Firm News
AIA New Jersey Guidebook 150 Best Buildings and Places: One Airport Road
One Airport Road, Lakewood NJ
The professional office building was designed by Noboru Kobayashi. The spare and elegant design is made up of pure geometric forms that recall both Shinto temples and the Louis Khan Bath House in Ewing Township. The complex consists of nine square pavilions of ascending dimension offset from each other on diagonal axes. The pavilions are capped with steeply pitched pyramidal roofs covered by wood shingles. The roofs are supported on regularly spaced wood columns with large glass windows between them. The windows sit on a solid plinth sheathed with flush board, horizontal siding. The siding is pierced at regular intervals by wall mounted HVAC units that project slightly from the surface. The roofs have built in gutters that collect rain water and direct it through scuppers into the reflecting ponds from which the pavilions rise. The building is bordered by a landscaped berm that encloses a manicured lawn on the sides and the back of the site. The u-shaped drive and parking area give access to a flagstone terrace, which creates a quiet and enclosed entry sequence to the building.Tags: Noboru Kobayashi , AIA Guidebook, 150 Best Buldings and Places, New Jersey, NJ, Architecture, showcase historic, Philip S Kennedy Grant FAIA, Bathgate, Wegener, Wolf, One Airport Road, Lakewood, Ocean County, pyramid roofs, American Institute of Architects
New Jersey Fellow William J. Wolf Wins Two Verdicts Against Electric Companies
New Jersey Fellow William J. Wolf Wins Two Verdicts Against Electric Companies Electric companies in New Jersey, when faced with a novel claim, prefer to go to trial rather than settle. William J. Wolf, Esq. of Bathgate, Wegener & Wolf, P.C., in Lakewood, New Jersey knows that first hand. The plaintiffs he represented in two cases dealing with electrical distribution systems won jury verdicts against electric companies.
Mr. Wolf, assisted by several attorneys at Bathgate, Wegener & Wolf, P.C., represented John and Sandra Altoonian in a lawsuit against Atlantic City Electric Company. The Altoonians alleged that the electromagnetic field (“EMF”) produced by Atlantic City Electric’s distribution lines caused John Altoonian’s leukemia, devalued their property and caused emotional distress. After a three month trial in 1996, a jury in Cape May County, although not finding a causal link between Mr. Altoonian’s cancer and EMF, returned a verdict in favor of the Altoonians. It is believed that the jury verdict was the only one ever rendered in an EMF trial. Shortly after Atlantic City Electric filed an appeal, the case settled.
In 2002, Gary Smith of Bricktown was shocked when he attempted to clean his hot tub. Mr. Wolf’s experience with Altoonian contributed to Gary and Eileen Smith retaining Bathgate Wegener & Wolf, P.C. to represent them in a lawsuit against Jersey Central Power & Light Co., Inc. (“JCP&L”). The Smiths’ alleged that Mr. Smith had been shocked because of stray current generated by JCP&L’s distribution system and that their property had been devalued. In an effort to reduce the level of stray current that was present on the Smiths’ property, JCP&L tried several approaches, such as adding larger cables, but eventually devised a novel system of filters for their capacitors. That work benefited the Smiths’ entire neighborhood.
After more than five years of discovery and numerous motions, JCP&L went to trial against the Smiths. After a trial lasting several weeks, a jury in Ocean County in February 2008 returned a verdict in favor of the Smiths. The Smiths’ case was the first lawsuit in New Jersey, and maybe nationwide, that related to stray current on residential property.
JCP&L filed an appeal from that jury verdict. The Smiths appealed the decision of the trial court dismissing their claim for inverse condemnation. The Smiths, however, did not seek a new trial but only sought an award for legal fees.
On August 10, 2011, the appellate court affirmed the jury’s verdict that JCP&L had created a nuisance and the monetary award. On the Smith’s inverse condemnation claim the appellate court decided that “… even assuming, as we do, that a sufficiently serious case of NEV [neutral to earth voltage] that an electric company was unable to correct could provide a basis for an inverse condemnation …” the jury’s finding regarding the creation of a nuisance was insufficient to support a claim for a taking of their property. Because the Smiths did not seek a new trial on that issue the appellate court concluded that it could not, as a matter of law, equate a finding of nuisance with a claim for inverse condemnation.
JCP&L raised other issues on appeal. In response, the appellate court concluded that JCP&L’s arguments that the Smiths had a duty to mitigate their damages by selling their house and moving, that the jury award should be vacated because months after the trial the Smiths installed a swimming pool and that the Smiths were not entitled to interest on part of the judgment were “… so clearly without merit they do not warrant discussion.”
The rulings of the appellate court can be viewed as a benefit to property owners whose land is impacted by the presence of stray current. Not only does the appellate opinion affirm the verdict that JCP&L caused a nuisance but also offers the potential that, under a theory of inverse condemnation, legal fees could be awarded to persons who litigate when an electric utility does not address their concerns regarding the presence of stray current.
Electromagnetic fields and stray current are not unique to the properties in Altoonian and Smith. As it relates to stray current, property owners may experience that condition and not know what is causing them to receive shocks when they touch objects, such as outdoor water faucets, located on their property. Although an electric company may deny liability, Altoonian and Smith established that juries have concluded otherwise.
William J. Wolf has practiced law with the firm of Bathgate, Wegener & Wolf, P.C. since 1977 and has been a partner with the firm since 1982. Mr. Wolf, who has an AV rating, practices primarily in the areas of complex business litigation, employment litigation, real estate disputes, environmental and property damage insurance coverage litigation, probate litigation, general equity litigation and prerogative writ litigation as well as providing representation in relation to complex business transactions. Mr. Wolf has also served as general counsel and special counsel for numerous businesses and governmental entities.
Utility Shocked Again - JCP&L liable for Shocks
PRESS RELEASE
LAKEWOOD, NEW JERSEY
Utility Shocked Again
JCP&L liable for Shocks
Electric companies in New Jersey when faced with a novel claim prefer to go to trial rather than settle. William J. Wolf, Esq. of Bathgate, Wegener & Wolf, P.C., in Lakewood, New Jersey knows that first hand. The plaintiffs he represented in two cases dealing with electrical distribution systems won jury verdicts against electric companies.
Mr. Wolf, assisted by several attorneys at Bathgate, Wegener & Wolf, P.C., represented John and Sandra Altoonian in a lawsuit against Atlantic City Electric Company. The Altoonians alleged that the electromagnetic field (“EMF”) produced by Atlantic City Electric’s distribution lines caused John Altoonian’s leukemia, devalued their property and caused emotional distress. After a three month trial in 1996, a jury in Cape May County, although not finding a causal link between Mr. Altoonian’s cancer and EMF, returned a verdict in favor of the Altoonians. It is believed that the jury verdict was the only one ever rendered in an EMF trial. Shortly after Atlantic City Electric filed an appeal, the case settled.
In 2002, Gary Smith of Bricktown was shocked when he attempted to clean his hot tub. Mr. Wolf’s experience with Altoonian contributed to Gary and Eileen Smith retaining Bathgate Wegener & Wolf, P.C. to represent them in a lawsuit against Jersey Central Power & Light Co., Inc. (“JCP&L”). The Smiths’ alleged that Mr. Smith had been shocked because of stray current generated by JCP&L’s distribution system and that their property had been devalued. In an effort to reduce the level of stray current that was present on the Smiths’ property, JCP&L tried several approaches, such as adding larger cables, but eventually devised a novel system of filters for their capacitors. That work benefited the Smiths’ entire neighborhood.
After more than five years of discovery and numerous motions, JCP&L went to trial against the Smiths. After a trial lasting several weeks, a jury in Ocean County in February 2008 returned a verdict in favor of the Smiths. The Smiths’ case was the first lawsuit in New Jersey, and maybe nationwide, that related to stray current on residential property.
JCP&L filed an appeal from that jury verdict. The Smiths appealed the decision of the trial court dismissing their claim for inverse condemnation. The Smiths, however, did not seek a new trial but only sought an award for legal fees.
On August 10, 2011, the appellate court affirmed the jury’s verdict that JCP&L had created a nuisance and the monetary award. On the Smith’s inverse condemnation claim the appellate court decided that “… even assuming, as we do, that a sufficiently serious case of NEV [neutral to earth voltage] that an electric company was unable to correct could provide a basis for an inverse condemnation …” the jury’s finding regarding the creation of a nuisance was insufficient to support a claim for a taking of their property. Because the Smiths did not seek a new trial on that issue the appellate court concluded that it could not, as a matter of law, equate a finding of nuisance with a claim for inverse condemnation.
JCP&L raised other issues on appeal. In response, the appellate court concluded that JCP&L’s arguments that the Smiths had a duty to mitigate their damages by selling their house and moving, that the jury award should be vacated because months after the trial the Smiths installed a swimming pool and that the Smiths were not entitled to interest on part of the judgment were “… so clearly without merit they do not warrant discussion.”
The rulings of the appellate court can be viewed as a benefit to property owners whose land is impacted by the presence of stray current. Not only does the appellate opinion affirm the verdict that JCP&L caused a nuisance but also offers the potential that, under a theory of inverse condemnation, legal fees could be awarded to persons who litigate when an electric utility does not address their concerns regarding the presence of stray current.
Electromagnetic fields and stray current are not unique to the properties in Altoonian and Smith. As it relates to stray current, property owners may experience that condition and not know what is causing them to receive shocks when they touch objects, such as outdoor water faucets, located on their property. Although an electric company may deny liability, Altoonian and Smith established that juries have concluded otherwise.
The Smiths were represented by William J. Wolf, Esq. and Pamela M. Snyder, Esq. of the law firm of Bathgate Wegener & Wolf, P.C. in Lakewood, New Jersey. (Telephone no. 732-363-0666)
Appellate Court Affirms Walmart Approval
On June 13, 2011, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, released, and approved for publication, its decision in Shakoor Supermarkets, Inc. v. Old Bridge Township Planning Board, (Docket No. A-3765-09T3). In that opinion the Appellate Division affirmed the rulings of the trial court which affirmed the decision of the Old Bridge Planning Board to grant preliminary and final major site plan approval, together with variances and waivers, to a 230,000 square foot retail, restaurant and office complex in Old Bridge, Middlesex County, New Jersey. That project included a 150,000 square foot Walmart and a 7,200 square foot garden center.
On appeal to the Appellate Division Shakoor argued that: the public notice given in relation to the Planning Board hearings was defective because it did not specifically mention Walmart; the project needed an additional variance because the Walmart building exceeded 150,000 square feet due to the adjacent garden center; and the Board improperly delegated authority to its professional consultants.
The Appellate Division rejected each of those contentions. First, the appellate court held that, by referring to a 150,000 square foot retail building, the public notice accurately informed the public of the scope of the project; therefore, specific reference to Walmart was not necessary. Second, the appellate court ruled that the garden center did not constitute a building because it did not have four walls and a roof and; therefore, a variance was not required because the developer did not propose to expand the retail building beyond 150,000 square feet. Third, the appellate court held that the review of plans by a board’s professional consultants to assure compliance with the directives of a board did not constitute an improper delegation of authority to approve a development project.
William J. Wolf of Bathgate, Wegener & Wolf, P.C. represented The Golf Center, Inc., which is the developer of the Walmart site. Inquiries regarding this significant appellate opinion and land use planning and development can be addressed to Mr. Wolf. Mr. Wolf not only represents developers in Middlesex, Monmouth and Ocean Counties, but throughout the State of New Jersey.
One Airport Road