Apollo v. Kim Anh Pham
This text of 539 A.2d 1222 (Apollo v. Kim Anh Pham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
BENJAMIN APOLLO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT/CROSS-RESPONDENT,
v.
KIM ANH PHAM, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT/CROSS-APPELLANT.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Before Judges DEIGHAN, HAVEY and MUIR.
Edward J. Bowen argued the cause for appellant-cross-respondent (Edward J. Bowen on the brief).
Robert C. Rivas argued the cause for respondent-cross-appellant (Bergen County Legal Services, attorneys; Robert C. Rivas on the brief).
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of the Chancery Division denying a trial by jury is affirmed essentially for the reasons set forth by Judge Sorkow in his opinion reported at 192 N.J. Super. 427 (Ch.Div. 1983).
(The balance of the opinion which disposes of essentially factual issues in the same case decided by another judge is omitted from this publication.)
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
539 A.2d 1222, 224 N.J. Super. 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/apollo-v-kim-anh-pham-njsuperctappdiv-1987.