2017 News

In March 2017 Partner Patrick Carrigg is named a Rising Star in the area of Education by New Jersey Super Lawyers.

In June 2017 Partner Gregory J. Giordano obtained a $1,000,000.00 settlement from a insurance carrier who refused coverage for claimed injury and permanent disability.

Partner Patrick F. Carrigg lectured on Website Accessibility at the School Law Forum for New Jersey School Boards in June 2017.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey reappointed Patrick F. Carrigg to the District VII Ethics Committee for a four-year term in September 2017. Michael A. Pattanite, Jr. was appointed by the Supreme Court for an initial four-year term. Partner Robert F. Casey formally resigned from the District VII Ethics Committee after completing eight years of service.

After a three-day bench trial associate Stephanie L. DeLuca, Esquire, obtained a defense verdict against claims of defamation, tortious inference, and intentional infliction of emotional distress in October 2017 before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Special Civil Part.

In October 2017 Partners Patrick F. Carrigg and Michael A. Pattanite, Jr. presented on Discipline for Conduct Off School Grounds to the School Law Forum presented by New Jersey School Boards Association.

Patrick F. Carrigg published an article on Website Accessibility in the November 2017 edition of School Leader Magazine, distributed by the New Jersey School Boards Association.

On December 7, 2017, Robert F. Casey represented an Appellant before the Princeton Historic Commission in Princeton, New Jersey. Mr. Casey’s client was appealing a decision made by the Princeton Historic Commission relative to his client’s fence along Cherry Hill Road in Princeton. Mr. Casey’s client’s original fence was damaged by a car accident and subsequently replaced in front of their historic farmstead. In short, the homeowner/client applied for approval of the replacement fence with Historic Preservation Commission. Said approval was denied by the Historic Preservation Commission and determined, in essence, to not be in keeping with the Historic Preservation Commission standards and ordinance. Mr. Casey, with the assistance of several experts and his client’s testimony, was successful in overturning the Historic Preservation Commission’s determination holding “based upon the evidence submitted, including the supplemental evidence presented to the Board, the Board finds that the replacement fence is historically appropriate and satisfies the other standards of the Princeton code.” What makes this decision of the Princeton planning Board news worthy is the fact that this is the first known successful appeal of the Princeton Historic Commissions decision before the Princeton Planning Board.