Paul W. Norris

Paul W. Norris has no picture

Paul W. Norris is a member of the Firm’s Construction Litigation group and concentrates his practice in representing both General Contractors and Subcontractors in either defending or prosecuting claims on their behalf. A significant part of Mr. Norris’ practice involves either placing and/or challenging Construction Liens. As, such Mr. Norris is keenly aware of all aspects of New Jersey Lien Law. Mr. Norris also has experience in prosecuting and/or defending Federal Miller Act claims, which concern Federal construction projects.In addition to Mr. Norris’ Construction Litigation practice, he also possesses extensive experience in defending individuals in criminal matters or traffic matters, whether they be venued in Municipal Court, State Court, or Federal Court. Mr. Norris also has an extensive and growing Probate Litigation practice, which concerns either defending, or initiation Will contests on behalf of beneficiaries and/or purported beneficiaries of and Estate. Mr. Norris has both prosecuted and defended several actions successfully in this regard.


Articles By This Author

Expungement Statute Amended: New ruling allows permit of expungement after five years

no picture

The Expungement statute codified by N.J.S.A. 2C:52-1, et al., previously required a mandatory ten year waiting period prior to filing an Expungement Petition for an indictable offense. Recently, however, the Expungement statute has been amended to permit an Expungement after five years has expired from the date of the conviction, payment of fine(s), satisfactory completion of probation or parole, or release from being incarcerated, whichever is later. The new statute also requires that the person has not been convicted of any crime, disorderly persons offense, or petty disorderly persons offense since the time of the conviction and the Court must find in its discretion that it is in the public’s interest, giving due consideration to the nature of the offense and the applicants character and conduct since the date of conviction that the Expungement is appropriate.

 

In determining whether compelling circumstances exist in order to grant an Expungement, the Court may consider the amount of fine(s) imposed, the applicant’s age at the time of the offense, the applicant’s financial situation and other relevant circumstances regarding the person’s ability to pay. This new section of the Expungement statute allows individuals who previously had to wait ten years to apply for an Expungement to now be able to file after only five years. This statute is relatively new, and thus, the Court typically holds hearings on these applications after a thorough review of the applicant’s history. Judges are inclined to grant the Expungement unless there are extenuating circumstances which show that it would not be in the public’s interest to grant the Expungement.

 

It is important that an applicant review their paperwork thoroughly to determine if they meet this new five year statute. This amendment is certainly good news for many people who may have made an error at some time in their life and are now dealing with the consequences of same.
 

Jurisdiction in Internet Defamation Cases

no picture

Recently, I was the attorney who prosecuted the matter of Dana Goldhaber vs. Charles Kohlenberg. This case dealt with Internet defamation and the jurisdiction of Courts to hear a matter. This case has been widely cited by Courts across the Country and its importance continues to grow. My words of wisdom that are bestowed upon any party that participates in Internet news groups, Facebook, or other chat rooms, is that they should not post anything on the internet that they wouldn’t want their own mother to read. Moreover, they should not assume that an Internet chat room or a similar board is a “free for all” and that there are no potential repercussions for things they have posted. On the contrary, information posted on the Internet is akin to publishing the information in print. If the information posted is willfully false, or constitutes defamation per se, which is defined by statute, this party may be subject to a lawsuit by the aggrieved individual. 

 

As discussed in Goldhaber vs. Kohlenberg, the Courts have extended the long reach of jurisdiction to parties well outside of the State of the victim, as long as the original party understood that his conduct might reach inside the State of the victim and affect that individual. As such, a strong word of wisdom for those posting to Internet news groups is to assume that what they are posting was published and passed out amongst their neighbors. To assume otherwise, may only lead to an unpleasant and costly lawsuit in the future. 

 

If you have questions regarding Internet defamation and would like to discuss this matter in more detail, feel free to contact me in my firm's Lawrenceville, New Jersey office. 

The Seller's Disclosure Statement

no picture

The completion of the Seller’s Disclosure Statement is a task that is often taken lightly by a Seller of residential real estate when they are preparing to sell their house.  In fact, many individuals when faced with completing this task give it little thought and complete it in a cursory fashion. What a Seller should be aware of, however, is that any misstatement of fact, whether intentional or not may subject a Seller to liability post-closing.  In the State of New Jersey a Seller of residential real estate has a duty to disclose any and all latent defects with regard to the condition of their property.  A latent condition is a condition that is not otherwise observable, or in essence, hidden.  Examples of latent conditions are radon contamination, underground oil tank leaks, or a history of water problems.  If a Seller fails to disclose the existence of a latent defect of which they have knowledge, this party may be subject legal claims post closing for failure to disclose the defect(s).  The Claims that may be filed against a Seller would be claims of fraudulent concealment or fraudulent misrepresentation.

 

In order for a Plaintiff to prevail on a claim of fraudulent concealment or fraudulent misrepresentation, the plaintiff must first establish that the Seller had actual knowledge of the defect and that the Seller either fraudulently misrepresented the condition or failed to disclose same to the Buyers.  Thereafter, the Plaintiff must demonstrate that the defect was material to the real estate transaction.  It is for this reason that the careful completion of a Seller’s Disclosure Statement is extremely important when a party is selling their real estate.

 

In order to avoid being subjected to a lawsuit post-closing, a seller should make sure that the Seller’s Disclosure Statement is accurate and inclusive.  If it is completed in this fashion, it is far less likely that a party could be subjected to claims for fraudulent concealment or fraudulent misrepresentation.  Obviously, in this harsh economic climate it is better to put yourself in a position where you are far less likely to be sued rather than in a position where you might be sued due to a simple lack of diligence in completing the Seller’s Disclosure Statement. 

 

If you feel you are the victim of fraudulent misrepresentations or omissions, you should be aware that prosecuting this type of claim is challenging.  You must first establish that the party had actual or constructive knowledge of the defect and that they either misrepresented the condition or failed to disclose same.  As such, you must present evidence which demonstrates that the condition existed and that the purchaser either had actual knowledge or constructive knowledge of same.  Although a party may believe that the Seller had actual knowledge of a defect, it nonetheless carries the burden of proof.  Thereafter, you must demonstrate that the defect was material to the real estate transaction.

 

As such, the simple a task of completing the Seller’s Disclosure Statement may seem, it is important that it be taken seriously, as it may expose a Seller of residential real estate to lawsuits post-closing should this document not be properly completed. 

When A Subcontractor Should File & Perfect a Lien Claim

no picture

In today’s harsh economic climate, a general contractor or subcontractor is often faced with non-payment from a project owner.  The question then becomes what is the best fashion in order to collect the unpaid balance which is due the general contractor or subcontractor.  As a general contractor, you have a few options.  The first option is to attempt to negotiate a resolution with the owner.  Another option is to file a lawsuit.  If a lawsuit is the preferred option, it is suggested that a Lien Claim be filed within ninety-days of the last date of materials or services were provided pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:44(A)-3.  This secures the general contractor’s interest in the property and may provide it with leverage to facilitate a settlement.

For a subcontractor, the best process in which to collect an unpaid amount becomes more complex.  Pursuant to the relevant Lien Statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:44-126, a “subcontractor” is any person or party who has a contract to provide labor or materials with a contractor or with a subcontractor who has a contract with the general contractor.  The purpose of this definition is to limit who may file a Lien Claim against the property.  Like a general contractor, a subcontractor may attempt to resolve the dispute as to the unpaid balance with the general contractor or the subcontractor who hired them.  In the absence of a quick resolution, however, it is often suggested that a Lien Claim be filed by a subcontractor or sub-sub-contractor on the project.  Unfortunately for a lot of subcontractors, this is when a critical error is made with regard to filing a Lien Claim.

Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:44(A)-3, the Lien Claimant shall file a Lien against the owner of the property, or the tenant of the property for whom the contract to perform services exists.  The critical point is that a Lien cannot be filed against the property owner if the tenant contracted to have the work done and the improvement was not authorized in writing by the owner of the property.  This is critical because if a contractor files a Lien Claim against the property owner and not the tenant as well and it is later determined that the improvement was not authorized by the owner, the Lien Claim is invalid and the subcontractor may be left without a claim against the tenant.  As such, the best practice is to always file a Lien Claim against the tenant who is occupying the leased property and for whom the work is being performed and against the property owner as well.  At any time, the contractor can withdraw the Lien Claim against the property owner, however, continue against the tenant if it is found that the improvement was not authorized in writing.  If this procedure is not followed and more than ninety days have passed since the last day materials and services were provided, the contractor may lose its right to bring a Lien Claim against the tenant.

As always, a lawsuit to foreclose upon the Lien must be commenced within thirty days upon request by the tenant or owner or within one year of the date of the Lien Claim was filed, otherwise it will expire.  A subcontractor or sub-subcontractor does not lose its rights to proceed against the party whom directly contracted with it, however, an action to foreclose upon the Lien Claim as well only gives the contractor further leverage.

Contracts - Construction: Validity of Paid When Paid Provision

no picture

In the matter of Brolley Electrical v. Ernest Bock and Sons, Inc., the Court reviewed the validity and enforceability of a “paid when paid” provision within a construction contract.  The contract provided that payment by the owner to the general contractor being a condition precedent prior to the general contractor is obligated to pay the subcontractor. 

 

The contract further provided that should the general contractor not receive payment from the owner that the general contractor would not be obligated to pay the subcontractor for the work performed.  In validating the enforceability of the “paid when paid” provision, the Court explained that where the condition precedent to payment was clear and unambiguous, there is no room for interpretation and the Court must strictly construe the terms of the contract . 

 

The Court distinguished this decision from other opinions by stating that the condition precedent language within the present “paid when paid” clause rendered the clause wholly enforceable in nature and did not require payment until corresponding payment is received by the general contractor.  For these reasons, the Court ruled that the “paid when paid” clause and the conditioned precedent language was enforceable, and therefore, no payment was due to the subcontractor until and unless payment is received by the general contractor from the project owner.

Constitution Law: Right to Privacy - Expungements

no picture

In Nunez v. Pachman, the Appellate Division recently discussed the section of the Expungement Statute which prohibits the disclosure of any information relative to the records, proceedings or any other related documents once an event is expunged.  In Nunez v. Pachman, the Appellate Division explained that the litigation privilege will not permit the disclosure of any expunged arrest or proceeding.  Moreover, the Court hinted that a private party may potentially possess a cause of action for damages should a disclosure cause harm to this party.  This reaffirms the section of the Expungement Statute which prohibits the disclosure of any expunged records once an expungement is granted.
 

Contesting a Will In New Jersey

no picture

It is an eventuality that virtually all of us will face sometime during our lives, the loss of a loved one.  Whether this loved one is one of your parents, a sibling, a relative, or a friend, litigation may arise concerning the Probate of their Will in order to administer their Estate.  Estate litigation is often emotional, costly and is similar in the emotions it evokes to that of a divorce proceeding.  Often times, the Executor of the Estate may use the Estate’s assets to defend the Will.  On the other hand, a contestant of the Will must often pay their own counsel fees with only a possibility of being reimbursed by the Estate.  As such, a person challenging a Will should first evaluate the value of the Estate and their potential gain as compared to the expenses they may incur in seeking that relief .  In addition, a party should consider the emotional trauma which is very prevalent in Estate litigation.  An Executor of the Estate or beneficiary whose bequest is being challenged has no other alternative than to defend against the challenge being brought against their interest or a challenge against the Will itself. 
 

In the State of New Jersey, there are essentially two ways in which an individual may challenge a Will.  The first way is to allege that the decedent lacked the requisite capacity the date the Will was executed.  This is a fairly low standard to meet, as the decedent need only be aware that he/she possesses assets, and in addition, that he/she wishes to transfer these assets to certain other individuals.  In levying a challenge in this regard, the Court may review medical records and other information concerning the decedent’s physical and mental health in order to determine if this individual possessed the requisite mental capacity on the day the Will was executed.  The medical records are relevant as they may demonstrate physical or mental conditions which could suggest that the decedent may have lacked the capacity to execute a Will on the date the Will was executed.  This often involves the need for expert witnesses to review medical records, and thereafter, to render their opinion as to the capacity of the decedent on the date the Will was executed. 
 

The other way in which an individual may challenge a Will concerns an allegation of undue influence.  Simply put, undue influence means that the Will does not reflect the true intentions of the decedent, but instead, reflects the wishes of an individual who asserted their influence over the Testator, thereby rendering the Will inconsistent with the Testator’s true wishes.  In order to prove a claim of undue influence, the contestant must first establish that there existed a confidential relationship between the decedent and the party which is alleged to have unduly influenced the Testator.  A confidential relationship exists when the Testator and another individual shared a relationship where trust or confidence is naturally reposed by the decedent with this individual.  Another instance under which a confidential relationship arises is in an attorney/client relationship where there is a fiduciary relationship between the parties. 
 

Once the contestant of the Will has established the existence of  a confidential relationship, he/she must establish suspicious circumstances with regard to the creation and execution of the Will.  Once this has been achieved, the Court can shift the burden of proof upon the proponent of the Will to demonstrate the validity of this document. 
 

After a lawsuit has been commenced, the Court will often recommend that the parties consider mediation in an attempt to resolve the matter without the need for additional litigation.  Often, the parties are able to resolve the litigation through Mediation without the parties incurring additional expenses.  If a case cannot be resolved through mediation, the case will move forward through discovery, and thereafter, to Trial.  Once an Estate litigation matter is scheduled for Trial, the parties should be aware that the Trial will not be heard before a jury, but rather is decided by a Chancery Judge that hears probate matters.  Once the Judge renders his/her decision, either side may make an application for fees to the Estate. 
 

If the party prevails in contesting the Will, the Will could revert to a previous Will, if said document still exists, or the individual could be deemed as having died without a Will.  Thereafter, the Court may appoint an independent Executor if the named Executor is disqualified.  If the Will is not invalidated by the Court, then it will be probated in the manner which had been sought to be probated by the Executor originally.  Thereafter, the Estate litigation will conclude.

New Jersey Legal Update - Podcast # 57

no picture
This week's New Jersey Legal Update podcast will address federal legislation impacting sub-contractors. This podcast will discuss what defines a sub-contractor and how federal legislation, such as the Miller Act, can impact the construction industry.

This week's New Jersey Legal Update is presented by Paul W. Norris, member of Stark & Stark’s Litigation Group.

You can download the New Jersey Legal Update Podcast # 57 here. (6.9 MB)

Technorati Tags:  : : :

New Jersey Legal Update - Podcast # 44

no picture

This week's New Jersey Legal Update podcast will discuss the defamation law in New Jersey, focusing on defamation through the use of the Internet. This podcast will also address the issues of libel, slander and the rights and restrictions of free speech.

This week's New Jersey Legal Update is presented by Paul Norris, a member of the Firm's Litigation group.

You can download the New Jersey Legal Update Podcast # 44 here. (7 MB)

Technorati Tags:
: :

New Jersey Legal Update - Podcast # 20

no picture

This week's New Jersey Legal Update podcast will discuss the Miller Act and what it means to both general and sub-contractors.

This week's New Jersey Legal Update is presented by Paul Norris, a member of the Firm's Litigation group.

You can download the New Jersey Legal Update Podcast # 20 here.(21MB)

Technorati Tags: :

Older Entries

December 16, 2005 — Construction Lien Law - Counsel Fees

December 14, 2005 — Construction Contracts - Backcharges

December 12, 2005 — Construction Contracts - Change Orders

December 8, 2004 — Contractors' Registration Act

December 2, 2004 — Expungement

November 23, 2004 — Contractor's Liability on Construction Site