Representative Cases
The firm’s attorneys have over the years represented individual clients before the courts of New Jersey in numerous significant cases. Here are some examples.
Francis G. Grather represented the widow and infant child of a decedent in a case involving a widow’s right to an elective share of her husband’s estate when the husband failed to provide adequately for her in his will and when she had signed a prenuptial agreement waiving her rights to his estate. The case was tried before a judge who ruled against the firm’s client. The firm appealed and the Appellate Division reversed, ruling that the firm’s client was not bound by the prenuptial agreement and that she was entitled to her elective share. Mr. Grather, utilizing his many years of trial experience was able to establish a trial record extremely favorable to the client, a record which enabled the Appellate Court to reverse the Trial Court and rule in the widow's favor. Once the widow was found to be entitled to her elective share, further litigation established her right to an elective share of $1,950,000 (an entitlement she had waived in exchange for $100,000 in the voided prenuptial agreement). The case can be found at In re Estate of Shinn, 394 N.J.Super. 55, 69-70, 925 A.2d 88 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 192 N.J. 595, 934 A.2d 637 (2007).
In the Marx case, Marx v. Marx 265 N.J. Super 418 (Ch. Div. 1993), Mr. Grather represented the wife of airline pilot who sought equitable distribution of her husband's airline pension. Her husband contended that the client's share of future pension benefit be "frozen" at the time of the divorce but payable at the time of receipt of the benefit. The husband's position gave no consideration to the "back loaded" features of the plan, which greatly increased the amount of the benefit based on the totality of years of service which included many years of the marriage. Mr. Grather, after consulting with a recognized expert in the field, and utilizing his legal experience and knowledge, was able to establish that the value of future benefit to be divided was the value of the benefit at retirement and the client's share was to be determined by a "coverture fraction" which enabled the client to equitably share in the "back loaded" features of the plan. The value of the client's share was greatly enhanced by the firm's effort. Most future benefits (including pension benefits) are now divided by the New Jersey Courts in accordance with a Marx formula.
Alan J. Baldwin completed a jury trial that lasted two weeks in which he represented one of the victims of an automobile accident. The case involved serious personal injuries and a death. There were significant insurance coverage issues. The jury returned a verdict against the defendant with sufficient insurance to pay a judgment in favor of the firms client.
Edward F. Broderick, Jr. represented the estate of a young woman who was tragically kidnapped and murdered from a local shopping mall. He as able to demonstrate that the girls death was caused by inadequate security at the mall. The case resolved before trial for a significant settlement.
Mr. Broderick also successfully represented an individual who was fired from his job because he had supported a female coworker who had been sexually harassed. The case was settled favorably after two days of trial.
Mr. Newmark represented a real estate broker being sued under the N.J. Consumer Fraud Act. The plaintiff's claims totaled several million dollars. After creating a favorable record during a trial that lasted almost three months, he appealed the case to the Appellate Division and finally to the N.J. Supreme Court, which reduced the damages significantly by holding that the seller of the property was liable for its proportionate share of the damages. This was an interpretation of the law that the Supreme Court had never made before in a case brought under the Consumer Fraud Act.
