MUNICIPAL COURT LAW
Speeding Ticket
(I) Client was charged with driving over 120 miles per hour on the New Jersey Turnpike. The prosecutor did not feel comfortable entering into a plea deal where the client received zero points. A motion to dismiss was submitted for failure to provide the discovery required by case law and the speeding ticket was ultimately dismissed entirely with no fines or penalties.
DUI
(I) Client was charged with a DUI for driving under the influence of alcohol. The state uncovered a second DUI that the same client was allegedly charged with years prior to the current DUI. The state adjourned client’s case for over a year to investigate the earlier DUI. A speedy trial motion was submitted and both DUI charges were dismissed.
(II) Client was driving the wrong way on the New Jersey Turnpike and received a DUI for driving under the influence of a controlled dangerous substance. The state failed to provide a drug recognition expert report (DRE) as required by the case law. A speedy trial motion was submitted and the DUI was dismissed.
Drug Possession
(I) Client was charged with possession of marijuana. The facts showed that the police were called by a relative of the client out of fear over the client’s behavior. Client allegedly punched a hole in the wall. I researched the caselaw and statutory law on West Law and ultimately found a provision in the rules that provided immunity for people who overdose on drugs when a phone call is made on their behalf for the purpose of receiving medical assistance. The charges were dismissed.
FAMILY LAW
CHILD CUSTODY AND PALIMONY
(I) Client broke up with her boy friend with whom she had lived with for over 17 years. One of the goals in the case, in addition to obtaining custody of the children, was to make sure that the client received financial compensation so she could restart her life independently, go to school, start a business, or achieve whatever other goals she wanted. Alimony is financial compensation during a divorce that is paid by one former spouse to the other. Palimony is the equivalent of alimony in a matter where parties were not married but lived in a marital type relationship and a promise was made to provide financial support.
By law, the statute of frauds applies to palimony. That means that in order to receive palimony there must be a written agreement signed by both parties. In addition, the rule in New Jersey requires that both parties receive advice from independent counsel for any palimony contract. When I researched this statute I noticed that the statute was enacted in 2010. I was curious as to whether the statute applied retroactively. I researched the case law on West Law and found that in New Jersey oral palimony agreements are not barred when they are made prior to the date of the new statute. The court held that if the legislature intended the statute to bar oral palimony agreements retroactively then the legislature would have said so.
When the hearing date came for the palimony issue the court held that the oral promise by my client’s former boy friend was not barred because it was made prior to the date of the new statute. A trial date was ultimately set and the court held that the promise to provide financial support was made and the court ordered that a lump sum of $75,000.00 be paid to my client. The judge reasoned in his opinion that this should be sufficient and reasonable compensation for my client to get back on her feet independently.
CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONTACT
(I) Client was charged with attempted statutory rape. Client was an illegal immigrant to the United States and the facts showed that client owned a car in New York with license plates registered in another state. While represented by the public defender at the initial bail hearing the judge determined client was a flight risk and a danger to the victim and issued an order that the client remain incarcerated. On a motion to reopen the bail hearing I appeared in front of the judge and argued that the court did not consider the evidence that the client had a strong connection to the United States because he lived with his sister and worked in construction. The court also did not consider the evidence showing that the victim admitted to the detective in her interview video that she told my client she was of legal age. The judge ultimately decided to release the client on his own recognizance. The client’s goal was to return to his country of origin. The plea negotiated on my client’s behalf resulted in all jail time and time spent in the Immigration and Custom Enforcement facility (ICE) being credited to his time to be served. Client ultimately spent less than one month in jail after sentencing and was able to return to his country of origin.
“DISCLAIMER-Prior results do not guarantee any future results in court and any information typed on this page is not legal advice. If you are having a legal problem you should obtain consultation from an attorney.”