State v. Burten

530 A.2d 30, 219 N.J. Super. 156
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedJanuary 20, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 530 A.2d 30 (State v. Burten) 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.

Bluebook
State v. Burten, 530 A.2d 30, 219 N.J. Super. 156 (N.J. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

219 N.J. Super. 156 (1987)
530 A.2d 30

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
MARVIN F. BURTEN, RICHARD A. BURTEN AND HOWARD L. KASKEL, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued January 12, 1987.
Decided January 20, 1987.

John A. Craner argued the cause for appellant (Craner, Nelson, Satkin & Glazner, attorneys).

*157 Marvin M. Goldstein argued the cause for respondents Marvin F. Burten and Richard A. Burten (Grotta, Glassman & Hoffman, attorneys).

Lawrence P. Platkin argued the cause for respondent Howard L. Kaskel (Robinson, Wayne, Levin, Riccio & LaSala, attorneys).

Alan A. Sant'Angelo, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for W. Cary Edwards, Attorney General, amicus curiae.

W. Cary Edwards, attorney pro se.

Before Judges MORTON I. GREENBERG, J.H. COLEMAN and R.S. COHEN.

PER CURIAM.

Following our remand of these proceedings reported at 207 N.J. Super. 53 (App.Div. 1986), the matter came on before Judge Wertheimer who decided the matter in a comprehensive written opinion dated June 20, 1986, 219 N.J. Super. 339. In his opinion he concluded that the prosecution was barred by federal preemption. Consequently, on July 7, 1986 he entered an order dismissing the complaints. We are in full agreement with Judge Wertheimer and affirm his order substantially for the reasons set forth in his written opinion.

In reaching our result we recognize that we undercut our dictum in Trustees of Local 478 Pension Fund v. Pirozzi, 198 N.J. Super. 318, 320 (App.Div. 1984), that a victim of an offense under N.J.S.A. 2A:170-90.2 may be able to obtain monetary relief by way of restitution as an incident of the disposition of a disorderly persons offense conviction. In this regard, we note that in the Pirozzi case the court did not pass on the preemption question as it appears not to have been raised by the defendants there.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Sirvent
686 A.2d 1202 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1997)
State v. Pulasty
612 A.2d 952 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1992)
Commonwealth v. Morash
522 N.E.2d 409 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
530 A.2d 30, 219 N.J. Super. 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-burten-njsuperctappdiv-1987.