Skip Navigation [You are reading this message either because you can not see our css files, or because you do not have a standards-compliant browser.]

Setting Legal Precedents

Major Court Decisions

The lawyers of the firm of Liebowitz, Liebowitz & Stern have been involved in numerous cases that have made new law more favorable to today's injured individuals and others. These cases are relied upon by all lawyers throughout the State of New Jersey. These reported decisions are available in all law libraries. These cases have been decided by Courts extending from the trial level all the way up to the New Jersey Supreme Court. For example:

Accidents, Negligence, Personal Injuries and Insurance Coverage

One of the leading accident cases in New Jersey was tried by a Liebowitz, Liebowitz & Stern attorney. The case established that an insurance company is now required to negotiate in good faith. If an insurance company fails to offer the limits of its insurance policy where it is reasonably obvious the value of the claim is greater than the limits of the policy, the insurance company will be held responsible to pay a jury award that is greater than the amount of the insurance policy limits. Rova Farms Resort v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474 (1974)

Husbands and wives can sue each other for injuries they sustain as a result of the other's negligence. Before this breakthrough decision, a passenger wife in an auto accident could not sue her negligent driver husband for money damages. Immer v. Risko, 56 N.J. 482 (1970)

Medical Malpractice

In a medical malpractice case on behalf of an infant, it was held that a physician's testimony as an expert witness is admissible in evidence even if the physician's testimony relies on facts not in the medical records. Vitrano v. Schiffman, 305 N.J. Super 572 (App. Div. 1997)

Where a patient's x-ray was not read properly, the Court held that a healthcare facility could not hire someone else to read an x-ray and then attempt to make them solely responsible for the misreading of that x-ray. Hiring an independent contractor and delegating work to them will not allow the healthcare facility to escape liability for money damages. Marek v. Professional Health Services, Inc., 179 N.J. Super 433 (App. Div. 1981), certification granted, 88 N.J. 470 (1981), appeal dismissed, 93 N.J. 232 (1983)

When our client, who was on his way to the hospital by ambulance, was allowed to fall off a stretcher, the Court decided that an expert witness is not required to prove that a paramedic should have re-fastened a patient's chest strap on the stretcher to prevent him from falling off, and that an expert was not required to establish that it was the likely cause of the patient striking his head. A jury can infer the negligence and injury from the events of the case and award damages for pain and suffering. Leroy Lauder, et al. v. Teaneck Volunteer Ambulance Corps et. al., 368 N.J. Super. 320 (App. Div. 2004)

Divorce, Family Law and Malpractice

In this divorce action where Liebowitz, Liebowitz & Stern represented the husband, the result achieved for the client was so successful that the wife sued her attorney for legal malpractice. The Court said such a lawsuit was allowable even though the matrimonial settlement was fair, as a jury could find that her lawyer's incompetence prevented a better settlement than the one he negotiated with our office. Ziegelheim v. Apollo, 128 N.J. 250 (1992)

Divorce, Family Law and Right to Privacy

In a major divorce case where we represented the wife seeking substantial equitable distribution of marital assets, the Court made major rulings compelling the production of financial information. When requested by a third party from whom information is sought, the Court may make any Order that justice requires to protect the person and provide adequate protection against unwarranted intrusion and invasion of the rights of the third party. In this divorce case, a husband's brother's business was protected by the Court from having to provide confidential financial information. Berrie v. Berrie, 188 N.J. Super 274 (Ch. Div. 1983)

Liebowitz, Liebowitz & Stern represented the wife in a case where the husband owned real estate before the marriage and the Court decided that a husband's commercial property, which was purchased before the marriage, was a premarital asset that increased in value because of his wife's indirect efforts toward its growth and development. Those efforts included taking care of the marital home, working part-time and raising their child, thereby allowing the husband to devote his time to the business. The property was ruled, therefore, subject to equitable distribution. Valentino v. Valentino, 309 N.J. Super 334 (App. Div. 1998)

In this divorce action where Liebowitz, Liebowitz & Stern represented the wife and the husband was a 50% shareholder in a closely held corporation, the Court in considering the wife's equitable interest, allowed an examination of the corporation's entire structure and condition. Gerson v. Gerson, 148 N.J. Super 194 (Ch. Div.1977)

In this case, Liebowitz, Liebowitz & Stern's client, the wife, moved out because she could not get along with her mother-in-law, who moved in. The Court, found the wife was entitled to maintenance and support payments from her husband, even though the wife left. Koch v. Koch, 95 N.J. Super 546 (App. Div. 1967)

Franchise and Contract Law

Liebowitz, Liebowitz & Stern represented a franchisee who owned various Dunkin' Donuts outlets. In this case the Court decided that unless there is fraud, accident, mistake, duress or undue influence, a Court of Equity cannot alter the terms of a contract. If a franchisee under-reports sales and the contract calls for the franchisee to give up the business as a result of the under-reporting, without being paid for the value of the business the franchisee is giving up, the Courts will enforce the contract. Dunkin' Donuts of America v. Middletown Donut Corp., 100 N.J. 166 (1985)

Municipal Sunshine Law

In a case where Liebowitz, Liebowitz & Stern represented the Mayor of Cliffside Park, the Court ruled that the intent of our Sunshine Law is to allow officials to meet privately with counselors and advisors in order to discuss policy, formulate plans of action and generally to have an exchange of ideas. An example of such an exemption is a Mayor meeting with department heads or advisory boards. Woodcock v. Calabrese, 148 N.J. Super 526 (Ch. Div. 1977)

Discrimination

A vascular technician with several physical and mental disabilities was represented by a Liebowitz, Liebowitz & Stern attorney in pursuit of a handicapped designation. The requirement that New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination ("LAD") should continue to follow Federal Civil Rights law standards in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was reinforced in this case. The Court addressed whether or not an individual using illegal drugs at work can be construed to be "handicapped" under the LAD. Bosshard v. Hackensack University, 345 N.J. Super 78 (App. Div. 2001)

Government Taking

Tubular Service Corp., a business located on a major Hudson County thoroughfare, was represented by Liebowitz, Liebowitz & Stern. Trucking access to Tonnele Avenue in Hudson County was the issue. It was decided by the Court that where a land owner has an easement granting access to a public highway that is next to his property, he cannot be deprived of usage of the roadway without the government providing fair compensation. However, erection of center barrier curbs does not constitute a taking of property requiring eminent domain compensation. Tubular Service Corp. v. Com. State Highway Dept., 77 N.J. Super 556 (App. Div. 1963), affirmed 40 N.J. 331 (1963)

Right to Privacy

The protecting of an individual's confidentiality is enforced by the Court. Even in a civil case, the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of investigative material outweighs any private interest of disclosure, absent fraud, malice or willful misconduct on the part of the State. A bank could not compel the State to reveal the fruits of its investigation regarding a private citizen. River Edge Savings and Loan Ass'n v. Hyland, 165 N.J. Super 540 (App. Div. 1979), cert. den. 81 N.J. 58 (1979)

Consumer Fraud

This case concerned a minor omission by a home improvement company without the element of fraud. Nevertheless, the Court held that even the smallest injury caused to a consumer will be vindicated by our Courts. New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act provides consumer protection with triple damages and attorney fees for an unlawful practice including the smallest loss, as long as the loss can be determined. If the wrong committed by the defendant only results in incurring attorney fees, that is sufficient as a loss. BJM Insulation & Const. v. Evans, 287 N.J. Super 513 (App. Div. 1996)

Criminal Law

A Bergen County lawyer charged with a crime was represented by Liebowitz, Liebowitz & Stern. The Court decided that Grand Jury testimony of a witness cannot be used as direct evidence against a defendant. The defendant must be allowed the opportunity to question testimony against him, so that direct use of prior grand jury testimony of a witness is a violation of the defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses against him. State v. Boratto, 80 N.J. 506 (1979)