New Jersey Attorney Law Review Blog

New Jersey has strict rules when it comes to home improvement contracts in excess of $500, the overriding purpose of which is to protect consumers from unscrupulous contractors.  The New Jersey Administrative Code § 13:45A-16.2(12)(i)-(vi) sets forth the requirements necessary in a home improvement contract.  A violation of these written requirements is a violation of the statute. N.J.A.C. 13:45A-16.2(12) states in pertinent part:  All home improvement contracts for a purchase price in excess of $500, and all changes in the terms and conditions thereof shall be in writing.  Home improvement contracts which are required by this subsection to be in writing, and all changes in the terms and conditions thereof, shall be signed by all parties thereto, and shall clearly and accurately set forth in legible form and in understandable language all terms and conditions of the contract, including but not limited to, the following: The legal name and business address of the s

In an unpublished decision issued on May 21, 2013, a New Jersey appeals court held that a landlord was not entitled to evict his residential tenant, an 89-year old blind man with diabetes, because of the tenant's refusal to sign a new lease.  Ochieng v. Bloss, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket No. A-0703-12T2 . This decision reversed the trial court's ruling which was in favor of the landlord. The appeals court concluded that the landlord failed to follow the required notice procedures under the New Jersey Anti-Eviction Act, and that therefore the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.  The appellate reversal is a bittersweet victory for the tenant though, because the landlord can re-file a new complaint once he has issued the proper pre-lawsuit notices. Walter Bloss, the tenant in this case, is a disabled veteran suffering from diabetes and heart problems. He is also legally blind, and was 89-years old at the time his landlord fi

I couldn't find a better example to illustrate the problem with our judicial system.  In a recently unpublished decision of the New Jersey Appellate Division,   Hernandez v. North Jersey Neurosurgical Associates , Superior Court of New Jersey, Docket No. A-0890-12T2, the appeals court reversed a Hudson County trial judge's decision to enter default against a medical doctor whose attorney was unavailable to appear for the trial call because he was scheduled to be on trial in another case in Monmouth County, NJ . Demonstrating a rigid approach to justice, the trial court refused to postpone a trial date in this medical malpractice case due to the unavailability of one of the defendant doctor's attorneys, preferring instead to punish the doctor by entering default against him and essentially leaving the doctor in no-man's land. In this case, the attorney had designated himself as the doctor's trial attorney in accordance with NJ Court Rule 4:25-4 , meaning that