Ansell Grimm

Ansell.Law Attorneys Secure Victory for Firm Client on Administrative Expense Claim in Bankruptcy

Ansell Grimm May 19, 2025

Ansell.Law Shareholder Anthony J. D’Artiglio and Associate Nicole A. Benis successfully secured a victory for a client in the United States Bankruptcy Court District of New Jersey, ensuring the client was awarded an administrative expense claim for a portion of unpaid rent due under a commercial lease over the United States Trustee’s objection. A Landlord of a commercial building in Monmouth County was owed significant monies from the Debtor for rent, late fees and interest on unpaid rent, utilities, trash removal, and maintenance of the commercial property. The Debtor filed a Voluntary Petition for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and failed to pay post-petition rent obligations. Furthermore, the Chapter 7 Trustee did not seek to reject the lease in a timely manner and did not pay any rent obligations post-petition.

Because the Trustee did not reject the lease, the bankruptcy estate continued to benefit from access to the property and the option to sell or assume the lease without paying post-petition rent pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3). This severely disadvantaged the Landlord, being unable to relet the space due to the automatic stay while not collecting any rent for the property.

Ansell argued that, under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, “there shall be allowed administrative expenses…including…the actual, necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate.” By providing a benefit to the Trustee and bankruptcy estate (i.e., use and occupancy of the building) without receiving payment in return, the Landlord was entitled to an administrative expense claim to preserve its interests. The attorneys further disputed the Trustee’s argument that 11 U.S.C. § 726(a)(1) barred payment of an administrative expense claim, arguing to the Court that such a result is discordant with 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3) which requires the Trustee to pay all amounts due and owing under the lease unless and until rejection of the lease.

Following a hotly contested hearing before Chief Bankruptcy Judge Christine M. Gravelle, U.S.B.J., the Court agreed that the Trustee could not avoid the obligations set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3) if the Trustee does not timely reject the lease, even if the Trustee later believes that the lease did not provide any benefit to the estate. In short, the Court reasonably agreed that it is not a Landlord’s burden to subsidize a bankruptcy by receiving no payment while a Trustee waits to determine whether to assume or reject a lease.

As a result of D’Artiglio and Benis’ zealous advocacy, the Landlord was awarded a substantial administrative expense claim for post-petition pre-rejection rent and additional rent due and owing according to the lease.

If you have questions about this case or other bankruptcy law matters, please contact Anthony D’Artiglio, Nicole Benis, or your Ansell.Law attorney for assistance.

Ansell.Law Commercial Real Estate Attorney Melanie Scroble Honored With Leadership Award From J.G. Petrucci Company

Ansell Grimm May 16, 2025

On April 3, 2025, Ansell.Law shareholder and commercial real estate attorney Melanie Scroble added to her already impressive list of professional recognitions when she was honored as “Attorney of the Year” by J.G. Petrucci Company, a multi-state developer and owner of commercial, industrial, and residential properties throughout the Northeast.

Scroble received her award at Petrucci’s 2025 Leadership Awards Dinner held at the Palace at Somerset Park. The awards celebrate the achievements of outstanding leaders – attorneys, engineers, brokers, bankers, and others – who made a difference for company projects in 2024.

Presenting Scroble with her award, Joni Elekes, Director of Property Management at Petrucci, described her as “an amazing attorney who is outstanding and inspiring. She is a remarkable professional who expertly handles all of our retail leases.” Elekes continued, “It has been a privilege to work with her as she consistently demonstrates exceptional responsiveness, meticulous attention to detail, and dedication to treat every lease and amendment with the utmost care. And not to mention, she is a bad ass woman!”

Ansell.Law is proud of Scroble’s many accomplishments and congratulates her on this well-deserved honor.

New Guidance Makes Clear That the Use of AI in Hiring and Employment Can Lead to Violations of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination

Ansell Grimm April 23, 2025

By Barry M. Capp

Sifting through a mountainous stack of resumes and cover letters, conducting tedious and time-consuming screening interviews, and then more rounds of interviews – such is the life of a company’s hiring manager and anyone else charged with finding the right candidate for an open position. It is, therefore, unsurprising that employers and third-party staffing services have rapidly adopted artificial intelligence (AI) to streamline the search and hiring process and make it more likely to lead to the right hire.

But just because an algorithm or other automated decision-making technology, rather than a human, evaluates candidates, it does not mean employers have a “get out of discrimination free” card. Discriminatory impacts and outcomes arising from using AI can run afoul of federal, state, and local laws that prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment practices.

Proliferation of State Legislation Governing Use of AI Hiring Technologies

Concerns that AI tools and the algorithmic decision-making at their core can lead to discriminatory impacts and outcomes have led to a proliferation of laws, regulations, and ordinances focused specifically on establishing new anti-discrimination protections or applying existing ones to employers’ use of AI in hiring and employment decisions.

Illinois, Colorado, and Utah are among the jurisdictions that followed New York City’s lead in imposing new requirements and limitations on employers’ use of AI. The City’s Local Law 144 was also the model for two bills that have been proposed in New Jersey and one in New York State that establishes rules for using certain automated employment decision tools. Those bills, similar to ones introduced in 2023, have yet to become law.

New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination Applies to Use of AI in Hiring Practices

While the Garden State has yet to adopt legislation specifically addressing the use of AI in hiring, the state’s attorney general and Division of Civil Rights (DCR) have made it clear that the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) prohibits “algorithmic discrimination” arising from the use of automated decision-making tools “in the same way it has long applied to other discriminatory conduct.”

In their “Guidance on Algorithmic Discrimination and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination,” released on January 9, 2025, the attorney general and DCR cite multiple studies and discuss several ways the use of automated decision-making tools “can create classes of individuals who will be either advantaged or disadvantaged in ways that may exclude or burden them based on their protected characteristics.”

Notably, the guidance emphasizes, “[a] covered entity can violate the LAD even if it has no intent to discriminate, and even if a third-party was responsible for developing the automated decision-making tool.” Discriminatory outcomes, rather than intent, are all that matters: “When employers… use automated decision-making tools, they may violate the LAD if those tools result in disparate treatment based on a protected characteristic or if those tools have a disparate impact based on a protected characteristic.”

Similarly, according to the guidance, “LAD also prohibits algorithmic discrimination when it precludes or impedes the provision of reasonable accommodations, or of modifications to policies, procedures, or physical structures to ensure accessibility for people based on their disability, religion, pregnancy, or breastfeeding status.”

How AI Can Lead To Unlawful Employment Discrimination

As the guidance discusses, several AI touchpoints – design, training, and deployment – can lead to prohibited discriminatory impacts or outcomes in hiring:

Bias in Design

When designing an automated decision-making tool, a developer may make decisions that can either intentionally or inadvertently skew the tool and lead to prohibited biases. Choices regarding the tool’s output, the model or algorithms it uses, and the inputs it evaluates can introduce bias into the automated decision-making tool. If the historical data used by an algorithm contains biases, the AI will replicate and perpetuate them.

Bias in Training

Once designed, an AI tool needs to be “trained” before it can be deployed. Training involves exposing the tool to training data from which the tool learns correlations or rules. A developer can either create a new dataset to train an automated decision-making tool or refine and reformat a pre-existing dataset. The guidance explains, “[t]he training data may reflect the developer’s own biases, or it may reflect institutional and systemic inequities. The tool can become biased if the training data is skewed or unrepresentative, lacks diversity, reflects historical bias, is disconnected from the context the tool will be deployed in, is artificially generated by another automated decision-making tool, or contains errors.

Discrimination in AI Deployment

Once deployed, an AI tool can make decisions that constitute algorithmic discrimination for many reasons. It can be used to purposefully discriminate, “for example, if the tool is used to assess members of one protected class but not another.” If an AI tool makes decisions it was not designed to assess, its deployment may amplify any bias and reflect systemic inequities that exist outside of the tool. In some instances, deployment may expose biases that were not apparent during design and testing.

What’s Next for Employers That Use AI in Hiring

As often happens with rapid technological advances, the law governing AI’s use in hiring is playing catch-up, and employers must navigate a patchwork of evolving rules of the road that creates a host of compliance and operational challenges. The guidance strongly advises employers to take affirmative steps to protect themselves, applicants, and employees from discriminatory outcomes. Specifically:

“It is critical that employers, housing providers, places of public accommodation, and other covered entities—as well as the developers and vendors of automated decision-making tools used by these entities—carefully consider and evaluate the design and testing of automated decision-making tools before they are deployed, and carefully analyze and evaluate those tools on an ongoing basis after they are deployed. Doing so is necessary to decrease the risk of discriminatory outcomes and thereby decrease the risk of possible liability under the LAD.”

If you have questions or concerns about your company’s use of AI in hiring and employment practices, please contact Barry Capp at Ansell.Law.

Gabriel Blum Named Among Top 40 Under 40 by The National Trial Lawyers

Ansell Grimm April 16, 2025

Ansell.Law is pleased to announce that Gabriel R. Blum was selected for inclusion in The National Trial Lawyers Top 40 Under 40. The National Trial Lawyers is an invitation-based organization that recognizes and promotes excellence in the legal profession. “The Top 40 Under 40” is bestowed upon a select group of attorneys who exhibit superior qualifications, exemplary trial results, and exceptional leadership.

Blum is an associate in the Firm’s Litigation Department who leverages his persuasive advocacy skills to advance his clients’ interests across a broad spectrum of complex commercial disputes, including matters involving breach of contract, business torts, shareholder disputes, real estate disputes, and breach of fiduciary duty. Blum has nearly a decade of experience handling complex civil matters from case inception through trial and appeal.

Blum is a graduate of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. He is licensed to practice law in New Jersey and New York and is admitted to various federal courts in both states.

*No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey or the American Bar Association.

Don’t Drop The Contractual Ball When Entering Into Agreements With Family Members Or Friends — Put It In Writing!

Ansell Grimm April 1, 2025

By Gabriel R. Blum

Last year, NFL quarterback Baker Mayfield signed a $100 million, three-year contract with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Undoubtedly, that agreement was thoroughly and thoughtfully negotiated and then memorialized in a detailed, written, legally binding, and enforceable contract. But it appears that Mayfield may not have been as careful in his dealings with his father’s company. As stated in a 2024 lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Texas, Mayfield alleges that between 2018 and 2021, his father’s company wrongfully transferred $12 million from him and his wife’s personal accounts to his own company without their knowledge or consent, allegedly to cover the company’s operational expenses. Mayfield’s father transferred the amounts under the mistaken belief that he was not required to pay his son back.

The star QB wouldn’t be the first person to get into a dispute with a family member or close friend over money or accuse a loved one of breaking a promise. Unfortunately, this scenario occurs frequently and can lead to litigation and, worse, fractured relationships. For example, a child requires financial assistance from their parents to make a down payment on a dream home, siblings agree to split the expenses of caring for their elderly mother or father, or childhood friends decide to leave their employment to buy a food truck and launch a restaurant business. All these scenarios can work out well, with a short-term loan repaid in full, costs split and paid down the middle without any hassle, or lead to a successful and thriving business.

However, as with any agreement, those between family members and friends can go south and lead to disputes or even litigation. For example, t parties may have different interpretations of what was agreed to, or one may allege that the other isn’t meeting their obligations or has made certain promises that are not being upheld. Given the close relationship of the parties, family members or friends often fail to formally memorialize their agreements in writing which can lead to confusion and ambiguity concerning the parties obligations. While family ties may be binding, a handshake or hug may not be, at least in the eyes of the law.

Mayfield’s experience illustrates the critical importance of memorializing agreements, even those between family members or friends — just as one would when buying a home, entering into a partnership agreement, or signing a nine-figure deal with an NFL team.

Trust, But Verify In Writing

Family relationships are often built on trust, love, and mutual understanding. However, when it comes to agreements — whether financial, property-related, or concerning caregiving responsibilities –verbal and informal promises can lead to misunderstandings, disputes, and even fractured relationships. While formalizing agreements with loved ones or friends may seem unnecessary or even uncomfortable, reducing agreements to writing is a crucial step in ensuring clarity, accountability, and legal protection.

Similarly, while the law sometimes recognizes oral agreements as binding and enforceable, the lack of a written document setting out the material terms of the agreement can make it difficult, if not impossible, for a judge or jury to determine what exactly the parties agreed to. And if such a “meeting of the minds” cannot be proven, a court will find that there is simply no agreement to be enforced.

For example, if a family member lends a significant sum of money to another, the lack of documentation may lead to a dispute in which the lender alleges the arrangement was a loan while the borrower insists that the money was a gift they weren’t expected to repay. A written agreement specifying repayment terms would have removed any doubt, while the lack of one will leave too much doubt for a judge or jury to find there was a “meeting of the minds.”

Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with entering into a financial agreement or arrangement with a family member or close friend. In fact, entering into a financial agreement or business venture with a family member or friend is a common practice and can be done without issue when approached with transparency, clearly defined terms, and proper documentation. However, unless you want your Thanksgiving turkey to be served with a side of litigation, one must be sure to memorialize and clearly define the scope of agreements in writing, even those with a family member or friend.

If you would like assistance documenting or formalizing an intrafamily agreement, please contact Gabriel Blum at Ansell Grimm & Aaron.

Commissions Are Wages Subject to Wage Payment Law Protections, New Jersey Supreme Court Says

Ansell Grimm March 27, 2025

By Barry M. Capp and Layne A. Feldman

In a unanimous March 17, 2025, opinion, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that earned commissions are “wages,” not “supplementary incentives,” and are therefore covered by the rights and remedies of the state’s Wage Payment Law (WPL). The decision in Musker v. Suuchi means that New Jersey employers who withhold or fail to pay commissions expose themselves to significant liability under the WPL, which allows an aggrieved worker to recover not only their unpaid wages but also liquidated damages in an amount of up to two times the unpaid wages as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.

In Musker, the plaintiff was a salesperson for the defendant Suuchi, which sold software subscriptions to apparel manufacturers. The plaintiff was paid a base salary and a commission on her sales. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Suuchi began selling personal protective equipment (PPE) and offered its salespeople 4% commissions on those sales. The plaintiff sold $32 million worth of PPE and, as such, claimed she was entitled to $1.3 million in commissions. When Suuchi refused to pay the commissions, the plaintiff sued, alleging violations of the WPL.

The trial court dismissed the WPL claims, holding that the plaintiff’s commissions were not “wages” and, therefore, outside the WPL’s scope. The Appellate Division affirmed.

The state’s high court came to a different conclusion, reversing the appellate court and holding that “commissions” are, in fact, “wages” as defined in the WPL. The Court noted that the WPL defines “wages” as “direct monetary compensation for labor or services rendered by an employee, where the amount is determined on a time, task, piece, or commission basis.”

“Under that definition,” the Court wrote, “compensating an employee by paying a ‘commission’ for ‘labor or services’ always constitutes a wage under the WPL.”

The Court rejected the argument that the plaintiff’s commissions constituted “supplementary incentives” that are expressly excluded from the WPL. Though the WPL does not define that term, the Court found that the ordinary meaning of a “supplementary incentive” is “compensation that motivates employees to do something above and beyond their ‘labor or services.'” Thus, under the WPL, “a ‘supplementary incentive’ is not payment for ‘labor or services’ and a ‘commission’ earned ‘for labor or services rendered by an employee’ can never be a ‘supplementary incentive.'”

This definitive ruling makes it clear that withholding commissions is as much of a WPL violation as withholding wages and can be the basis of substantial liability for employers and significant recoveries for employees. If you have questions about this case or the WPL generally, please contact Barry Capp or Layne Feldman at Ansell Grimm & Aaron.

Eleven Ansell.Law Attorneys Recognized in 2025 Edition of New Jersey Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Ansell Grimm March 27, 2025

Ansell.Law is pleased to announce that eleven attorneys were selected for inclusion in the newly released 2025 New Jersey Super Lawyers and Rising Stars list.* The attorneys recognized represent several practice areas that highlight the Firm’s strengths. New this year, Seth Rosenstein and Anthony Sango are named Rising Stars for their work in business litigation matters.

Fewer than 5% of New Jersey attorneys are named to the annual Super Lawyers edition. “Rising Stars” are the legal profession’s up-and-coming attorneys, either under age 40 or practicing for ten years or less. These outstanding attorneys comprise fewer than 2.5% of New Jersey lawyers.

The attorneys appearing on the 2025 list of New Jersey Super Lawyers are:

Allison Ansell – Family Law

Mitchell Ansell – Criminal Defense

Peter Paras – Family Law

Lawrence Shapiro – Business Litigation

Andrea White – Family Law

Ansell.Law attorneys recognized as 2025 Rising Stars are:

Brian Ashnault – Business Litigation

Layne Feldman – General Litigation

Nicole Miller – General Litigation

Seth M. Rosenstein – Business Litigation

Anthony Sango – Business Litigation

Jonathan Sherman – Real Estate

*No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey or the American Bar Association.

Law360 Features Ansell.Law’s Princeton Office Move

Ansell Grimm March 26, 2025

A recent Law360 article covered the Firm’s Princeton office relocation to 100 Canal Pointe Boulevard. President and Managing Shareholder Michael V. Benedetto reinforced Ansell.Law’s commitment to an enduring presence in New Jersey and the capacity to serve New Jersey clients as well as those in New York and Pennsylvania.

While speaking with Law360, Princeton Partner David J. Byrne emphasized the importance of in-person collaboration and how their new offices place them in the heart of the action. He discussed the benefits of modern office space and its influence on enhancing the work environment to better serve clients throughout New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. Byrne leads the Firm’s Community Association practice group.

Click here to read the full article (subscription required).

Mandatory Reporting Requirements Under the Corporate Transparency Act Are Back in Effect. Most Reports Must Be Filed by Mar. 21, 2025.

Ansell Grimm February 21, 2025

By Thomas J. Gironda

After a whiplash-inducing series of court orders, the mandatory Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reporting requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) are now back in effect. Most covered Reporting Companies will need to submit their BOI information to FinCEN by Mar. 21, 2025, if they have not already done so.

As set forth in a Feb. 18, 2025, FinCEN alert, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an order on that date, lifting a stay it issued on Jan. 7, 2024, which placed BOI reporting requirements on hold. As such, “BOI reporting is now mandatory.”

However, FinCEN acknowledged “that reporting companies may need additional time to comply with their BOI reporting obligations,” which is why it is generally extending the deadline 30 calendar days from Feb. 19, 2025, for most companies.”

The new BOI reporting deadlines are as follows:

For the vast majority of reporting companies, the new deadline to file an initial, updated, and/or corrected BOI report is now Mar. 21, 2025. FinCEN will provide an update before then regarding any further modification of this deadline, recognizing that reporting companies may need additional time to comply with their BOI reporting obligations once this update is provided.
Reporting companies that were previously given a reporting deadline later than the Mar. 21, 2025, deadline must file their initial BOI report by that later deadline. For example, if a company’s reporting deadline is in April 2025 because it qualifies for certain disaster relief extensions, it should follow the April deadline, not the March deadline.

Reporting companies can report their beneficial ownership information directly to FinCEN for free using FinCEN’s E-Filing system, which is available at https://boiefiling.fincen.gov. More information is available at fincen.gov/boi.

If you have questions about the reinstatement of the injunction or the CTA generally, please contact Thomas Gironda at Ansell Grimm & Aaron.

Ansell.Law’s Princeton Office Moves Into New Space

Ansell Grimm February 18, 2025

As a testament to our significant presence in New Jersey and commitment to delivering exceptional legal services, Ansell.Law is pleased to announce that our Princeton office has relocated to a fresh, modern space designed to better serve our team and clients. Our new offices are at 100 Canal Pointe Boulevard.

This move marks an exciting new chapter, providing more space and improved facilities. Our new offices also reflect our commitment to cultivating the best possible environment for collaboration, innovation, and client service. All phone numbers and email addresses remain the same, ensuring a seamless transition.

“I’m thrilled with our new offices,” said Partner David J. Byrne. “As we continue to grow and evolve, the modern space fuels the team’s dedication to providing excellent service to our clients. We’re looking forward to this next chapter and the opportunities it brings.”

Ansell Grimm

Recent Posts