New Jersey Family Law

KENILWORTH UNION COUNTY NEW JERSEY CUSTODY CHILD REMOVAL MEDIATION LAWYER

There's a major lesson learned in this hotly-contested New Jersey custody and child removal litigation. If you forego your own expert and rely on the opinion of a court-appointed "neutral", you do so at your peril. Hrycak v. Hrycak, New Jersey App. Div., November 5, 2009

SHORT HILLS ESSEX COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER MEDIATION

The New Jersey divorce judge was "unimpressed" with the wife's expert's testimony regarding the alleged valuation of the ex-husband's accounting practice. Accordingly, that expert's opinion was disregarded, and this finding is affirmed on appeal.     Cacici v. Cacici, New Jersey App. Div., February 23, 2009

JERSEY CITY HUDSON COUNTY NEW JERSEY DIVORCE EXPERT WITNESS LAWYER

"We are of the view that to interpret New Jersey Rule of Evidence 615 to authorize the routine sequestration of expert witnesses in a matter such as this is contrary to the terms of New Jersey Rule of Evidence 703, which provides that an expert may base his opinion upon 'facts or data . . . perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing.'  By its use of the preposition 'at,' the rule clearly envisions an expert observing trial proceedings and then commenting upon what he has heard."    State of New Jersey v. Popovich, February 19, 2009

BERGEN COUNTY DIVORCE MEDIATOR

Wife's real estate appraisal witness, who performed appraisal update 21 months after another appraiser from his firm had conducted original appraisal, lacked knowledge of essential facts needed to qualify him to form an expert opinion on value of residential property where witness did not personally inspect the interior of the structures and did not personally view the property, not even from a distance, but instead relied on facts from original appraisal report which had been excluded from evidence.  Porter v. Thrane, 98 Conn. App. 336, 908 A.2d 1137, December 21, 2006  

http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP98/98AP451.pdf

BASKING RIDGE DIVORCE MEDIATOR

The plaintiff had retained defendant as a handwriting expert, but when defendant failed to appear atthe New Jersey trial, judgment was entered against plaintiff, and she sued to recover the monies she had paid defendant. The New Jersey trial judge, finding plaintiff to be a credible witness, and concluding that defendant was not forthcoming, justly awarded plaintiff the amount she had paid defendant, less the amount attributable to his report, which he had issued.    Azizi v. Phillips, New Jersey App. Div., December 6, 2006

NEW JERSEY DIVORCE LAWYER : BATTERED WOMEN SYNDROME

In a prosecution for the murder of defendant's girlfriend, the trial court properly admitted expert testimony about the common characteristics of battered women and battered women's syndrome. The failure to issue a limiting instruction on the use of the expert's testimony was harmless error. Also, the 20-year delay between the date of the crime and the date of the indictment did not violate due process.    State v. Townsend, New Jersey Supreme Ct., ___ N.J.___ (2006); May 5, 2006

Barring The New Jersey Expert

Can you successfully bar the testimony of a vocational expert in New Jersey divorce cases? You can. And that was the result here. Both the expert's testimony and the expert's report were precluded. Why? Because they were not submitted until after the expiration of the discovery end date and because the "explanations" for the lateness were unjustified.  Repa v. Thompson, New Jersey Law Div., October 5, 2005

New Jersey Divorce : Disappearing Expert

Many New Jersey divorce cases involve expert witnesses. These can be accountants, appraisers, doctors, mental health professionals or others. What happens if the particular expert selected for the litigation is not available when it comes time for trial and the client then claims damages as a result of the expert's absence? A malpractice case from Morris County was just dismissed and held neither the expert nor the client's lawyers responsible. Judge W. Hunt Dumont dismissed the malpractice case, because the scheduling mix-up wasn't the expert's fault. Further, the lawyers hadn't violated any professional standards and the client failed to prove that the expert's nonappearance cost him money.

Kranz v. Tiger, MRS-L-3661-00, New Jersey Law Division, Morris County, December 23, 2004.