Anthony J. D’Artiglio

Ansell.Law Announces Three New Practice Group Leaders

Ansell.Law is pleased to announce the appointment of three new Practice Group leaders effective immediately. Partner Barry M. Capp leads the Labor & Employment group, Shareholder Anthony J. D’Artiglio heads the Bankruptcy group, and Associate Kelsey M. Barber assumes leadership of the Controlled Substances and Regulatory Law group.

As client demand for these practice areas has continued to grow, the Firm selected three leaders with significant capabilities and experience. These new roles further enhance the Firm’s commitment to nurturing talent from within.

Capp, a skilled litigator with over 25 years of experience, devotes his practice to labor, employment, construction, and complex commercial matters. Licensed in New York, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia, he has extensive experience in state and federal courts. Several published decisions Capp achieved throughout his career involve novel and noteworthy legal issues.

D’Artiglio has served as Litigation Team Leader for North New Jersey since 2023 and became a Shareholder on January 1, 2025. Licensed in New York and New Jersey, his practice encompasses bankruptcy, commercial litigation, controlled substances and regulatory law, and labor and employment. D’Artiglio assumes the group’s leadership from James Aaron, who led the practice successfully for many years and is now a Shareholder Emeritus.

Barber developed a deep understanding of the complexities surrounding the production, sale, use, regulation, and legalization of controlled substances as demand grew in this emerging area of law. She routinely helps clients understand their rights and opportunities and helps them navigate the complex regulations governing these substances to secure cannabis licenses in New Jersey and New York. Barber also enjoys a diverse practice, including civil and business litigation, contract law, and appellate matters.

Anthony J. D’Artiglio Elevated to Shareholder

Ansell.Law is pleased to announce that partner Anthony J. D’Artiglio has been elevated to Shareholder. Based in the Firm’s Woodland Park office, D’Artiglio’s practice comprises bankruptcy, commercial litigation, controlled substances and regulatory law, and labor and employment. An experienced and savvy litigator, he handles an impressive range of matters, including creditors’ rights, commercial lease disputes, class actions, Consumer Fraud Act claims, corporate and shareholder disputes, employment disputes, and a diverse array of property litigations. D’Artiglio also regularly represents business debtors and creditors in complex Bankruptcy matters throughout the country.

“Anthony is a superb attorney dedicated to delivering prompt and sound advice to clients,” said President and Managing Shareholder Michael V. Benedetto. “He is an inspiring leader, and we are delighted to welcome Anthony as our newest Shareholder.”

In 2023, D’Artiglio was named Litigation Team Leader for North New Jersey in recognition of his legal acumen and mentorship capabilities. He manages the Firm’s North New Jersey litigation presence, working closely with Firmwide Litigation Department Chair Lawrence H. Shapiro. D’Artiglio also leads the Bankruptcy Department, managing all aspects of the firm’s business debtor and creditor side bankruptcy work.

D’Artiglio is licensed in New York and New Jersey. Best Lawyers in America has recognized him as “One to Watch” since 2021. D’Artiglio was named a “Rising Star” by New Jersey Super Lawyers in 2024.

Anthony D’Artiglio Recognized in 2025 Edition of Best Lawyers

Ansell.Law is pleased to announce that Anthony D’Artiglio has been named in the 2025 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®. Recognized for his work in business litigation and bankruptcy, D’Artiglio is named among New Jersey’s Ones to Watch.*

D’Artiglio is a partner and the litigation team leader in our Woodland Park office. He litigates a wide range of commercial matters from inception through trial, including commercial lease disputes, class actions, Consumer Fraud Act claims, corporate/shareholder disputes, employment disputes, and secured property actions. He also regularly represents creditors in bankruptcy matters. His diverse practice includes Bankruptcy, Controlled Substances and Regulatory Law, and Labor & Employment Law matters.

Best Lawyers’ listings, published since 1983, are based on merit and comprehensive peer review. Their methodology captures the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical and legal practice areas.

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

Ansell.Law Secures Motion to Dismiss Avoiding Frivolous Litigation for Firm Client

In a land use dispute where a litigious neighbor filed a complaint seeking to effectively appeal zoning permits issued for construction that has long since been completed – some for more than a decade – Litigation Department attorneys Anthony J. D’Artiglio and Brian J. Ashnault, with assistance from Land Use Department Co-Chair Jennifer S. Krimko, successfully moved to have the Complaint dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. 

The plaintiff filed a complaint against his neighbor and the Borough of West Long Branch, asserting claims of enforcement, writ of mandamus, and violation of the plaintiff’s substantive due process rights. At its core, the Complaint alleged that four permits issued to his neighbor should not have been issued, and the work performed in conjunction with the permits exceeded what was permitted.  

On behalf of the defendant neighbor, the Ansell team filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint relying on arguments including that the plaintiff was actually seeking an out-of-time appeal of the permits, not enforcement of the Ordinance as plaintiff asserted. Regardless, the Ansell team argued that such claims were long out of time under the principle of laches, even if they were considered as enforcement claims. Additionally, the Ansell Team argued that the remaining counts were deficient for various reasons warranting dismissal.

Following oral arguments, the Court issued a lengthy oral decision dismissing the Complaint in its entirety with prejudice. The Judge addressed and accepted each of the Ansell team’s grounds to dismiss the Complaint for every count. Accordingly, the frivolous litigation filed by the plaintiff designed to harass his neighbor was disposed of at its earliest stage.

Anthony is a partner and litigation team leader in the Firm’s Woodland Park office. His varied practice includes commercial lease disputes, class actions, Consumer Fraud Act claims, corporate/shareholder disputes, employment disputes, secured property actions, and creditors’ rights in bankruptcy matters.

Jennifer co-chairs the Firm’s Land Use Department. She devotes her practice to all areas relating to real estate, representing a wide variety of clients — from individuals to large developers — in all phases of governmental approvals before municipal, county, and state agencies.

Brian’s practice spans a range of commercial and civil litigation matters including condemnation, land use, commercial lease disputes, breach of contract claims, and collections.

David Byrne and Nicole Miller To Speak at Cooperator Expo New Jersey

Nearly 2000 attendees will soon gather at the Meadowlands for the 2024 Cooperator Expo, New Jersey’s biggest condo, HOA, and apartment expo. The one-day event is on June 5, 2024.

Partners David J. Byrne and Nicole D. Miller are slated to speak with Corner Property Management’s CEO, Tony Nardone. Their program will address unpaid assessments and running elections – two significant issues that buildings and association boards routinely encounter. The speakers will provide practical management strategies boards can implement to handle these challenges.

Ansell.Law is a proud longtime sponsor of this key industry event and is one of 250 exhibitors. This must-attend expo is geared towards property managers, board members, apartment building owners, shareholders, and real estate professionals. Elysa D. Bergenfeld, Stacey R. Patterson, Anthony J. D’Artiglio, and Jonathan D. Sherman will also be in attendance.

The attorneys in our Community Association Law practice provide dynamic, creative, and effective representation to condominiums, community associations, cooperatives, and homeowners associations. We work with clients in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.

2024 Edition of Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Recognizes Ansell.Law Attorneys

The 2024 New Jersey Super Lawyers and Rising Stars list recognizes nine Ansell Grimm & Aaron attorneys.* 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 exceptional attorneys comprise fewer than 2.5% of New Jersey lawyers. 

The attorneys appearing on the 2024 list of New Jersey Super Lawyers are:

Allison Ansell – Family Law

Mitchell Ansell – Criminal Defense, DUI-DWI, White Collar Crimes

Lawrence Shapiro – Business Litigation

Andrea White – Family Law

Attorneys recognized as 2024 Rising Stars are:

Brian Ashnault – Business Litigation

Anthony D’Artiglio – Business Litigation, Bankruptcy

Layne Feldman – General Litigation

Nicole Miller – General Litigation, Real Estate

Jonathan Sherman – Real Estate

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

Federal Judge Grants Petition To Intervene Filed by Ansell.Law on Behalf of Belmar Residents in Verizon Cell Tower Litigation

In a victory for residents of Belmar, New Jersey, who oppose the placement of cell towers along their seaside boardwalk, a federal judge recently granted a petition to intervene filed by Ansell.Law partner Anthony J. D’Artiglio and associate Layne A. Feldman that will allow them to join a lawsuit filed by Verizon Wireless against Monmouth County.

In this hotly contested and closely watched matter, Ansell.Law represents “Belmar Against 5G Towers,” a coalition of local residents who claim that Verizon’s proposed wireless towers along the borough’s boardwalk would “harm the aesthetic quality of their neighborhood, the local environment and, potentially, their property values,” according to an article about the case in Law360.

Verizon sued Monmouth County and its Board of Commissioners when they rejected its request to build the towers, claiming the denial was not supported by substantial evidence and breached an agreement between Verizon and Monmouth regarding placement of the towers within public right of ways controlled by the County. With the approval of the petition to intervene filed by D’Artiglio and Feldman, Belmar residents can now assert their own arguments and objections alongside those of Monmouth County to challenge the approval process advanced by Verizon.

D’Artiglio’s practice encompasses complex litigation, bankruptcy, controlled substances and regulatory law, and labor and employment. Feldman handles a diverse range of complex commercial and civil litigation matters.

Time To Go: How New Jersey Commercial Landlords Can Deal With Holdover Tenants

By Anthony J. D’Artiglio

When a houseguest overstays their welcome, a friendly hint or gentle nudge is usually enough to get them packing. When a commercial tenant overstays their welcome after the conclusion of their lease term, both the consequences and steps to get them out are more consequential and more complicated.

Holdover tenants are a common problem for commercial and residential lessors alike. But as with many other aspects of the landlord-tenant relationship, the laws that govern the eviction of commercial and residential lessees in New Jersey have significant differences. While residential tenants receive a bit more leeway than their commercial counterparts, strict compliance with the law’s requirements is essential in both cases. Failure to follow the letter of the law can further delay the departure of a commercial holdover tenant and even expose the landlord to liability in certain circumstances. 

Holdover Tenancy Defined

Typically, when a commercial lease term expires, the tenancy becomes month-to-month if neither party provides notice to terminate or renew. However, if a tenant continues to occupy the premises without the landlord’s approval after the lease ends (and no new lease or extension has been agreed to), they are considered a holdover tenant.

Given that holdover tenancies, at least for relatively brief periods, are not uncommon, most commercial leases have provisions that specifically address this situation. A landlord evaluating its options with a holdover tenant should always look first at the lease terms before deciding on a course of action. These clauses typically provide for a steep rent increase, up to 150% or 200% of the base and additional rent while treating the tenancy as month-to-month. Most also allow for the landlord to initiate eviction proceedings notwithstanding the acceptance of any amounts paid by the tenant.

Even without such provisions, New Jersey law provides that holdover tenants are liable for double the rent provided for in the lease for however long they remain in possession of the premises after being served with notice, as discussed below.

First Steps Towards Getting a Holdover Tenant Out

One of the cardinal rules for a commercial landlord dealing with a holdover tenant is not to take matters into their own hands. Certainly, the landlord can engage in communications, discussions, and negotiations with the tenant regarding their vacation of the premises. But changing the locks or otherwise denying the lessee access to the premises, removing contents, and other forms of self-help can have disastrous consequences, exposing the landlord to significant liability. Instead, the landlord should start eviction proceedings and meticulously follow the specified rules and timelines set forth in the law.

As noted, two different sets of laws apply to residential and commercial tenancies in New Jersey. While the Anti-Eviction Act governs residential leases, the Summary Dispossess Act controls how commercial evictions proceed, including those involving holdover tenants.

The first step, and a required prerequisite to initiating an eviction of a holdover tenant, is to properly serve them with a written Notice to Quit and Demand for Possession. In most situations, where the tenant stays in the premises after the lease expires and the lease is treated as month-to-month, the notice must give the tenant 30 days to vacate the space. 

The notice and demand must be personally served either upon the tenant or such person in possession by giving them a copy or leaving it at their usual place of abode with a family member above the age of 14. If service cannot be accomplished that way, the notice can be given to anyone occupying the leased premises. If that doesn’t work, service can be made by posting the notice on the door of the premises.

Initiation of Eviction Proceedings

Once 30 days have passed after proper service of the notice and demand on the tenant, the landlord can initiate an eviction case. Presuming the landlord complied with all pre-filing requirements and properly initiated the proceedings under the Summary Dispossess Act, as the name implies, the eviction action is designed to move expeditiously, in no small part to deter landlords from exercising any self-help remedies.

The eviction begins with filing a summons and complaint in the county where the leased premises are located. Once the tenant is properly served with these documents by the Court, the court will set a trial date, typically within 10 to 30 days after service.

Entry of Judgment for Possession and Exercise of Remedies

If the tenant fails to appear at the trial date, the court will enter a default judgment in favor of the landlord. If the tenant appears in Court, the judge will likely direct the parties to meet with a mediator in an effort to reach a negotiated resolution. If those negotiations do not bear fruit, and presuming the tenant has no legitimate defense, the court will enter a judgment for possession in favor of the landlord. 

Following entry of judgment, the landlord can apply for a Warrant of Removal, which gives a sheriff or constable the authority to remove the tenant from the premises. Unlike in residential cases, the officer performs the eviction immediately upon service of the Warrant for Removal, forcibly removing the tenant if required and restoring possession to the landlord. The landlord is advised to have a locksmith on site at the time of the eviction to change all the locks barring the former tenant from further entry to the premises. If the lessee leaves property in the space after their removal, the property can be considered abandoned — either by the terms of the lease or by statute after providing the appropriate notice and the waiting period elapsing — permitting the lessor to remove or liquidate such property and apply the proceeds to any back rent or other unpaid amounts.

As noted, a commercial landlord wanting to retake possession from a holdover tenant should begin serving the notices required by New Jersey law as soon as possible after the conclusion of the lease term if no other arrangements, agreements, or extensions have been agreed upon with the tenant. 

Given the critical importance of strict compliance with notice and service requirements, New Jersey commercial property owners should always retain experienced counsel before initiating efforts to regain possession from a holdover tenant — indeed, if the landlord is a corporate entity it is required to retain counsel to appear on its behalf in landlord-tenant Court. 

If you have questions or need assistance regarding a holdover commercial tenant, please contact Anthony D’Artiglio at Ansell Grimm & Aaron.

Interdepartmental Teamwork Overcomes Challenge to Client’s Use Variance Approval

In a client success, shareholder Jennifer Krimko obtained approval for the client to operate a community center and academic tutoring space in Rumson, New Jersey. On the heels of this victory, Litigation Department attorneys Anthony D’Artiglio and Layne Feldman protected that approval following an objecting neighbor’s appeal to the Superior Court. Through an aggressive defense, the approval was upheld, and the objector’s appeal was denied, allowing the clients to continue operating their business serving the local community. Collaboration with the Land Use Department provided nuanced insight into the case and helped secure another victory for the client.

Jennifer co-chairs the Firm’s Land Use Department. She devotes her practice to all areas relating to real estate, representing a wide variety of clients — from individuals to large developers — in all phases of governmental approvals before municipal, county, and state agencies.

Anthony is a partner and litigation team leader in the Firm’s Woodland Park office. His varied practice includes commercial lease disputes, class actions, Consumer Fraud Act claims, corporate/shareholder disputes, employment disputes, secured property actions, and creditors’ rights in bankruptcy matters.

As an associate in the Firm’s Commercial Litigation Department, Layne has a diverse complex commercial and civil litigation practice. She handles commercial lease disputes, Consumer Fraud Act claims, corporate/shareholder disputes, and secured property actions.

Rite-Aid’s Shuttering of Numerous Stores Illustrates the Challenges Faced by Commercial Landlords When a Tenant Files for Bankruptcy

By Anthony J. D’Artiglio

Pharmacy giant Rite-Aid’s bankruptcy and proposed reorganization plans have had wide-ranging and cascading impacts from coast to coast. But perhaps the most immediate and acute effects of the company’s insolvency are felt by the commercial landlords that host the scores of leased locations that Rite-Aid intends to close as part of its restructuring strategy. This includes its planned sale of 78 Rite Aid and Bartell Drugs neighborhood pharmacy leases in free-standing buildings and retail shopping centers across nine states.

The challenges and uncertainty now faced by Rite-Aid’s lessors illustrate those regularly confronted by commercial landlords when a tenant’s bankruptcy or insolvency leaves them with unoccupied spaces and significantly diminished cash flow. As such, landlords must understand their options, rights, and remedies under the Bankruptcy Code to minimize the fallout and avoid inadvertent and costly mistakes when a tenant suddenly shutters its doors during a current lease term.

Assumption, Rejection, and Assignment of Lease Under Bankruptcy Code Section 365

Bankruptcy Code Section 365 governs the treatment of commercial leases in bankruptcy cases. Since the automatic stay, at least initially, limits the remedies and actions a landlord can take regarding the defaulting tenant, what happens next is largely up to the tenant. 

A tenant typically has 120 days after filing its bankruptcy petition to either reject, assume, or assume and assign or sell the lease.  

While a bankruptcy judge can extend the 120-day deadline for an additional 90 days for good cause without the lessor’s consent, the landlord’s assent is required for any further extension requests. 

During this period, the tenant must continue to satisfy its ongoing lease obligations, including paying rent, with post-petition rent obligations prioritized as an administrative claim. Notably, the lessor must continue to comply with the lease’s terms during this time or risk running afoul of the automatic stay.

If the debtor does not assume or reject its lease within the applicable time, the court will consider the lease rejected, and the tenant must then immediately vacate the leased premises.

Option 1: Rejecting the Lease

If a debtor elects to reject the lease, it essentially defaults and, accordingly, must vacate the premises. Upon rejection, the lessor can assert a “rejection damage” claim, which is considered a prepetition unsecured claim—sharing pro rata with other general unsecured creditors. Unlike other rejection damage claims, however, Bankruptcy Code Section 502(b)(6) caps the lessor’s rejection claims to the greater of one year’s rent or 15% of the rent of the remaining term of the lease, capped at no more than three years of total rent.

Option 2: Assuming the Lease

If the lessee opts to assume the lease, it essentially agrees to continue the lease, comply with its terms going forward, and cure any defaults. The lessee will identify the defaults to be cured and afford the lessor the opportunity to object to the proposed cure if it is insufficient. The debtor must also compensate the lessor for “any actual pecuniary loss” caused by the debtor’s default and provide the lessor with “adequate assurance of future performance.”

Option 3: Assuming and Assigning (or Selling) the Lease

Notwithstanding any anti-assignment language in the lease or any landlord objections, the debtor can elect to assume the lease and assign or sell it to a third party, as Rite Aid seeks to do with several leases. As with all lease assumptions, the tenant (and its assignee) must cure any outstanding defaults and provide adequate assurances of the assignee’s future performance of its lease obligations. 

Additional Protections and Assurances for Shopping Center Lessors

Many, if not most, of the leases Rite-Aid seeks to unload are in retail shopping centers. The Bankruptcy Code provides special protections for shopping center lessors when a debtor assumes and assigns its lease. 

Specifically, Section 365(b) requires debtors and assignees to provide the landlord with “adequate assurance” that: 

  • The source of rent and other consideration due under the lease and the financial condition and operating performance of the proposed assignee and its guarantors, if any, will be similar to the financial condition and operating performance of the debtor and its guarantors, if any, as of the time the debtor started its tenancy.
  • Any percentage of rent due under the lease will not decline substantially.
  • Assumption or assignment of such lease is subject to all lease provisions, including those relating to radius, location, use, or exclusivity, and the assignment will not breach any such provision contained in any other lease, financing agreement, or master agreement relating to the shopping center.
  • Assumption or assignment of the lease will not disrupt any tenant mix or balance in such shopping center.

Failure to deliver any such assurances can support a lessor’s objection to any proposed assumption or assignment of the lease.

If you have concerns about your options as a landlord regarding an insolvent or bankrupt tenant or need assistance protecting your rights in a pending bankruptcy proceeding, please contact Anthony D’Artiglio at Ansell.Law.