Attorneys And Staff At The Kridel Law Group
SOMMER V. KRIDEL, 74 N.J. 446, 378 A.2D 767 (1977)
A New Jersey Supreme Court case from 1970 – 1977 which matter is currently taught in every law school in the country as the leading case in the area of mandating upon a landlord the duty to mitigate its damages.
This is one of the seminal cases in New Jersey and now the country in landlord tenant law establishing that a lease was subject to contract law principals resulting in imposing a duty upon a landlord to mitigate its damages.
This case was heard upon Mr. Kridel’s seeking certification of same by the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey involving an issue of the highest significance to the State and ultimately the country.
EEOC V. ABC CORPORATION, JOHN DOES I-III ET. AL.
A large, complex sexual harassment suit. Mr. Kridel successfully obtained a complete dismissal in favor of the employer from the EEOC after almost eight (8) years in Federal Court before the Honorable Harold A. Ackerman with the Honorable Stanley R. Chesler acting as Magistrate in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey. Credit is afforded Joint Counsel, Collier, Jacob and Mills.
YACENDA V. ROUSE COMPANIES
We represented the plaintiff in this matter who was the tenant of approximately ten (10) leases at the Willowbrook Mall, owned by the defendant, The Rouse Company. This case is of significance since during the litigation and after extensive discovery the defendant refunded in excess of seven (7) figures of various rental overcharges as being mislabeled capital expenditures. Just prior to settlement, plaintiff raised issues as to the accountability of rentals from kiosks as either reducing all the tenant’s common area charges or in the alternative, re-establishing each tenant’s percentage of interest in the leased mall premises. It was argued that the kiosks, being leased premises, should diminish the size of the common areas.
APOLLO CHEMICAL V. CONTROL AND POWER SYSTEMS
This firm represented the Defendant Corporation, the individuals of which were alleged by plaintiff to have violated noncompetition employment agreements and the theft of trade secrets. This case was heard before the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, venued in Hudson County. The matter was heavily litigated with voluminous discovery and brought upon by an Order to Show Cause by the firm of Deldaio & Effinger. The matter was concluded by settlement after several years of litigation.
CONTROL AND POWER SYSTEMS V. ARCO PERFORMANCE (THE EQUIPMENT DIVISION OF ATLANTIC RICHFIELD)
This firm represented the plaintiff in a breach of contract case well in excess of seven (7) figures. The matter was settled after extensive discovery by the payment to plaintiff of its lost profits and the receipt of future business notwithstanding the litigation. Defendant was represented by Carpenter Bennett & Morrissey. This case was heard before the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, venued in Essex County.
MARY JANE (NAME BEING FICTITIOUS SO AS TO PROTECT HER IDENTITY) V. JOHN DOE, M.D. (NAME BEING FICTITIOUS SO AS TO PROTECT A SEALED SETTLEMENT)
This firm represented the plaintiff as Joint Counsel with the Law Firm of Michael A. Manna & Associates, P.C. alleging psychiatric malpractice against the defendant doctor for sexually abusing his patients. Prior to institution of the suit, both firms surreptitiously wired the Plaintiff and obtained a complete admission from the defendant. The matter was settled under seal for a substantial sum of money. The matter was later turned over to the Bergen County Prosecutor as the case was pursued in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, venued in Bergen County.
CAPITAL RESOURCES V. THOMAS ROGERS, ESQ. ET. AL.
This firm represented a secondary mortgage company who was defrauded by the defendant involved in a $55 million real estate scam. This firm’s client had loaned in excess of seven (7) figures to the Defendant. The matter was initiated by this Firm on an Order to Show Cause seeking temporary restraining orders and writs of attachment on all of defendant’s real estate. This matter was tried to conclusion and was heard before the Superior Court in the State of New Jersey, Chancery Division, venued in Passaic County. In addition to compensatory damages, the firm managed to obtain a judgment for $300,000.00 in punitive damages. The Law Firm of Poplar & Florio represented the Defendant.
TECHNIMETRICS, INC., A SUBSIDIARY OF KNIGHT-RITTER, INC. V. THE CARSON GROUP
This firm represented the defendant in this matter, an international stock surveillance corporation, who hired a former employee of Knight-Ritter to head its Chicago offices. Knight-Ritter brought this matter before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, venued in New York County, by way of Order of Show Cause and Verified Complaint, so as to prevent Carson Group from retaining the services of its employee, formerly from Knight-Ritter. The defendant was represented by Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson. The Order to Show Cause was denied in all respects and ultimately mutual releases were executed so that the employee could continue with the Carson Group without interference whatsoever from his former employer.
THE CARSON GROUP V. GEORGINSON COMPANY
This firm represented plaintiff in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, venued in New York County having brought an Order to Show Cause, Verified Complaint precluding one of Carson’s former employees from working on certain accounts, formerly serviced by The Carson Group and for other conjunctive relief. This matter was vigorously defended by the Law Firm of Piper & Marbury, on behalf of Georginson, even to the point of taking an emergent appeal to the New York Court of Appeals from a decision by the now Justice Beatrice Shainswit, then presiding in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The defendant’s appeal was denied. The Carson Group was able to obtain a competitive advantage by precluding one of Georginson’s employees from attending the Erie National Convention then being conducted in Florida.
EDITH PEPE V. STATE FARM INSURANCE, ITS AGENT DENIS A. DANKOSKY ET. AL.
This firm represented the plaintiff in an insurance malpractice claim against the agent of State Farm Insurance alleging that the broker had led the alleged insured to believe she had obtained a life insurance policy on her late husband. Notwithstanding the admission that Plaintiff had received a letter of nonissue from the insurance company and neither plaintiff nor the broker had ever bound the policy by the payment of any premium. This matter was tried to conclusion in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, venued in Passaic County and was granted a judgment in the full amount of the insurance plus pre-judgment interest totaling in excess of $200,000.00. The defendant appealed the lower Court and McCarter & English represented the defendant on the appeal. The lower courts verdict was affirmed and the appeal denied in all respects in favor of the plaintiff.
R & L INTERNATIONAL V. DIODE TRANSISTOR ET. AL.
This firm represented the plaintiff in the above matter which alleged that the defendant and its principal defrauded plaintiff by falsifying radio frequency transistors in an international transaction for an airport in Italy. The matter was tried to conclusion before the Honorable Judge Robert J. Passero, in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, venued in Passaic County, who in addition to awarding compensatory damages in excess of six (6) figures representing the cost of the mislabeled transistors as well as punitive damages, just under six (6) figures for the egregious conduct of the defendants. The Law Firm of Mandelbaum Salsburg Gold Lazris Discenza & Steinberg, PC originally represented the Defendant; however, the matter was tried by the then Charles J. Rohde, Esq., now the Honorable Charles J. Rohde.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK V. PEOPLES RESOURCES
The defendant was the largest video dating service in the City of New York with offices situate on 57th Street. This firm represented Peoples Resources for approximately ten (10) years and in particular, insulated them from the statutory requirements for social referral services by convincing the State Attorney Generals Office that Peoples Resources was not in fact engaging in social referral which in turn permitted them to charge the market rate as opposed to the statutory rate for their services. In addition, the Department of Consumer Affairs instituted a suit attempting to determine that Peoples Resources was engaged in the sale of future services and thus subject to New York City’s statute regarding same. This firm successfully concluded the matter in favor of our client. Outside of court, we represented the client as General Counsel hereto.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK V. TOGETHER
This firm represented Together, which was one of the largest national dating services. This firm acted as General Counsel and appeared on behalf of the client in Supreme Court of the State of New York and the Federal Courts of the State of New York on numerous litigated matters. During its representation, the State of New York sought to impose liability on the client for the back payment of sales taxes by claiming that dating services fell within the purview of the statute applying sales taxes to “informational services.” The firm represented client through audit, conciliation, the Tribunal through appeal at which point the State conceded in favor of Together.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK V. NORCOM COMMUNICATIONS
State of New York sought to subject the client as an excise tax pursuant to Section 183-e which applied to communication companies in general. The firm was able to differentiate the services provided by the client so as to avoid same from falling within the definitional section of the Statute and therefore freeing the client from payment of the tax.
GOLDMAN V. MARGOLIS
This matter was a contractual dispute between the parties in which this firm represented the defendant alleging that the contract negotiated and signed by the parties should not be enforced by reason of duress and/or undo influence. The matter originally rose as a result of the displeasure of the plaintiff in the distribution of an estate. This matter was tried to conclusion before a jury before the Honorable Isabel B. Stark in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, venued in Bergen County. Judgment was entered in favor of the firm’s client. The original amount of the estate was in the high six figure range.
ANTHONY RUSSO V. THE BOROUGH OF EDGEWATER, BURL MICHELSON, ET. AL.
This matter was a title dispute having resulted from this firm obtaining a judgment against several individuals for approximately $300,000.00, one of whom sold property to the Borough of Edgewater. Upon discovering same, this firm commenced litigation naming certain individuals as well as the Borough so as to realize its judgment by execution against the property as a result of its alleged lien on the property, then owned by the Borough. This matter was before the Honorable Gerald C. Escala in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, venued in Bergen County. This matter was settled favorably to this firm’s client in receiving settlement funds from the various clients represented by five (5) attorneys.
JAMES A. KRIDEL & ASSOCIATES V. CAPITAL RESOURCES, F.D.I.C., R.T.C. AND APPROXIMATELY 26 BANKS
This was an adversary proceeding against Capital Resources which had filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Court. The matter was venued before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey before the Honorable Daniel J. Moore and after his death, the Honorable Rosemary Gambardella. This Firm had handled thousands of foreclosures for Capital which remained unpaid pre-petition. The adversary proceeding sought administrative status of the claim involving charging and retaining liens. Included among the defendants were the F.D.I.C., the R.T.C. and approximately 26 independent financial institutions. Notwithstanding in excess of 28 law firms, this Firm prevailed and obtained a settlement on the day of trial in the high six (6) figures.
DRESHER V. LBJ REALTY V. OCWEN FEDERAL BANK
This is a current matter before the Honorable Clarkson S. Fisher, Jr. in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County. The issues are somewhat complex in that this Firm represents a lender known as LBJ Realty, whose mortgaged lien was inappropriately removed. Thereafter, the property was refinanced by OCWEN Federal Bank in excess of $350,000.00, when LBJ’s mortgage had an approximate balance of some $200,000.00. Upon learning of the inappropriate lien, this Firm filed a Notice of Motion which resulted in the court’s reinstating LBJ’s original lien, which had now moved from second position to that of first. The matter now before the court is the priority of the existing liens involving doctrines such as equitable subrogation, latches and general equity principles.
MR. & MRS. G. V. SAVE-A-TREE AND SCENIC LANDSCAPING
This is one of long line of cases in which this firm represented plaintiffs against contractors involving violations of the Home Improvement Act (N.J.A.C. 13:45a-16 et seq) which pursuant to Cox v. Sears are per se violations of the Consumer Fraud Act. This matter was settled for a substantial sum just prior to trial. Both these matters were before the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, Law Division venued in Bergen County. These cases emphasize that the Home Improvement Act includes services rendered in matters other than actual construction to include landscaping, lighting, tree services and other similar such improvements and additions to existing homes.
DANIEL HUQ V. HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTOR.
This is an ongoing matter presently before the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, Law Division, venued in Passaic County. This firm represents the plaintiff who engaged the services of the defendant construction company to construct a major addition and renovation to his residence. This firm named the individual principals of the corporate Defendant and has alleged violations of the Home Improvement Act and consequently the Consumer Fraud Act providing for treble damages and attorneys fees. The compensatory damages are in excess of six (6) figures. A jury trial has been set for June 2003.
A PENNSYLVANIA LEASING COMPANY (NAME BEING FICTITIOUS SO AS TO PROTECT ITS IDENTITY) V. AUTO LEASE 2000 AND EDWARD D.
This action was brought by a Pennsylvania leasing company against a New Jersey company and its principal, who this firm represented. Plaintiff brought serious allegations of intentional fraud in falsifying loan applications and otherwise fraudulently inducing plaintiff to buy its commercial leasing paper. This matter was tried to conclusion in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, Law Division, venued in Bergen County before the Honorable Naomi G. Eichen.
U.S. OF AMERICA, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE V. POLARDI
This matter was before the United States Tax Court in which this firm represented the defendant. The Defendant was previously married to the Chief of Police of a nearby city who had been convicted of tax evasion and fraud. Since the defendant was then his wife and had executed joint returns with the former Chief, the I.R.S., through appeals, sought to inculpate the spouse, represented by the firm, as jointly and severally liable for the aforesaid tax liability which was in the mid-six (6) figures. After extensive negotiations and discovery and submission of briefs, the I.R.S. conceded the case on the eve of trial so that the firm’s client prevailed based upon the defense provided by the Innocent Spouse Provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.
GORMAN V. PIZZERIA UNO
This firm represented the plaintiff in a substantial personal injury matter, the result of a slip and fall in the restaurant commonly known as Pizzeria Uno. The plaintiff was leaving the restaurant only to slip on an ice cube in one of the corridors. Plaintiff suffered severe injuries to his left knee upon which he had recently undergone arthroscopic surgery. The matter was before the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, Law Division, venued in Passaic County. The matter was settled for a substantial amount in excess of six (6) figures. Our adversary in this matter was Winter & Winter, PC.
REGAN V. REGAN
This was a contested matrimonial matter involving sophisticated and educated parties, business valuations, income determinations, imputed income, alimony, equitable distribution and the like. This matter was tried to conclusion in an eleven (11) day trial before the Honorable Kenneth A. Bloom in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Matrimonial Part, venued in Essex County. Our adversary in this matter was Franzblau & Dratch, PC.
U.S. OF AMERICA, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE V. MR. & MRS. G.
This matter involved a subsequent assessment by the I.R.S. of in excess of two (2) million dollars against the taxpayers for a 1986 transaction in which the taxpayers treated the gain on the sale of a corporation as capital gains. Thereafter, the buyer deducted a major portion of the selling price and designated same as payment for a non-competition obligation. The seller was a multi-billion dollar conglomerate known as W.P.P., Inc. This matter was handled in Appeals on Church Street in Manhattan by the then Chief of Appeals, Mr. Hagan. The matter was successfully negotiated and settled in Appeals for less than $50,000.00.
If you need assistance with a business or personal legal matter in New Jersey or New York, contact a business litigation lawyer at the Kridel Law Group.