Cases
Representative Cases: Wade v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 746 F. Supp. 493 (D.N.J 1993)
Civalier v. Estate of Trancicco, 138 N.J. 52 (1994)
Carvalho v. Toll Bros., 278 N.J. Super. 451 (1995)
Dombrowski v. City of Atlantic City, 308 N.J. Super. 459 (App. Div. 1998)
Hurley v. Atlantic City Police Dept., 174 F. 3d 95 (3d Cir. 1999)
Significant Representative Matters: Sarno v. Raytheon, Civil Action No. 04-cv-5942 (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey). Successfully represented Raytheon, one of the five largest defense contractors in the world, on a breach of contract action by a Lockheed Martin engineer who was recruited to work on high-level government defense projects.
Boody v. Township of Evesham, Civil Action No. 90-5077 (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey). Plaintiff was a Cherry Hill police officer who was arrested by the defendant officers of the Township of Evesham Police Department during investigation into a suspected sexual assault that took the officer into the neighboring township. Plaintiff filed a 1983 action. After 10 days of trial in federal court in Trenton, New Jersey, a defense verdict was successfully secured.
Manno v. Atlantic City, ATL-L-2897-88 (N.J. Superior Court, Atlantic County 1992). Plaintiff, a civilian who was the secretary to the Chief of the Atlantic City Police Department was involved in a motor vehicle accident with Atlantic City police officers, who were responding with operating lights
siren to an emergency. Plaintiff alleged significant physical
cognitive impairment as a result of the serious collision. After a 3-week trial in Atlantic City, a defense verdict was secured, which was upheld on appeal.
Civalier v. Estate of Trancucci, 138 N.J. 52 (1994). This was a l
mark case involving significant Tort Claims Act issues. Specifically, the court in substantially exp
ed the overall scope
application of Tort Claims Immunity. A panel truck
a car collided at an intersection. Three adults in the car died,
a minor passenger
the truck driver were injured. A stop sign that was ordinarily posted at the corner on the road traveled by the car was missing. The panel truck driver knew that a stop sign regulated the intersection
assumed that he had the right of way. Suits were filed that charged appellant drivers, convenience store, l
scape contractors,
respondent public entities with causing the accident. The trial court granted motion for summary judgment because defendants were immune from liability under N.J. Stat. Ann. 59:4-5. The accident survivors, decedents' estates, drivers, convenience store
l
scape contractors sought review of the order of the Superior Court, Appellate Division, which affirmed the grant of defendant public entities' motion for summary judgment in an action arising out of an automobile accident allegedly caused by a missing traffic sign. The Supreme Court of New Jersey vacated the orders
rem
ed for further proceedings. The Court held that the case presented a triable issue of independent negligence under the New Jersey Tort Claims
that respondents could be held liable for failure to replace the stop sign if a motorist's reliance on the previous presence of the sign caused the injuries
if it was shown that respondents had actual or constructive notice that the stop sign was missing.
Carvalho v. Toll Bros., 278 N.J. Super. 451 (1995). This case dramatically exp
ed the scope of duties owed by a design professional. Plaintiff's decedent, a general contractor workman, was crushed to death while working in a sewer installation trench. Defendant engineer had a supervisory role on the project. Defendant designed the sewer line plans
was aware of the danger but did not warn decedent. The Appellate Court held that, even though defendant did not have a contractual obligation to inspect for safety hazards, he nevertheless owed the decedent a duty to take some reasonable action to prevent decedent's death because defendant had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition of the trench. Successful in reversing a finding by the court of an indemnity obligation of his client, Toll Brothers, to the engineer.
Dombrowski v. City of Atlantic City, 308 N.J. Super. 459 (App. Div. 1998). Plaintiff was crossing an intersection in Atlantic City when he was struck by a bus. He filed an action against the bus operator
the City of Atlantic City, which was alleged to have improperly designed
maintained the cross walk at the intersection. Represented the City of Atlantic City in the matter. Plaintiff's injuries were catastrophic. Plaintiff presented a $3 million dem
. Following an eleventh-hour settlement by the co-defendant bus operator, the case was tried. Successful in securing a favorable liability verdict on a severely reduced damages award.
Hurley v. Atlantic City Police Dept., 174 F. 3d 95 (3d Cir. 1999). L
mark decision involving novel issues concerning the scope of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination
its application to individual defendants. Plaintiff, a female Atlantic City police officer, brought a sexual discrimination claim against the defendants under a variety of statutory theories, including 1983, Title VII, NJLAD,
CEPA arising out of her allegedly hostile work environment
intentional sexual discrimination against her
retaliatory action taken against her
quid pro quo sexual harassment. In addition to the Police Department, defendants included plaintiff's supervisor
the Police Chief. Represented the Police Chief in the matter. After a trial extending more than 4 months, the jury found the Supervisor
Department liable. A defense verdict was entered in favor of our client. The case was appealed to the Third Circuit where, following two separate sessions of oral argument, an extensive opinion was issued interpreting, for the first time, a variety of aspects of the NJLAD, including st
ards applied to determine individual liability.
Price v. Thrall Trucking Company, New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No.: MID-L-7493 97. Following plaintiff's rejection of an offer to resolve the litigation for the policy limit, obtained a defense verdict that was upheld on appeal. The case involved an individual in a bucket hoisted above Route 9 in order to rewire the traffic lights hanging over an intersection. A truck driver was driving down the street in the lane in which the individual was working. The truck driver struck the bottom of the bucket, causing the individual to be thrown from the bucket. He sustained catastrophic brain injury. Represented the trucking company in the matter, which was insured under a single limit policy of $750, 000.
Beebe v. Atlantic Community College, U.S. District Court, Civ. Action No. 99-cv-3387 (JAP), October, 2001. This case was brought by several professors at the Atlantic Community College who taught in the Casino Career Institute located there. Plaintiffs raised numerous allegations, including discrimination based upon union affiliation
gender. Mr. Goldstein was successful in having the case dismissed through Summary Judgment.
Lewis v. City of Salem, U.S. District Court, Civ. Action No. 00-cv-1181 (JAP), January 23, 2002. This case involved a police search of a home for drugs. Plaintiffs subsequently filed claims against the Salem County Police Department
individual defendants alleging violations under 1983. Successfully argued for Summary Judgment, resulting in dismissal of the action. The Judge agreed that probable cause was present for the plaintiff's arrest
, therefore, that there could be no constitutional or statutory violation. With regard to the claims against the individual officers, the Judge relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on qualified immunity in Saucier v. Katz, 2001 U.S. Lexis 4644 (decided June 18, 2001). Since there was probable cause to arrest
charge the Plaintiffs, the Court could not proceed further under the Saucier analysis
dismissed these claims as well.
Padilla v. Cherry Hill Township, 110 Fed. Appx. 272 (3rd Cir. 2004). This case involved a rather bizarre 1983 claim filed by two plaintiffs, one of whom became the subject of a complete mobilization of the Township's police force that included the deployment of the SWAT team. It had been alleged that the Plaintiff-suspect was heavily armed
had made a series of 911 calls threatening to kill every police officer on the force. It was subsequently determined that the Plaintiff had not been the individual who made the threatening calls, but not before the Department's Tactical Response Unit stormed Plaintiffs' apartment. One of the Plaintiffs, an elderly Hispanic woman who spoke little English, was tragically injured while trying to escape from a fourth floor balcony to the floor below in order to avoid what she believed was an attack on her life following a st
off between the police
the Plaintiff-suspect. Plaintiffs alleged that the police officers,
a dispatcher, violated their constitutional rights
that the Township
Police Department failed to properly train the individuals. In the face of seven figure claims, secured Summary Judgment on behalf of the Township dismissing the entire action. Following argument before the Third Circuit, the decision was affirmed.
Mianulli v. Old Bridge Township, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, May, 2005. In this matter, Plaintiff, a newly hired civilian dispatcher, filed a Complaint against Old Bridge Township charging reverse discrimination, harassment,
violations of the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (our whistle-blower statute). The dispatcher had been terminated following the end of a 6-month probationary period. Represented Old Bridge Township, its Mayor
Police Chief. Following discovery
in the face of a substantial settlement dem
, in 2004, successfully extricated the clients from the litigation through the filing of a Summary Judgment Motion. During argument, the Court found a complete absence of pretext with regard to the Township's decision to fire the Plaintiff for poor performance. The Plaintiff appealed the decision
the Appellate Division affirmed the grant of Summary Judgment.
Cherry Hill Towers, LLC v. Cherry Hill Township, U.S. District Court, Civ. Action No. 03-4744 (JEI), January 6, 2006. In this matter, Plaintiff property owner filed a 42 U.S.C.S. 1983 suit against defendants, a New Jersey township, its code enforcement department,
the department's director, alleging that defendants had violated its constitutional rights when the Township delayed issuing construction permits for a proposed renovation project. Plaintiff argued that the delays were caused by its failure to utilize union labor for the project at a cost of millions of dollars in a Township which was staunchly pro-union
allegedly had close personal
political ties to various building trades. The owner also asserted several state law claims. In the United States District for the District of New Jersey, the Court granted Summary Judgment application, accepting arguments that delays in issuance of building permits were occasioned by the construction official's desire to ensure that the Plaintiff's architectural plans were in strict conformity with the Barrier Free Sub code (dealing with compliance with h
icapped regulations in apartment buildings) rather than any intent to retaliate against the owner for its non-union work force.
Carmichael v. Pennsauken Township Board of Education, U.S. District Court, Civ. Action No. 05-513 (RMB), November 27, 2006. This case involved a claim by a coach
school teacher in the Pennsauken school district for violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination
the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act,
deprivation of First Amendment rights. Specifically, Plaintiff claimed that a student physically threatened him on the basis of his race. He reported the incident on several occasions, but the conduct of the student supposedly continued through June 2003. As a result of these complaints, Plaintiff took the position that he was harassed
retaliated against by his employer. The harassment included his failure to be hired as a varsity head track coach, a position that he had held for the District in the past. Represented the Pennsauken Township Board of Education
its high school principal. The case was dismissed through Summary Judgment. The Court rejected plaintiff's arguments that his federal civil rights were violated either under a First Amendment or Substantive Due Process analysis. It also agreed with arguments that Mr. Carmichael's contention that he was exposed to a series of retaliatory actions for reporting,
then complaining about, the threatening phone calls, was completely unsubstantiated.
Nicolosi Enterprises v. Township of West Deptford, Superior Court, Atlantic county, February 2, 2007. This case was a prerogative writs complaint involving public contracts law. Plaintiff alleged that RFQs had been inappropriately submitted by concessionaires vying for food
beverage contracts with the Township of West Deptford for its summer entertainment series. Aggressively moved for dismissal of the case on three separate occasions. Each time the law suit was dismissed, but the Court continuously permitted plaintiff the right to amend its pleading to pursue new theories. Ultimately, the dismissal was finalized, completely exonerating the Township, its Mayor, Town Council members
the Township Administrator.
Published Works: Employment Law H
book, Co-Author, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006
Employment Law, Liability Risks
Ethics, Insurance Society of Philadelphia, New Jersey
Employment Law Outline: Overview of Federal
NJ Statutes
Case Law, Co-Author, August 14, 2002
Constitutional Torts Against Public Entities, Burlington County Joint Insurance Fund Presentation, July 12, 2002
Architectural, Engineering & Construction Law Seminar, Co-Author, Employment Law section for CUH2A, Princeton Architectural Firm, May 2, 2002
New Jersey Finds Coverage For Environmental Claims For Groundwater Contamination, Co-author, Defense Digest, Vol. 2, No. 9, 1996
New Jersey Decides Key Areas of Coverage for Environmental Insurance, Co-author, Defense Digest, Winter 1993/1994
Rush v. Savchuk-Assertion of Quasi in Rem Jurisdiction Under Rule of Seider v. Roth Held Violative of Due Process, 25 Vill. Law Review 811 (1980)
