« Previous | Home | Next »
Posted On: July 16, 2010 by Stark & Stark

Stark & Stark Attorneys Obtain $1,200,000 Settlement for Bergen County Condominium in Construction Defect Case

Stark & Stark attorneys, Mark M. Wiechnik, David J. Byrne and Thomas J. Pryor have obtained a $1.2 million settlement for a condominium located in Bergen County, New Jersey after experiencing roof leaks, window deficiencies and other construction related issues. These problems began shortly after the unit owners were elected to the Board of Directors of the Association.

You can read more on the case here.

Posted by Stark & Stark | | Email This Post

Posted In: Community Associations, Litigating Claims, News

Bookmark and Share

« Previous | Home | Next »

Recent Updates

  • January 18, 2012 8:09 AM
    Design and Plan ImmunityThe immunity principle espoused by the Barney’s Furniture court (concluding that the city could not be held liable in damages for floods resulting from a gradually increasing functional incapacity of the sewer system) is codified as the planning and design immunity provision of the TCA. See N.J.S.A. 59:4-6.
  • January 13, 2012 8:58 AM
    When Can Individual Association Board Members Be Held Personally Liable For Actions of the Collective Board? Part 3New Jersey courts that have considered the application of the business judgment rule have concluded that the scope of judicial review of condominium association decisions is limited to a two-pronged test: (1) whether an association's action was authorized by statute or its own bylaws and, if so, (2) whether the action was fraudulent, self-dealing or unconscionable. Thanasoulis, supra, 110 N.J. at 655; see also Chin v. Coventry Square Condo, 270 N.J. Super. 323, 328-29, (App. Div. 1994); Siller, supra, 93 N.J. at 382; Papalexiou v. Tower West Condo, 167 N.J. Super. 516, 527 (Ch. Div. 1979).
  • January 11, 2012 8:01 AM
    Discretionary Immunity and Negligent OperationSubsection (a) concerns the "exercise of judgment or discretion" in making basic policy -- the type made at the planning, rather than the operational level of decision-making. Moreover, immunity is contingent upon proof that discretion was actually exercised at that level by an official who, faced with alternative approaches, weighed the competing policy considerations and made a conscious choice.
  • January 6, 2012 8:55 AM
    When Can Individual Association Board Members Be Held Personally Liable For Actions of the Collective Board? Part 2Since condominium associations are generally organized as non-profit corporations under N.J.S.A. 15A:1-1 et seq., the New Jersey Nonprofit Corporation Act is quite instructive on a Board member’s standard of care.
  • January 4, 2012 8:05 AM
    Inside the Tort Claims ActThe New Jersey Tort Claims Act (the “TCA” or the “Act”) provides that "a public entity is not liable for an injury" caused by an act or omission "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by this act." N.J.S.A. 59:2-1a. Under the TCA, immunity is the rule and liability is the exception. The TCA defines public entities to include counties and municipalities, and therefore townships also fall within the scope of the TCA. N.J.S.A. 59:1-3.
  • December 30, 2011 8:07 AM
    When Can Individual Association Board Members Be Held Personally Liable For Actions of the Collective Board? Part 1Like directors of corporations, members of association Boards enjoy various protections for the consequences of their business decisions. Essentially, in order for a Board member to be personally liable for an act of the Board, the Plaintiff would have to prove either (1) that the Board acted without authorization from the association’s governing documents, Condominium Act or other statute; or (2) that an authorized act of the Board was fraudulent, unconscionable or resulted in self-dealing. Generally, as long as a Board member acts in good-faith and makes informed decisions, he will be protected from personal liability by operation of the business judgment rule.
  • December 28, 2011 8:00 AM
    Can Public Entities and Planning Boards Be Held Liable for Negligently Approving Construction Plans or Wrongly Issuing Permits?The law in New Jersey is such that a public entity is not liable for an injury caused by the issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of, or by the failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend or revoke, any permit, license, certificate, approval, order, or similar authorization where the public entity or public employee is authorized by law to determine whether or not such authorization should be issued, denied, suspended or revoked.
  • December 23, 2011 8:30 AM
    The Perils of Overstating a Construction LienOften times, a subcontractor or general contractor may be left with no other option after attempting to collect funds from a general contractor or owner then to file a Construction Lien to collect these funds at some future time. The party filing the Construction Lien, however, should be careful to ensure that the Lien is not overstated and it is accurate in its entirety. While Construction Lien Law allows a contractor to file a Lien against a property, it is also favorable to the property owner if the Construction Lien is improperly filed, overstated, or contains incorrect information.
  • December 21, 2011 8:15 AM
    Can Municipalities and Building Inspectors Be Held Liable for Negligently Issuing Certificate of Occupancies?Many residents and laymen naturally assume that a municipality or building inspector that issues a certificate of occupancy should be held liable if they make a mistake or negligently issue the certificate. However, most people are surprised to learn that, as a matter of law, a municipality is not liable in tort for negligently granting a certificate of occupancy. In Fiduccia v. Summit Hill Constr. Co., 109 N.J. Super. 249 (Cty. Ct. 1970), the court has the occasion to address the very question of whether a municipality may be held liable to a landowner for negligence in granting a certificate of occupancy. The court concluded that it could not.
  • December 16, 2011 8:28 AM
    Validity of "Paid When Paid" ProvisionIn many construction contracts, the general contractor or the owner will often insert a “Paid When Paid” provision within the Contract which dictates when payment will be due to the general contractor or subcontractor. In the past, the Court’s had construed many of these “Paid When Paid” provisions as only controlling the timing of the payment to be made pursuant to the contract and not an absolute bar to payment being tendered.

Stark & Stark Web Sites