Hanlon Niemann Blog | A Freehold, New Jersey Law Firm

By Fredrick P. Niemann, Esq., a NJ Business Attorney
Following the lead of many other states and modeling after the Federal government’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Governor Christie signed into New Jersey law the Trade Secrets Act last week. This new statute provides remedies to rightful owners of trade secrets that have their trade secrets misappropriated. The law states that these rightful owners may now bring action in NJ Civil Court and if victorious, may be entitled to certain remedies, including damages for actual loss and unjust enrichment, injunctive relief for threatened or actual misappropriation, punitive damages for certain willful and malicious misappropriation acts, and attorney’s fees in cases of certain willful and malicious misappropriation acts.

If you are confused as to whether or not your information that was stolen or misused is considered a trade secret, you are not alone. Trade secrets are known as formulas, designs, plans, processes, or other types of information that have economic value from not being readily available or ascertainable by other businesses and are the subject of your reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. If one is looking for a basic example, think of the formula for coca-cola. If you are unsure as to whether your information constitutes a trade secret, but believe this information was misappropriated, it is important to contact a knowledgeable NJ Business ? attorney immediately, to ensure the statute of limitations does not run on your civil action under the NJ Trade Secrets Act.

Contact me personally to discuss your NJ Trade Secret matter. I am easy to talk to, very approachable and can offer you practical, legal ways to handle your concerns. You can reach me toll free at (855) 376-5291 or email me at fniemann@hnlawfirm.com.

By Fredrick P. Niemann, Esq., a NJ Zoning Attorney
All Zoning Boards have the authority to issue variances to any applicant it deems has satisfied the required criteria for the variance. The typical New Jersey court case resulting from a zoning board decision is an appeal by an applicant whose request for a variance is denied by the zoning board. However, sometimes municipalities are unhappy with the zoning board’s decision to grant a variance and will appeal the decision, asking the NJ Courts to reverse the decision and deny the approved variance.

Such was the case in a recent NJ trial. A borough challenged the decision of the municipal zoning board after the board granted a variance that allowed an applicant to operate a law office out of a portion of her home, an activity otherwise prohibited in the borough. The NJ Court found that the borough lacked standing to challenge the decision of the zoning board in this case. The Court stated that a governing body has standing to challenge the decision of the zoning board only when the board has exceeded it’s scope of authority and the decision is one that threatens the public interest or NJ Municipal Land Use Law. The borough was unable to show any of these criteria here, so the NJ Court dismissed the case and the applicant was entitled to proceed with the approved variance.

Contact me personally to discuss your NJ Zoning Law matter. I am easy to talk to, very approachable and can offer you practical, legal ways to handle your concerns. You can reach me toll free at (855) 376-5291 or email me at fniemann@hnlawfirm.com.

By Fredrick P. Niemann, Esq., a NJ Consumer Fraud Attorney

 
New Jersey Law dictates that attorney’s fees may not be shared with non-attorneys. This simple rule typically comes into play with referral services. Most lawyers are seeking more and more clients and would love to be able to have someone refer clients to them. While the law states it is ok for one attorney to refer a client to another attorney and receive a percentage of the fee for doing so, non-lawyers are prohibited from a receiving this same percentage for their referral. This law often comes up in the landlord/tenant relationship, as some landlords include a provision in their contract with the tenant that calls for the tenant to reimburse all attorney’s fees the landlord may face when handling legal issues related to the tenant’s lease.

A recent NJ case involved this exact situation. A landlord was charging a flat legal fee of $400 every time the landlord had to consult his attorney regarding lease enforcement. Many times, this $400 cost ended up being greater than the actual amount the attorney would charge the landlord, leaving the landlord with a profit in these cases. The tenants filed a class-action suit against the landlord alleging violations of the Consumer Fraud Act and negligent misrepresentation. After the NJ Trial Court dismissed the claim, the NJ Appellate Court reversed the dismissal, finding that this clearly flat rate clearly ran afoul of the law that an attorney’s fee may not be shared with a non-attorney. In this case, the profit that the landlord was keeping was considered splitting the attorney’s fee and therefore prohibited.

Contact me personally to discuss your NJ Landlord or Tenant matter. I am easy to talk to, very approachable and can offer you practical, legal ways to handle your concerns. You can reach me toll free at (855) 376-5291 or email me at fniemann@hnlawfirm.com.

By Fredrick P. Niemann, Esq. a Veterans Benefits Attorney

You may be eligible for a monthly check from the VA… in many cases $1000 or $1500 per month or more for services you (or your spouse) performed for our country many years (even decades) ago.

Maybe you’re like many of my clients who don’t want to know all the details, they just want to know if they’ve got any benefits coming from the VA due to their, or their spouse’s, service.  If that’s you… if you want the bottom line… if you want to find out if it’s likely you’re eligible for a monthly check from the VA (I say likely eligible because of course the VA makes the final decision), then the quickest way to find out is to call my office toll-free at (888) 800-7442.

Then, after a short conversation with my assistants we’ll schedule you for a meeting with Fredrick P. Niemann or other members of our office.  We will be able to give you an understanding of what benefits may, or may not, be available through the VA.

For many of my clients, guiding them through the VA maze has helped them become eligible for $1000 to $1500 per month, or more, tax free!

If there are things we can help you with to get you qualified, we’ll let you know.  And if there’s nothing to do… no steps to take… we’ll let you know that too.

Wouldn’t it be nice to have a trusted guide… someone who has been on this path many times before, shine a light and show you where to go and what pitfalls to avoid?  That’s what we do for our clients as we take them towards VA benefit eligibility.

If you’d like to jump right to the end and discover if you’re eligible for a VA benefit, call me toll-free at (888) 800-7442.  Or, if you’d prefer, email me at fniemann@hnlawfirm.com  to follow up with you.  That way, if you “Need Answers Now” you’ve got a place to turn to.  And I’m happy to help you right away if you’d like.

By Fredrick P. Niemann, Esq. a New Jersey Employment Contract Lawyer

An understanding and knowledge of contract law is an important duty of any NJ Employment Contract Dispute Lawyer. Nevertheless, it is still best if you equip yourself with the basic knowledge pertaining to NJ employment contract dispute because only in this manner can you safeguard yourself and your family’s future against possible irregularities done against you by your employer. Remember that the law excuses no one yet understanding of it can protect you from potential harm and damages in the future!

Employment Contract Dispute Defined
NJ employment contract dispute lawyer defines it as allegations filed by one against the other in reference to a possible breach in the oral or written contract between two parties.

The Principle of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
This is one of the most common areas dealt with by NJ employment contract dispute lawyer whenever they are faced with breach of contract allegations. This implies acting honestly towards the other in full sight of the benefits one will gain and the services one ought to provide to the other party. Contracts should never be implemented if it signals a possibility of destroying the image or physically injuring another. Any violation of this matter seen in the formulation of the contract can be used as a possible ground for positive breach of contract.

The Appropriate Response Offered by NJ Contract Lawyer
Any contract presented to you by the employer should always be evaluated through an NJ contract lawyer, who is experienced in this field. It is hard to challenge the contents of a signed contract so it is best that you request the analysis of someone more knowledgeable than you in this aspect. If there is anything unclear about the stated duties, responsibilities, and benefits one should receive; then feel free to inquire about it with your NJ employment contract dispute lawyer rather than worry about it in the future.

Contact me personally today to discuss your Employee Contract matter.  I am easy to talk to, very approachable and can offer you practical, legal ways to handle your concerns.  You can reach me toll free at (855) 376-5291 or e-mail me at fniemann@hnlawfirm.com.

By Fredrick P. Niemann, Esq., a NJ Zoning Attorney

 New Jersey Zoning Law has strict requirements that all townships must abide by when they pass amendments to the current zoning ordinances. One of these is the “Notice” requirement. NJ Law requires that notice of such amendment be published in the newspaper and given to residents in the surrounding area that will be affected by the change. This notice must include a brief summary of the provisions of the ordinance, so the residents are made aware of what exactly the changes are.

The notice requirement was the main issue in a recent NJ Zoning Case. The case involved a proposed amendment to a zoning ordinance that would effectively create new zones with different uses throughout a district. While the notice was properly published and mailed to residents in the surrounding area affected by the ordinance, the plaintiff, a supermarket in the area, challenged the notice on the grounds that it was did not sufficiently alert the residents as to what exactly the changes would be. The notice merely alerted the public that some type of zoning amendment was being proposed to the zoning board, but was not specific enough, since it did not identify the new zoning plan or uses. The NJ Court held that the notice was therefore insufficient, and consequentially, the ordinance was considered invalid.

Contact me personally to discuss your NJ Zoning matter. I am easy to talk to, very approachable and can offer you practical, legal ways to handle your concerns. You can reach me toll free at (855) 376-5291 or email me at fniemann@hnlawfirm.com.

By Fredrick P. Niemann, Esq., a NJ Landlord & Tenant Attorney

Commercial Leases are often among the most complex contracts. They often contain numerous provisions regarding different aspects of the landlord/tenant relationship, including termination provisions that indicate when the landlord is entitled to terminate the lease. A recent NJ Court Case involved such a provision in a dispute between a tenant and landlord over whether or not the landlord was entitled to terminate the lease.

The plaintiff-tenant complained to the Court that the defendant-landlord was attempting to terminate the lease based on the fact that the tenant had located a party willing to sublease the property for more money than the tenant was paying. The tenant claimed the landlord logically wanted to terminate the tenant’s lease and lease the building to this new party. However, the landlord claimed that the termination was justified based on the commercial lease signed between the parties and the termination provision contained within.

The Court looked to the contract. The landlord, pursuant to the lease, issued a notice of default to the tenant that required certain repairs to be made or the tenant would risk termination of the lease. While the tenant complained during trial that the notice was inadequately broad, the Court sided with the landlord, citing the fact that the plaintiff made no repairs at all and did not make a single inquiry as to what repairs the landlord was referring to in the notice of default until over two years later, after the landlord filed a notice of termination of the lease. The Court noted that the commercial lease required the tenant to maintain structural and non-structural elements in good condition, something which the defendant had reasonable belief finding was not done based on the basement and other parts of the foundation being ruined due to water infiltration.

Finally, the tenant argues that the conditions that the landlord was citing as reason for termination were latent, existed prior to the signing of the lease, and the landlord had knowledge of them but neglected to inform the tenant. prior to the lease signing the tenant claimed he therefore should not be responsible for these repairs and thus they were not justification for terminating the lease. The Court disagreed, citing the fact that the tenant was a sophisticated businessman who should have seen these defects in plain view. He signed the contract to lease the property “as-is”, meaning the landlord would not be responsible for all the defects.  The landlord was justified in terminating the lease and the tenant was out of luck.

Contact me personally to discuss your NJ Landlord/Tenant matter. I am easy to talk to, very approachable and can offer you practical, legal ways to handle your concerns. You can reach me toll free at (855) 376-5291 or email me at fniemann@hnlawfirm.com.

By Fredrick P. Niemann, Esq. a Municipal Court Attorney

Under New Jersey law, no operator of a motor vehicle is allowed to knowingly possess any dangerous controlled substance. If you are pulled over by a police officer or highway patrol officer and drugs are found in your car, you will face criminal charges of drug possession. In addition to the criminal charges, the traffic laws add a penalty of $50 and a 2-year suspension of driving privileges. Possession of drugs in a car is a serious charge and deserves a thorough and thoughtful defense in both criminal court and traffic court.

Contact me personally today to discuss your municipal matter.  I am easy to talk to, very approachable and can offer you practical, legal ways to handle your concerns.  You can reach me toll free at (855) 376-5291 or e-mail me at fniemann@hnlawfirm.com.

By Fredrick P. Niemann, Esq., a NJ Contracts Attorney

 A large number of employers and employees throughout New Jersey are having signed an employment contract. Unfortunately, employees often do not read the contracts before they sign them, seeing it as too complicated or simply because they are too lazy. What many of these employees do not realize is that the language of the contract will bind both them and their employer once both parties have signed it. This makes it crucial that one reads and understands their employment contract prior to signing it. An employee cannot claim a defense based on the fact that they did not read the contract despite the fact that they signed it. Your signature, unless fraudulently obtained, indicates that you agree to the terms of the contract and will abide by it.

 NJ Contract law dictates that all signed contracts will bind both of the parties to the language included in the contract. This means that all employers and employees, once they sign the employment contract, must abide by the terms included in it or they will be considered in breach of the contract. If a dispute arises between an employer and employee, the first thing the Courts will look to is the employment contract signed by the parties. 

 One recent employment dispute arose between a doctor seeking to leave her practice and the partners she worked with in this practice in order to set up her own office. As is often the case, the parties disagreed about how much the departing doctor would be paid for her percentage of ownership in the practice and what remaining doctors would be purchasing her ownership percentage. The Courts refused to take any factors into consideration other than the employment contract between the parties. The contract states the price to be paid to the departing doctor and who would pay it in exchange for her ownership percentage in the practice. This is a typical example of why it is imperative that you read and understand the employment contract you are signing. 

 Contact me personally to discuss your NJ Contracts matter. I am easy to talk to, very approachable and can offer you practical, legal ways to handle your concerns. You can reach me toll free at (855) 376-5291 or email me at fniemann@hnlawfirm.com.

By Fredrick P. Niemann, Esq., a NJ Consumer Fraud Attorney

 
The Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) provides protection for many NJ consumers when dealing with the sales of real estate and merchandise. The Act provides broad protections for both individuals and corporations involved in these two types of sales, allowing them to bring claims against fraud perpetrators when other types of claims may fail. However, it is important to note that the Consumer Fraud Act, while covering a large number of consumer contracts, does not cover every single contract entered into by corporations.

New Jersey Courts were recently called upon to determine whether or not the Consumer Fraud Act applied to a complex installation of a computer software system. The case involved a corporation seeking to upgrade its computer system and the company it chose to do the upgrades. The defendant claimed that the case did not fall under the CFA because the installation was “not available to the public” and therefore did not qualify as the “sale of merchandise”, a requirement for the CFA to be applicable.

The NJ Court agreed with the defendant, citing numerous factors in determining that although the defendant may offer some services to the public, this particular transaction was not one that was offered to the public and therefore the CFA did not apply. The Court noted that the transaction was not a simple sale of software to the general public, but rather was an individualized installation that the plaintiff had sought through various proposals by different computer companies. After the plaintiff had received the defendant’s proposal, there were over two years of evaluations done by the defendant and the contract between the parties used such evaluations to determine a custom-built system specified specifically for the defendant. The contract for the installation of the software was also the product of lengthy negotiations between the parties. These factors all added up to show the installation was not available to the public and thus not considered the “sale of merchandise”, thereby making the Consumer Fraud Act inapplicable.

Contact me personally to discuss your NJ Consumer Fraud matter. I am easy to talk to, very approachable and can offer you practical, legal ways to handle your concerns. You can reach me toll free at (855) 376-5291 or email me at fniemann@hnlawfirm.com.