Kostelanetz, Ritholz, Tigue & Fink v. Himmelwright
This text of 625 A.2d 488 (Kostelanetz, Ritholz, Tigue & Fink v. Himmelwright) 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
The order dismissing counts three and seven of defendant’s counterclaim, alleging that plaintiff attorneys violated the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -48, is affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Ironson in his oral decision of June 14, 1991. See Vort v. Hollander, 257 N.J.Super. 56, 61-63, 607 A.2d 1339 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 130 N.J. 599, 617 A.2d 1221 (1992).
The order dismissing the remaining counts of defendant’s counterclaim and entering summary judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Alley’s written opinion reported as Kostelanetz, Ritholz v. Himmelwright, 254 N.J.Super. 249, 603 A.2d 168 (Law Div.1991).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
625 A.2d 488, 264 N.J. Super. 578, 1993 N.J. Super. LEXIS 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kostelanetz-ritholz-tigue-fink-v-himmelwright-njsuperctappdiv-1993.