Joshua S. Bauchner, Esq., a Member of Ansell Grimm & Aaron, P.C., recently wrote an article that was published in the New Jersey Law Journal. The article speaks about how lawyers can recite from memory the elements of a negligence cause of action, but how many fail to appreciate that the order of the elements is critical to any claims analysis. For full article, click here.
AGA welcomes Pamela A. Mulligan to the firm. Ms. Mulligan is Counsel and focuses her practice in the areas of Litigation, Real Estate and Creditors’ Rights. Ms. Mulligan represents secured and unsecured lenders including corporate and banking clients, in Chapters 7, 11, and 13 bankruptcies, contested and uncontested foreclosures, collection matters, and commercial loan transactions. She also represents businesses and individuals including artists and media organizations in copyright, trademark and general litigation matters. Ms. Mulligan is working closely with our Community Association Group on business development and marketing initiatives.
Prior to joining Ansell Grimm & Aaron, Ms. Mulligan had a lengthy career as a business development executive working on national marketing programs for some of the nation’s largest entertainment, media and non-profit organizations. Ms. Mulligan was previously with prominent New Jersey law firms where she represented national and community banks, businesses, and individuals.
Ansell, Grimm & Aaron, P.C. recently commenced two actions on behalf of auto-body shop clients who suffer allegedly unlawful conduct at the hands of multiple insurance carriers. Our clients’ story — and that of other, similarly situated plaintiffs — were featured on Anderson Cooper 360 on February 10, 2015 on CNN (click link to view article).
The Complaints allege that the Defendants engage in an ongoing, concerted and intentional course of conduct — with State Farm acting as the spearhead — to improperly and illegally control and depress automobile damage repair costs to the detriment of Plaintiffs and the general public, and to the substantial profit of Defendants.
By example, Defendants exert control over body shops by entering into program agreements generically known as direct repair program agreements (“DRPs”). DRPs were presented to body shops as a mutually beneficial opportunity — in exchange for providing certain concessions of price, priority and similar matters, the individual Defendants would list a body shop as a preferred provider. However, the concessions demanded by the individual Defendants in exchange for remaining in a DRP were not balanced by the purported benefits. Rather, the Defendants, particularly State Farm, allegedly utilized these agreements to exert control over the auto body repair industry in general including those shops, like Plaintiffs, which are not part of a DRP. In sum, Defendants sought to dictate the price for parts, labor and material untethered to market realities.
The Complaints further allege that Defendants engage in an ongoing pattern and practice of coercion and implied threats to the pecuniary health of the Plaintiffs’ businesses in order to force compliance with unreasonable and onerous concessions. Failure to comply results in removal from the DRP combined with improper “steering” of customers away from the Plaintiffs’ businesses.
Defendants’ alleged misconduct means that repairs are made by the cheapest bidder, using the cheapest parts, and the cheapest labor — and then placing those unsafe vehicles on the road. We anticipate these remarkable facts being brought to light tonight night on CNN.
The nationwide impact of Defendants’ alleged misconduct resulted in the commencement of litigation in multiple jurisdictions. As a result, the various actions were consolidated as A&E Auto Body, Inc. et al. v. 21st Century Centennial Insurance Company, et al., bearing Docket number 6-14-mdl-2257 (GAP)(TBS) in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
For additional information, please contact Joshua S. Bauchner at (973) 247-9000.
New York, New York — Ansell Grimm & Aaron, P.C. recently commenced an action in New York State Court against the Abyssinian Development Corporation (“ADC”) and its contractor, Apex Building Company (“Apex”), alleging that the home it sold through a federal and state funded program is riddled with design and construction defects rendering it unsafe and uninhabitable. As recently reported in the New York Daily News, the Complaint seeks $1,000,000.00 in damages arising from the defendants’ alleged misconduct.
As set forth in the Complaint, Christina Robilotto entered into a contract with ADC to purchase a home as part of the Federal Housing Administration 203(k) Loan Program, operated jointly by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, a New York non-for-profit corporation (“LISC”). The federal government designed these loans to encourage lenders to fund seemingly risky home purchases to promote neighborhood revitalization and greater homeownership.
In accord with the express terms of the Purchase Contract, ADC represented that it would construct the premises in compliance with the Architectural Plans and the New York City Building Code and that: “The quality of construction shall be comparable to local standards customary in the particular trade and substantially in accordance with the Plans.”
The Complaint alleges that these and other representations by ADC were false and that the home instead suffers from material deign and construction defects. Among other problems, the building’s facade is falling off, the sheetrock is covered with mold as a result of water leaks in the foundation and through the roof, and an improperly installed boiler has led to heating problems. The Complaint further alleges that although the homeowner repeatedly contacted ADC and Apex to complete the construction and make necessary repairs, they instead walked away from their contractual obligations.
As a result, a publicly financed program intended to promote home ownership by low and middle income families has instead saddled them with homes plagued by problems which they cannot afford to repair having dedicated their savings to the purchase.
Ansell Grimm & Aaron attorney Joshua S. Bauchner, who lives in New York, commented that “ADC has a horrible reputation with respect to the properties it manages and builds. Although it seeks to hide behind its affiliated church, its purported mission to support low and middle income families though affordable housing has failed miserably. We intend to hold them to account.”
* * *
For more than 80 years, ANSELL GRIMM & AARON, P.C. has been dedicated to providing excellent legal services throughout the Central New Jersey region. The Firm has vast experience and knowledge in nearly all areas of the law, focusing primarily on New Jersey, New York and Federal matters. In providing zealous advocacy and skilled legal advice to our diverse clientele, our attorneys all practice with a common philosophy… commitment to excellence and commitment to people.
For additional information, please contact Joshua S. Bauchner at (973) 247-9000.
Lawrence H. Shapiro, Esq., a Member of Ansell Grimm & Aaron, P.C., will be speaking at the NJ Redevelopment Training Institute seminar at the Thomas Edison State College in Trenton on Thursday, October 9th. Mr. Shapiro will be providing an update in recent redevelopment and eminent domain case law. Click here for NJRA Course Syllabus.
Joshua S. Bauchner, Esq., a Member of Ansell Grimm & Aaron, P.C., recently filed lawsuits in New York and New Jersey against insurance brokers and adjusters alleging violations of state “anti-steering” laws which forbid insurers and their agents from directing claimants to, or away from, a particular body repair shop. The Complaints include transcripts of recorded conversations between the plaintiffs’ customers and the defendants in which the defendants expressly refuse to do business with the plaintiffs and steer their customers away, causing significant lost business and other injury. For complete story, please see the article on page 18 of New Jersey Automotive.
Joshua S. Bauchner, Esq., a Member of Ansell Grimm & Aaron, P.C., recently spoke on a panel at the Alliance of Automotive Service Providers Northeast Convention. The panel addressed the launch of PartsTrader, an online parts procurement system developed by State Farm, which will provide insurers with control over the pricing of parts. The program raises numerous concerns, including, as Bauchner commented, its impact on the safety and quality of the repairs. For complete story, please see the article on page 22 of New Jersey Automotive.
Joshua S. Bauchner, Esq., a Member of Ansell Grimm & Aaron, P.C., recently filed a lawsuit against Tishman Construction Corp., Tucker Development, and A.G. Construction Corp. on behalf of the firm’s client, Riverfront Management and Consulting LLC, relating to the $1 billion mixed-use development Hudson Lights Project in Fort Lee, New Jersey. The suit alleges the defendants deceived Riverfront into funding $1.2 million in materials and construction expenses, for which payment remains outstanding. To read more on the subject, please click on Law 360 or North Jersey.com.
Larry Shapiro, Esq., a Member of Ansell Grimm & Aaron, P.C., recently spoke at the Appraisal Institute’s Annual meeting in Princeton on the impact of the Borough of Harvey Cedars vs. Karan Supreme Court decision. Mr. Shapiro commented upon the impact of the NJ Supreme Court’s landmark decision and how the change in the law enunciated by the Court impacted valuation issues in partial condemnation cases. He also spoke about the issue of beach access in the context of condemnation actions involving oceanfront property. Including, beach access; private beaches; use and enjoyment of the beach; the public trust doctrine and valuation of beach areas.
In “New Jersey Modernizes Partial Takings Compensation,” published in the November 2013 issue of the American Planning Association’s Planning and Environmental Law Journal, Lawrence Shapiro and Heather Garleb analyze the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Harvey Cedars v. Karan and the impact it will have on future condemnation cases.
Concluding that the Harvey Cedars v. Karan decision has brought the evidence that may be presented to a jury in line with what the law requires that jury to consider, Shapiro and Garleb analyzed New Jersey’s prior “special benefits” standard and its deficiencies. Post Karan, a jury will now hear and consider evidence of both the negative impact of a project on the remaining property and the positive impact of a project on that same remaining property.
Accordingly, now determinations of just compensation in partial takings cases will more accurately reflect the realities of the real estate market. In practice, this shift in the law will allow for fairer determinations in terms of awards to be paid for property taken by eminent domain, for both property owners and condemning authorities.
To read full article, please click here.
