NJSBA Family Law Section

 View Only

  • 1.  Summary Judgment

    Posted 01-09-2015 02:04 PM
    Greetings:  If anyone has ever filed a Summary Judgment Motion after the Plaintiff has rested during a Trial please contact me off list, would be greatly appreciated, thanks and Happy New Year to all!

    ------------------------------
    Jenny Berse Esq.
    Cranford NJ
    (855) FAM-LAW1
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Summary Judgment

    Posted 01-09-2015 02:23 PM
    Jenny,



    You would not file a MSJ after plaintiff has rested at trial. You would file a motion for involuntary dismissal/directed verdict, R. 4:37-2(b).



    Hanan


    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: Summary Judgment

    Posted 01-09-2015 02:45 PM
    THANK YOU!!!  You and this list are amazing and greatly appreciated!

    ------------------------------
    Jenny Berse Esq.
    Cranford NJ
    (855)FAM-LAW1
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 4.  RE: Summary Judgment

    Posted 01-09-2015 05:40 PM
    Quite welcome. If you need help with your motion, don't hesitate to let me know. Enjoy your weekend.



    Hanan


    Hanan M. Isaacs, Esq.4499 Route 27, Kingston, NJ
    t 609.683.7400
    f 609.921.8982
    [email protected]
    www.hananisaacs.com


    IMPORTANT NOTICE: This email transmission and any documents, files, or email messages attached to it, are confidential and protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. If you are not NJSBA_familylaw_9e56f746-e7d0-4677-9536-f0468b335205@ConnectedCommunity.org, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, then we hereby notify you that any review, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution, or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this email transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, then please immediately notify [email protected] by email -- or by fax to (609) 921-8982 -- or by telephone to (609) 683-7400 -- and then promptly delete the message and any attachments from your computer. Thank you.


    Original Message


  • 5.  RE: Summary Judgment

    Posted 01-09-2015 03:22 PM

    Agreed, by court rule, MSJ must be returnable 30 days before the start of trial.  R. 4:46-1.

     

    Clara S. Licata

    ------------------------------
    Law Office of
    Clara S. Licata, Esq.
    55 Harristown Rd.
    Suite 302
    Glen Rock, NJ 07452
    201-612-1170
    Fax 201-612-1179
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 6.  RE: Summary Judgment

    Posted 01-10-2015 06:57 PM
    Usually it's an oral motion after plaintiff rests. It's a good idea to prepare a letter brief in anticipation of making the motion to hand to the judge when you make your oral motion.


    Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone


    Original Message


  • 7.  RE: Summary Judgment

    Posted 01-27-2015 03:42 PM
    R. 4:37-2(b), more accurately, is the way I went. Summary Judgment motions have very strict pleading requirements. One uncontested fact only per numbered paragraph, for example. I did not call what I was applying for orally anything in particular, other than arguing that the relevant facts were not in dispute and that the action did not really measure up to partitioning action criteria.

    ------------------------------
    Curtis Romanowski Esq.
    Senior Attorney - Proprietor
    Metuchen NJ
    (732)603-8585
    ------------------------------


    Original Message


  • 8.  RE: Summary Judgment

    Posted 01-27-2015 03:35 PM
    I made such a motion orally, mid-trial several years ago in Middlesex County. It was an FD, non-married parties case with a child and home (allegedly as to the home) in common. After hearing my adversaries case, I concluded that there was no partitioning element, as was originally brought in the Equity Division, then combined with the FD matter prior to my watch on the case. The Judge said "Interesting" and set a briefing schedule. We prevailed. I must admit that it was a very sweet moment. There were no facts in dispute at that point relevant to the issue so it worked just fine.
    ------------------------------
    Curtis Romanowski Esq.
    Senior Attorney - Proprietor
    Metuchen NJ
    (732)603-8585
    ------------------------------


    Original Message