that the joint injuries are not the same if during a collision, or any other accident, the head is directed along the axis of the impact or if the head is rotated or if the impact is directed laterally. In the final analysis, it is the result of the injury which is important."
Robert Maigne, M.D., Orthopedic Medicine - A New Approach to Vertebral Manipulations, CC. Thomas, 1972, p. 196.
4) "The position of the head at the moment of collision influences the type of injury. This is particularly true of the degree of rotation in relationship to the direction of the impact...the foramen are open equally when the head faces forward but are narrowed on the side toward which the head is laterally flexed or to which the head is turned. Not only will the already narrowed foramen be compressed ligaments will be far more damaging. Rotating the head at the time of collision increases the possibility of more serious injury."
More information at: http://www.geocities.com/kenvnjlaw/Spine_Injuries_In_Acc.htm
3. Inadequate Security and Liability for Criminal Attack
Many people are injured when attacked on a business property, when the property owner fails to provide adequate security. Injured persons may be able to recover damages plus payment of medical bills. The New Jersey Supreme Court in Kuzmicz v. Ivy Hill Park Apartments, 147 N.J. 510. (1997) reviewed liability for injuries suffered by people attacked. The duty of landowners for injuries that occur on their premises, the analysis no longer relies exclusively on the status of the injured party. Instead "[t]he issue is whether, 'in light of the actual relationship between the parties under all of the surrounding circumstances,' the imposition of a duty on the landowner is 'fair and just.'" Brett v. Great Am. Recreation, 144 N.J. 479, 509 (1996) (quoting Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426, 438 (1993)). For off-premises liability, the issue is substantially the same. In both contexts, however, the analysis is fact-sensitive.
http://www.geocities.com/kenvnjlaw/Inadequate_security.htm
4. Plea Requires Defendant to Admit Essential Element of Offense. State v. Piniero ___ NJ Super. ___ A4764-02T4 (App. Div. April 19, 2006).
The defendant's guilty plea to absconding from parole lacked a factual basis. Although the trial judge properly questioned the defendant to independently satisfy himself that there was a factual basis for the plea and although the defendant was "difficult," the judge should have refused to accept the plea when it became clear that the defendant denied an essential element of the offense.
Source: 15 NJL 913.
5. New webpage: Alimony and Child Support in New Jersey
NJ Court Rules which apply to all Divorce, alimony and child support cases
RULE 5:7. DIVORCE, NULLITY, SEPARATE MAINTENANCE (Child Support and Alimony)
http://www.geocities.com/kenvnjlaw/Alimony_Child_Support.htm
1. Disfigurement or permanent injury required in car accident cases where the lawsuit threshold applies
2. Spine Injuries in Accidents
3. Inadequate Security and Liability for Criminal Attack
4. Plea Requires Defendant to Admit Essential Element of Offense.
5. New webpage: Alimony and Child Support in New Jersey
_________________
1. Disfigurement or permanent injury required in car accident cases where the lawsuit threshold applies
Kenneth Vercammen & Associates Law Office help people injured due to the negligence of others. We provide representation throughout New Jersey. The insurance companies will not help. Don't give up! Our Law Office can provide experienced attorney representation if you are injured.
In order to recover damages in most in a car Personal Injury case, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he/she sustained injuries which fit into one or more of the following categories: 1. Death; 2. Dismemberment; 3. Significant disfigurement or significant scarring; 4. Displaced fracture; 5. Loss of a fetus; 6. A permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability, other than scarring or disfigurement.
At the trial, the Judge will read the "formal instructions" to the Jury. They are called Request to Charge. The Request to Charge in an accident case was revised recently.
Disfigurement or permanent injury required in car accident cases where the lawsuit threshold applies. More information at:
http://www.njlaws.com/disfigurement_or_permanent_injury_in_car_accident.htm
2. Spine Injuries in Accidents
Persons who are in car accidents or fall down often do not feel pain in their back until the next day. Testing for back injuries could include: muscle conduction tests, MRI, CT scan, and X-ray. A person concerned about a knee injury should probably consult an orthopedic doctor who can order and read most of the above tests.
Even in a low impact accident, there can be a back injury. According to medical journal excerpts:
1) "The truth is that all driving can be dangerous. More than 80 percent of all car crashes occur at speeds less than 40 mph. Fatalities involving non-belted occupants of cars have been recorded at as low as 12 mph. That's about the speed you'd be driving in a parking lot."
Source: Seat belt safety pamphlet, number D)T HS 802 152, distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
2) "The amount of damage to the automobile bears little relation to the force applied to the cervical spine of the occupants. The acceleration of the occupant's head depends on the force imparted, the moment of inertia of the struck vehicle, and the amount of collapse of force dissemination by the crumpling of the vehicle. The inertia of the struck vehicle is related to the weight and the relative ease with which the vehicle rolls or moves forward."
Source: Charles Caroll, M.D., Paul McAfee, M.D., Lee Riley, Jr., M.D.: Objective findings for diagnosis of "whiplash". Journal of Musculoskeletal Medicine, March, 1986, pp. 57-74.
3) "The accident does not need to be severe in order to generate cervical trauma. Using the brakes when the light suddenly turns red and when the neck is too relaxed is enough to cause trauma. The neck may projected backwards even though not violently. The head, which weighs five kilograms and is balanced over the cervical spine, being supported by only two small articular surfaces no greater than a thumbnail, is also thrown backwards pulling the cervical spine with it. In addition, a sudden reflex contraction of the flexors on the neck occurs with a certain delay. We shall not describe all the details of the mechanism of the production of these whiplash injuries..."
It is easy to imagine that the joint injuries are not the same if during a collision, or any other accident, the head is directed along the axis of the impact or if the head is rotated or if the impact is directed laterally. In the final analysis, it is the result of the injury which is important."
Robert Maigne, M.D., Orthopedic Medicine - A New Approach to Vertebral Manipulations, CC. Thomas, 1972, p. 196.
4) "The position of the head at the moment of collision influences the type of injury. This is particularly true of the degree of rotation in relationship to the direction of the impact...the foramen are open equally when the head faces forward but are narrowed on the side toward which the head is laterally flexed or to which the head is turned. Not only will the already narrowed foramen be compressed ligaments will be far more damaging. Rotating the head at the time of collision increases the possibility of more serious injury."
More information at: http://www.geocities.com/kenvnjlaw/Spine_Injuries_In_Acc.htm
3. Inadequate Security and Liability for Criminal Attack
Many people are injured when attacked on a business property, when the property owner fails to provide adequate security. Injured persons may be able to recover damages plus payment of medical bills. The New Jersey Supreme Court in Kuzmicz v. Ivy Hill Park Apartments, 147 N.J. 510. (1997) reviewed liability for injuries suffered by people attacked. The duty of landowners for injuries that occur on their premises, the analysis no longer relies exclusively on the status of the injured party. Instead "[t]he issue is whether, 'in light of the actual relationship between the parties under all of the surrounding circumstances,' the imposition of a duty on the landowner is 'fair and just.'" Brett v. Great Am. Recreation, 144 N.J. 479, 509 (1996) (quoting Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426, 438 (1993)). For off-premises liability, the issue is substantially the same. In both contexts, however, the analysis is fact-sensitive.
http://www.geocities.com/kenvnjlaw/Inadequate_security.htm
4. Plea Requires Defendant to Admit Essential Element of Offense. State v. Piniero ___ NJ Super. ___ A4764-02T4 (App. Div. April 19, 2006).
The defendant's guilty plea to absconding from parole lacked a factual basis. Although the trial judge properly questioned the defendant to independently satisfy himself that there was a factual basis for the plea and although the defendant was "difficult," the judge should have refused to accept the plea when it became clear that the defendant denied an essential element of the offense.
Source: 15 NJL 913.
5. New webpage: Alimony and Child Support in New Jersey
NJ Court Rules which apply to all Divorce, alimony and child support cases
RULE 5:7. DIVORCE, NULLITY, SEPARATE MAINTENANCE (Child Support and Alimony)
http://www.geocities.com/kenvnjlaw/Alimony_Child_Support.htm
Saturday, September 02, 2006
E219 1 Undue Influence as Defense to Will
Ken Vercammen's NJ Laws email newsletter E219
In this issue:
1 Undue Influence as Defense to Will or Power of Attorney
2 Right To Bail If Charged With A Criminal Offense
3. Recent cases: Strip Search Improper. State v Harris
4. new webpages: Disfigurement or permanent injury required in car accident cases where the lawsuit threshold applies
_____________________________________
1 Undue Influence as Defense to Will or Power of Attorney One of the major cases dealing with undue influence was Haynes v. First National State Bank of New Jersey, 87 N.J. 163, 75-76 (1981). Here the Supreme Court held that the burden of proof establishing undue influence shifts to the proponent when a will benefits a person who stood in a confidential relationship to the decedent and there are suspicious circumstances which need explanation. The suspicious circumstances need only be slight. Id. at 176. Moreover, when the evidence is almost entirely in the possession of one party and the evidence points to the proponent as asserting undue influence, a clear and convincing standard may be applied rather than the normal burden of proof of preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 183.
Furthermore, the Haynes analysis was extended to situations in which there is a transfer of property where the beneficiary of the property and an attorney is on one side and the donor on the other. See Oachs v. Stanton, 280 N.J. Super. 478, 483 (App. Div. 1995).
The court in Oachs determined that under circumstances such as these the donee bears the burden of proof to establish the validity of the gift, even in situations in which the donee did not dominate the decedent’s will. Id. at 485. This rule was established to protect a donor from making a decision induced by a confidential relationship the donee possesses with the donor. Id. Again, the burden is a clear and convincing standard. Id.
The Supreme Court in Pascale v. Pascale, 113 N.J. 20, 31 (1998), stated that when a donor makes a gift to a donee that he/she is dependent upon, a presumption arises that the donor did not understand the consequences of his/her act. In these situations the donee must demonstrate that the donor had disinterested and competent counsel. Id. Likewise, undue influence is conclusive, when a mentally or physically weakened donor makes a gift without advice or a means of support, to a donee upon whom he/she depends. Id.
A confidential relationship can be found to exist when one is certain that the parties dealt on unequal terms. In re Stroming’s Will, 12 N.J. Super. 217, 224 (1951). The appropriate inquiry is if a confidential relationship existed, did the parties deal on terms and conditions of equality? Blake v. Brennan, 1 N.J. Super. 446, 453 (1948).
Suspicious circumstances are not required to create a presumption of undue influence with regard to inter vivos gifts and the presumption of undue influence is more easily raised in an inter vivos transfer. See Pascale, supra, 113 N.J. at 31; Bronson v. Bronson, 218 N.J. Super. 389, 394 (App. Div. 1987).
Generally, an adult is presumed to be competent to make an inter vivos gift. See Conners v. Murphy, 100 N.J. Eq. 280, 282 (E. & A. 1926); Pascale v. Pascale, 113 N.J. 20, 29 (1988). However, when a party alleges undue influence with regard to an inter vivos gift, the contesting party must prove undue influence existed or that a presumption of undue influence should arise. Pascale, supra, 113 N.J. at 30.
A presumption of undue influence arises when a confidential relationship exists between the donor and donee or where the contestant proves the donee dominated the Will of the donor. Id.; see also Seylaz v. Bennett, 5 N.J. 168, 172 (1950); In re Dodge, 50 N.J. 192, 227 (1967); Mott v. Mott, 49 N.J. Eq. 192, 198 (Ch. 1891); Oachs v. Stanton, 280 N.J. Super. 478 (App. Div. 1995) (holding that where a confidential relationship existed and that the donor did not rely upon the donee, a shifting of the burden was still appropriate); In re Neuman’s Estate, 133 N.J. Eq. 532, 534-35 (E. & A. 1943) (stating in a will context “Such burden does not shift merely because of the existence of a confidential relationship, without more, as in the matter of gifts inter vivos.”)
The In re Dodge court explained why a presumption of undue influence arises in a confidential relationship and stated: “In the application of this rule it is not necessary that the donee occupy such a dominant position toward the donor as to create an inference that the donor was unable to assert his will in opposition to that of the donee.” In Re Dodge, 50 N.J. 192 (1967). The court referenced a much earlier case in explaining the rule’s application:
"Its purpose is not so much to afford protection to the donor against the consequences of undue influence exercised over him by the donee, as it is to afford him protection against the consequences voluntary action on his part induced by the existence of the relationship between them, the effect of which upon his own interests he may only partially understand or appreciate." In re Dodge, supra, 50 N.J. at 228 citing Slack v. Rees, 66 N.J. Eq. 447, 449 (E. & A. 1904).
In sum, once it is proven that a confidential relationship exists the burden shifts to the donee to show by clear and convincing evidence that no undue influence was used. Although the case law indicates suspicious circumstances need not be shown the donee must show all was fair, open and voluntary, no deception was practiced and that the transaction was well understood. Pascale, supra, 113 N.J. at 31; see also In re Dodge, supra, 50 N.J. at 227; Seylaz, supra, 5 N.J. at 173. Furthermore, confidential relationships arise in all types of relationships “whether legal, natural or conventional in their origin, in which confidence is naturally inspired, or, in fact, reasonably exists.” In re Fulper’s Estate, 99 N.J. Eq. 292, 314 (Prerog. Ct. 1926); see Pascale, supra, 113 N.J. at 34. It appears confidential relationships exist in all cases in which:
"The relations between the [contracting] parties appear to be of such a character as to render it certain that they do not deal on terms of equality, but that either on the one side from superior knowledge of the matter derived from a fiduciary relation, or from over-mastering influence; or on the other from weakness, dependence or trust justifiably reposed, unfair advantage is rendered probable." Pascale, supra, 113 N.J. at 34, quoting In re Fulper, supra, 99 N.J. Eq. at 314; see also In re Dodge, supra, 50 N.J. at 228.
In determining whether the Defendant was the dominant person in the relationship there is no clear cut rule and instead the court must look to the particular circumstances of the matter. In re Fulper, supra, 99 N.J. Eq. at 315; Giacobbi v. Anselmi, 18 N.J. Super. 600, 616 (Ch. Div. 1952). In Fulper the court determined that a confidential relationship existed in a father-son relationship in which the father was advanced in age, weak and physically depended upon the son. Moreover, since the father sought the son’s assistance on business matters, lived with the son during the winter months and gave the son joint and several power over his checking account an actual repose of trust and confidence in the son was demonstrated. In re Fulper, supra, 99 N.J. Eq. at 318.
In the Giacobbi case, supra, a confidential relationship was determined to exist between a mother and daughter, even though the mother did not suffer from mental or physical infirmity. There the mother was found to be alert, active, and somewhat independent. However, she turned to the daughter for small issues and problems when they occurred. Giacobbi, supra, 18 N.J. Super. at 617.
Therefore, the burden can shift to Defendant to prove by clear and convincing evidence the transaction was not unduly influenced. Furthermore, where a donor makes an “improvident” gift to the donee upon whom she depends that strips the donor of all or virtually all their assets, as here, a presumption arises that the donor did not understand the consequences of their act. Pascale, supra, 113 N.J. at 31, citing Vanderbach v. Vollinger, 1 N.J. 481, 489 (1949). Under those circumstances the donee must establish that the donor had the advice of competent and disinterested counsel. Id. citing Vanderback, supra, 1 N.J .at 488-89.
Similarly, when a mentally or physically weakened donor makes a gift to a donee whom the donor is dependent upon, without advice, and the gift leaves the donee without adequate means of support, a conclusive presumption of undue influence arises. Id. citing Seylaz, supra, 5 N.J. at 173. However, when a donor is not dependent upon the donee “independent advice is not a prerequisite to the validity of an improvident gift even though the relationship between the parties is one of trust and confidence.” Id. citing Seylaz, supra, 5 N.J. at 173.
More details at http://www.njlaws.com/Undue-Influence-of-Attorney.htm
___________________
2. Right To Bail If Charged With A Criminal Offense
As set forth in NJ Practice, Vol. 31, Criminal Practice and Procedure, (1997), Sec 292, the defendant has a right to bail before conviction except if he/she is charged with a crime punishable by death and the prosecutor presents proof that there is a likelihood of conviction and reasonable grounds to believe that the death penalty may be imposed. 3 This means that absent exceptional circumstances the defendant has a right to pretrial liberty if the defendant provides surety in such amount as in the judgment of the court will insure the defendant's appearance at trial. 4 Stated in other terms, the right to bail means that in the absence of exceptional circumstances the defendant has the right to have the court set bail in an amount which does not exceed that which will insure defendant's appearance at trial, and if the defendant can "come up" with cash in that amount, or 10 percent of that amount if the defendant is eligible to be released on 10 percent cash bail, or a bond or other surety, then the defendant must be released.
BAIL PROCEDURES
Any person unable to post bail shall have his or her bail reviewed by a Superior Court judge not later than the next day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. A first motion for a reduction of bail shall be held by the Court no later than 7 days after it is filed.
More details at http://www.geocities.com/kenvnjlaw/bail_rightto.htm
__________________
3. Recent cases: Strip Search Improper. State v Harris 384 N.J. Super. 29 (App Div. 2006)
Police conduct up in the seizure of the baggies from defendant's mouth was lawful, but that the strip search at the police station was unreasonable and lacking in probable cause.
______________________
4. new webpages
Disfigurement or permanent injury required in car accident cases where the lawsuit threshold applies
In order to recover damages in most in a car Personal Injury case, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he/she sustained injuries which fit into one or more of the following categories: 1. Death; 2. Dismemberment; 3. Significant disfigurement or significant scarring; 4. Displaced fracture; 5. Loss of a fetus; 6. A permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability, other than scarring or disfigurement.
www.njlaws.com/disfigurement_or_permanent_injury_in_car_accident.htm
New webpage:
Court Rule 5:8. CUSTODY OF CHILDREN
http://www.njlaws.com/custody_of_children.htm
__________________________
Thank You! Thank You!
Thanks to all our clients who graciously referred their family, friends and associates to our agency. We build our firm on your positive comments. We couldn't do it without you!
Referrals are the lifeblood of any business, and there's no better source than you, our clients.
_____________________________
Thank you for reading our newsletter! God Bless America USA #1
Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.
2053 Woodbridge Ave.
Edison, NJ 08817
PHONE 732-572-0500 (Fax) 732-572-0030
website: www.njlaws.com
Speakers Bureau: The NJ State Bar Association established a community Speakers Bureau to provide educational programs to senior clubs, Unions and Middlesex County companies. During the past year, volunteer attorneys have provided Legal Rights Seminars to hundreds of seniors, business owners and their employees, unions, clubs and non-profit groups. If you are interested in having an attorney speak on Wills, Probate or Elder Law at an event, please call my office. These quality daytime educational programs will educate and even entertain. Clubs and companies are invited to schedule a free seminar during business hours.
"Celebrating more than 20 years of providing excellent service to clients 1985-2006" Former Prosecutor
This newsletter is produced to be sent electronically. If you know someone who would also like to receive this email newsletter, please have them email us at newsletter@njlaws.com.
Free T- shirts and car coffee holders to all current and past clients. Please come into office.
Editor's Note and Disclaimer: All materials Copyright 2006. You may pass along the information on the NJ Laws Newsletter and website, provided the name and address of the Law Office is included.
Always schedule an office appointment with an experienced attorney when you have a legal matter. The Rules of Court limit an attorney's ability to discuss matters over the phone. If you have legal questions, you should schedule an in- office consultation.
In this issue:
1 Undue Influence as Defense to Will or Power of Attorney
2 Right To Bail If Charged With A Criminal Offense
3. Recent cases: Strip Search Improper. State v Harris
4. new webpages: Disfigurement or permanent injury required in car accident cases where the lawsuit threshold applies
_____________________________________
1 Undue Influence as Defense to Will or Power of Attorney One of the major cases dealing with undue influence was Haynes v. First National State Bank of New Jersey, 87 N.J. 163, 75-76 (1981). Here the Supreme Court held that the burden of proof establishing undue influence shifts to the proponent when a will benefits a person who stood in a confidential relationship to the decedent and there are suspicious circumstances which need explanation. The suspicious circumstances need only be slight. Id. at 176. Moreover, when the evidence is almost entirely in the possession of one party and the evidence points to the proponent as asserting undue influence, a clear and convincing standard may be applied rather than the normal burden of proof of preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 183.
Furthermore, the Haynes analysis was extended to situations in which there is a transfer of property where the beneficiary of the property and an attorney is on one side and the donor on the other. See Oachs v. Stanton, 280 N.J. Super. 478, 483 (App. Div. 1995).
The court in Oachs determined that under circumstances such as these the donee bears the burden of proof to establish the validity of the gift, even in situations in which the donee did not dominate the decedent’s will. Id. at 485. This rule was established to protect a donor from making a decision induced by a confidential relationship the donee possesses with the donor. Id. Again, the burden is a clear and convincing standard. Id.
The Supreme Court in Pascale v. Pascale, 113 N.J. 20, 31 (1998), stated that when a donor makes a gift to a donee that he/she is dependent upon, a presumption arises that the donor did not understand the consequences of his/her act. In these situations the donee must demonstrate that the donor had disinterested and competent counsel. Id. Likewise, undue influence is conclusive, when a mentally or physically weakened donor makes a gift without advice or a means of support, to a donee upon whom he/she depends. Id.
A confidential relationship can be found to exist when one is certain that the parties dealt on unequal terms. In re Stroming’s Will, 12 N.J. Super. 217, 224 (1951). The appropriate inquiry is if a confidential relationship existed, did the parties deal on terms and conditions of equality? Blake v. Brennan, 1 N.J. Super. 446, 453 (1948).
Suspicious circumstances are not required to create a presumption of undue influence with regard to inter vivos gifts and the presumption of undue influence is more easily raised in an inter vivos transfer. See Pascale, supra, 113 N.J. at 31; Bronson v. Bronson, 218 N.J. Super. 389, 394 (App. Div. 1987).
Generally, an adult is presumed to be competent to make an inter vivos gift. See Conners v. Murphy, 100 N.J. Eq. 280, 282 (E. & A. 1926); Pascale v. Pascale, 113 N.J. 20, 29 (1988). However, when a party alleges undue influence with regard to an inter vivos gift, the contesting party must prove undue influence existed or that a presumption of undue influence should arise. Pascale, supra, 113 N.J. at 30.
A presumption of undue influence arises when a confidential relationship exists between the donor and donee or where the contestant proves the donee dominated the Will of the donor. Id.; see also Seylaz v. Bennett, 5 N.J. 168, 172 (1950); In re Dodge, 50 N.J. 192, 227 (1967); Mott v. Mott, 49 N.J. Eq. 192, 198 (Ch. 1891); Oachs v. Stanton, 280 N.J. Super. 478 (App. Div. 1995) (holding that where a confidential relationship existed and that the donor did not rely upon the donee, a shifting of the burden was still appropriate); In re Neuman’s Estate, 133 N.J. Eq. 532, 534-35 (E. & A. 1943) (stating in a will context “Such burden does not shift merely because of the existence of a confidential relationship, without more, as in the matter of gifts inter vivos.”)
The In re Dodge court explained why a presumption of undue influence arises in a confidential relationship and stated: “In the application of this rule it is not necessary that the donee occupy such a dominant position toward the donor as to create an inference that the donor was unable to assert his will in opposition to that of the donee.” In Re Dodge, 50 N.J. 192 (1967). The court referenced a much earlier case in explaining the rule’s application:
"Its purpose is not so much to afford protection to the donor against the consequences of undue influence exercised over him by the donee, as it is to afford him protection against the consequences voluntary action on his part induced by the existence of the relationship between them, the effect of which upon his own interests he may only partially understand or appreciate." In re Dodge, supra, 50 N.J. at 228 citing Slack v. Rees, 66 N.J. Eq. 447, 449 (E. & A. 1904).
In sum, once it is proven that a confidential relationship exists the burden shifts to the donee to show by clear and convincing evidence that no undue influence was used. Although the case law indicates suspicious circumstances need not be shown the donee must show all was fair, open and voluntary, no deception was practiced and that the transaction was well understood. Pascale, supra, 113 N.J. at 31; see also In re Dodge, supra, 50 N.J. at 227; Seylaz, supra, 5 N.J. at 173. Furthermore, confidential relationships arise in all types of relationships “whether legal, natural or conventional in their origin, in which confidence is naturally inspired, or, in fact, reasonably exists.” In re Fulper’s Estate, 99 N.J. Eq. 292, 314 (Prerog. Ct. 1926); see Pascale, supra, 113 N.J. at 34. It appears confidential relationships exist in all cases in which:
"The relations between the [contracting] parties appear to be of such a character as to render it certain that they do not deal on terms of equality, but that either on the one side from superior knowledge of the matter derived from a fiduciary relation, or from over-mastering influence; or on the other from weakness, dependence or trust justifiably reposed, unfair advantage is rendered probable." Pascale, supra, 113 N.J. at 34, quoting In re Fulper, supra, 99 N.J. Eq. at 314; see also In re Dodge, supra, 50 N.J. at 228.
In determining whether the Defendant was the dominant person in the relationship there is no clear cut rule and instead the court must look to the particular circumstances of the matter. In re Fulper, supra, 99 N.J. Eq. at 315; Giacobbi v. Anselmi, 18 N.J. Super. 600, 616 (Ch. Div. 1952). In Fulper the court determined that a confidential relationship existed in a father-son relationship in which the father was advanced in age, weak and physically depended upon the son. Moreover, since the father sought the son’s assistance on business matters, lived with the son during the winter months and gave the son joint and several power over his checking account an actual repose of trust and confidence in the son was demonstrated. In re Fulper, supra, 99 N.J. Eq. at 318.
In the Giacobbi case, supra, a confidential relationship was determined to exist between a mother and daughter, even though the mother did not suffer from mental or physical infirmity. There the mother was found to be alert, active, and somewhat independent. However, she turned to the daughter for small issues and problems when they occurred. Giacobbi, supra, 18 N.J. Super. at 617.
Therefore, the burden can shift to Defendant to prove by clear and convincing evidence the transaction was not unduly influenced. Furthermore, where a donor makes an “improvident” gift to the donee upon whom she depends that strips the donor of all or virtually all their assets, as here, a presumption arises that the donor did not understand the consequences of their act. Pascale, supra, 113 N.J. at 31, citing Vanderbach v. Vollinger, 1 N.J. 481, 489 (1949). Under those circumstances the donee must establish that the donor had the advice of competent and disinterested counsel. Id. citing Vanderback, supra, 1 N.J .at 488-89.
Similarly, when a mentally or physically weakened donor makes a gift to a donee whom the donor is dependent upon, without advice, and the gift leaves the donee without adequate means of support, a conclusive presumption of undue influence arises. Id. citing Seylaz, supra, 5 N.J. at 173. However, when a donor is not dependent upon the donee “independent advice is not a prerequisite to the validity of an improvident gift even though the relationship between the parties is one of trust and confidence.” Id. citing Seylaz, supra, 5 N.J. at 173.
More details at http://www.njlaws.com/Undue-Influence-of-Attorney.htm
___________________
2. Right To Bail If Charged With A Criminal Offense
As set forth in NJ Practice, Vol. 31, Criminal Practice and Procedure, (1997), Sec 292, the defendant has a right to bail before conviction except if he/she is charged with a crime punishable by death and the prosecutor presents proof that there is a likelihood of conviction and reasonable grounds to believe that the death penalty may be imposed. 3 This means that absent exceptional circumstances the defendant has a right to pretrial liberty if the defendant provides surety in such amount as in the judgment of the court will insure the defendant's appearance at trial. 4 Stated in other terms, the right to bail means that in the absence of exceptional circumstances the defendant has the right to have the court set bail in an amount which does not exceed that which will insure defendant's appearance at trial, and if the defendant can "come up" with cash in that amount, or 10 percent of that amount if the defendant is eligible to be released on 10 percent cash bail, or a bond or other surety, then the defendant must be released.
BAIL PROCEDURES
Any person unable to post bail shall have his or her bail reviewed by a Superior Court judge not later than the next day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. A first motion for a reduction of bail shall be held by the Court no later than 7 days after it is filed.
More details at http://www.geocities.com/kenvnjlaw/bail_rightto.htm
__________________
3. Recent cases: Strip Search Improper. State v Harris 384 N.J. Super. 29 (App Div. 2006)
Police conduct up in the seizure of the baggies from defendant's mouth was lawful, but that the strip search at the police station was unreasonable and lacking in probable cause.
______________________
4. new webpages
Disfigurement or permanent injury required in car accident cases where the lawsuit threshold applies
In order to recover damages in most in a car Personal Injury case, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he/she sustained injuries which fit into one or more of the following categories: 1. Death; 2. Dismemberment; 3. Significant disfigurement or significant scarring; 4. Displaced fracture; 5. Loss of a fetus; 6. A permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical probability, other than scarring or disfigurement.
www.njlaws.com/disfigurement_or_permanent_injury_in_car_accident.htm
New webpage:
Court Rule 5:8. CUSTODY OF CHILDREN
http://www.njlaws.com/custody_of_children.htm
__________________________
Thank You! Thank You!
Thanks to all our clients who graciously referred their family, friends and associates to our agency. We build our firm on your positive comments. We couldn't do it without you!
Referrals are the lifeblood of any business, and there's no better source than you, our clients.
_____________________________
Thank you for reading our newsletter! God Bless America USA #1
Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.
2053 Woodbridge Ave.
Edison, NJ 08817
PHONE 732-572-0500 (Fax) 732-572-0030
website: www.njlaws.com
Speakers Bureau: The NJ State Bar Association established a community Speakers Bureau to provide educational programs to senior clubs, Unions and Middlesex County companies. During the past year, volunteer attorneys have provided Legal Rights Seminars to hundreds of seniors, business owners and their employees, unions, clubs and non-profit groups. If you are interested in having an attorney speak on Wills, Probate or Elder Law at an event, please call my office. These quality daytime educational programs will educate and even entertain. Clubs and companies are invited to schedule a free seminar during business hours.
"Celebrating more than 20 years of providing excellent service to clients 1985-2006" Former Prosecutor
This newsletter is produced to be sent electronically. If you know someone who would also like to receive this email newsletter, please have them email us at newsletter@njlaws.com.
Free T- shirts and car coffee holders to all current and past clients. Please come into office.
Editor's Note and Disclaimer: All materials Copyright 2006. You may pass along the information on the NJ Laws Newsletter and website, provided the name and address of the Law Office is included.
Always schedule an office appointment with an experienced attorney when you have a legal matter. The Rules of Court limit an attorney's ability to discuss matters over the phone. If you have legal questions, you should schedule an in- office consultation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)