» Civil

Hegge & Confusione has persuaded the Supreme Court to hear a client’s case involving an important issue of family law. Read More

New Jersey’s Appellate Division agreed with Hegge & Confusione that the lower courts’ imposition of $330,000 in fines violated New Jersey statutory law: “On remand, the court must reconsider the amount of the penalties imposed for defendant’s violations of N.J.A.C. 5:23-2.32(a) and N.J.A.C. 5:23-2.14 occurring, as charged, on September 27, 2012. N.J.S.A. 52:27D-138 does not mandate the imposition of any minimum penalties for defendant’s violations but does impose maximum penalties that may be imposed. The imposition of penalties, however, cannot be untethered to the facts and circumstances or be founded on the State’s opinion or request that the maximum allowable penalties should be imposed.” Read More

New Jersey’s Appellate Division agreed with Hegge & Confusione that the client’s right to a fair trial was infringed: “Because of the State’s treatment of a potential defense witness and the court’s grant of the State’s motion to relieve defendant’s retained counsel over defendant’s objection without sufficient cause, we reverse.” Read More

New Jersey’s Appellate Division agreed with Hegge & Confusione that the lower court erred in failing to hold a plenary custody hearing for the client: “We agree with plaintiff that the trial court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine, among other things, whether plaintiff ‘reasonably’ recovered from substance abuse such that modification of the June 13, 2016 order is in the best interests of the child. Further, a hearing was required to be conducted as soon as practicable because a ‘temporary decision to change custody can take on a life of its own, creating a new status quo. Nominally temporary orders involving the custody of a child have a tendency to become permanent . . . .’ Peregoy v. Peregoy, 358 N.J. Super. 179, 202-03 (App. Div. 2003). Accordingly, we must vacate the June 13, 2016 order and again remand this matter for a custody hearing.” Read More

New Jersey’s Appellate Division agreed with Hegge & Confusione that summary judgment was improperly granted: “Because the judge failed to consider plaintiff’s equitable interest claim in the properties under the theory of unjust enrichment, we reverse and remand for trial.” Read More

New Jersey’s Appellate Division agreed with Hegge & Confusione that the client’s sentence was improper: “We … vacate the sentence imposed, and remand for resentencing.” Read More

New Jersey’s Appellate Division agreed with Hegge & Confusione that “[t]he family judge misapplied governing New Jersey and federal law in ordering grandparent visitation with the minor child over the objections of the natural parent defendants.” Read More

New Jersey’s Appellate Division agreed with Hegge & Confusione that the lower court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the propriety of dismissal of the client’s lawsuit: “The order under review is vacated and the matter remanded for a plenary hearing as to whether plaintiffs knowingly waived their right to trial by a judge or jury.” Read More