The Appellate Division of New Jersey’s Superior Court recently reviewed the signature requirements for filing a construction lien claim prior to and after the 2011 amendments to New Jersey’s Construction Lien Law. Our construction attorneys represent contractors in construction law matters including but not limited to filing and/or defending against construction lien claims under New Jersey’s Construction Lien Law, N.J.S.A. 2A:44a-1, et seq. The Court’s review was in Diamond Beach, LLC v. March Associates, Inc., decided in December 2018. The Court was required to review the signatory requirements “pre” and “post” Construction Lien Law amendments, and determine whether the amendments should retroactively apply to previously filed construction liens. Prior to the 2011 Construction Lien Law amendments, N.J.S.A. 2A:44A-6 required that a lien claim be signed, acknowledged, and verified by “a partner or duly…
Read more detail on Recent Employment Law posts –
Related news:
- New Jersey’s Appellate Division Issue Decision Important to Construction Contractors
- New Jersey Appellate Division Addresses Whether Waiver of a Military Pension Constitutes a Change in Circumstance Warranting an Award of Alimony
- New Jersey Appellate Division Addresses How Courts Should Handle Complex Custody Disputes in Non-Dissolution Cases
- NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION REJECTS A FORCED ARBITRATION AGREEMENT
- While Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision Extends Federal Age Discrimination Protections for Public Employees, New Jersey Law Already Offered Strong Protection to Older Government Employees
- In a New Post-Bisbing Decision, the Appellate Division Highlights the Significance of the Requirement to Show Cause for a Proposed Interstate Move
- New Jersey Appellate Division Addresses Adoption Act in Dispute Between Biological and Adoptive Parents
- Published Decision From the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Two, Regarding Penal Code section 1473.7
- THE NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION SAYS LATERAL TRANSFER CAN BE AN ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION UNDER STATE’S WHISTLEBLOWER LAW
- Unsatisfactory rating voided because employee's "performance review," failed to comply with the employer's own procedures and thus undermined the integrity of the process Joyce v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03433, Appellate Division, First Department The Appellate Division annulled the determination of respondent New York City Department of Education [DOE] sustaining the "unsatisfactory" rating for the 2010-2011 academic year give to John Joyce, a tenured teacher. The court said that the record demonstrates "deficiencies in the performance review process" that resulted in Mr. Joyce being given an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year. Citing Matter of Gumbs v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 125 AD3d 484, and Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 117 AD3d 605, the Appellate Division noted that these deficiencies "were not merely technical, but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process." Mr. Joyce had received a satisfactory rating for the previous academic year and, in contravention of its own procedures, DOE failed to place him on notice that he was in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year until after April 28, 2011. Although DOE's procedures required that tenured teachers in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating have "formal observations including a pre-observation and post-observation conference by the principal … as part of a prescriptive plan to improve their teaching," Mr. Joyce received only one formal observation which took place one week before the end of the academic year and was not part of a prescriptive plan to improve his performance as a teacher. The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_03433.htm
