Specializing in Appellate Litigation

Contact Us!
800.790.1550

Civil

VICTORY IN THE SUPREME COURT!

In a hotly-contested appeal, Hegge & Confusione persuaded the New Jersey Supreme Court to affirm a divided appeals court ruling vacating a jury verdict on the ground that the trial court had improperly forced upon the defendant an affirmative defense that the defendant, in fact, did not want to argue to the jury.

HEGGE & CONFUSIONE REVERSES FORCED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

The appeals court agreed with Hegge & Confusione in concluding that there existed genuine issues of fact regarding whether the parties reached a settlement agreement, requiring vacation of an order enforcing the settlement agreement and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

HEGGE & CONFUSIONE REVERSES TRIAL COURT ORDER IMPOSING SETTLEMENT TERMS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SETTLEMENT

Hegge & Confusione persuaded a New Jersey appeals court to reverse part of a trial court order imposing settlement terms upon the plaintiff to which she had not agreed. The plaintiff had asserted harassment and discrimination claims against her employer. A purported settlement was reached and memorialized in a one-page document signed by the plaintiff. The defendant, however, moved to compel the plaintiff to sign a 14-page "settlement agreement" containing several terms not reflected in the one-page memorandum that plaintiff had signed. The trial court compelled the plaintiff to execute the 14-page document. The appeals court reversed, however, agreeing with Hegge & Confusione that the plaintiff could not be compelled to sign a document containing terms that exceeded those to which plaintiff had actually agreed.

HEGGE & CONFUSIONE HELPS PRESERVE $1.3 MILLION VERDICT FOR INJURED PLAINTIFF

Hegge & Confusione helped persuade a New Jersey appeals court to affirm a $1.3 million verdict obtained by a woman severely injured in a commercial parking lot. The defendant appealed the verdict, arguing that the jury instructions were improper and that the defendant was precluded from asserting certain defenses. Hegge & Confusione helped persuade the appeals court to reject the defendant's claims of error and affirm the verdict for the plaintiff.

HEGGE & CONFUSIONE PERSUADES APPELLATE COURT TO VACATE ORDER COMPELLING TURNOVER OF BANK FUNDS

Hegge & Confusione persuaded an appellate panel to vacate a lower court order compelling turnover of several thousand dollars held in a client's bank account on the ground that the proofs presented to the lower court showed that a portion of the funds were not subject to seizure. The appeals court ordered remand for reconsideration of the issue of which portion of the seized funds were subject to turnover.

HEGGE & CONFUSIONE PERSUADES COURT TO REINSTATE APPEAL PREVIOUSLY DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION BY PRIOR APPELLATE LAWYER

Hegge & Confusione persuaded a New Jersey appeals court to reinstate the appeal of a plaintiff which the court had dismissed months before for prior counsel's failure to file a brief and appendix. Despite the passage of time and prior dismissal, Hegge & Confusione persuaded the appeals court that the plaintiff's appeal was meritorious and that the prior dismissal, solely the fault of prior counsel, should not be visited upon the party. Following the court's reinstatement of the appeal, Hegge & Confusione filed a Brief and Appendix on the plaintiff's behalf arguing for relief on the merits.

HEGGE & CONFUSIONE PARTNERS WITH OUT-OF-STATE COUNSEL IN SUCCESSFUL APPEAL OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT RESULTING IN FAVORABLE SETTLE

Hegge & Confusione partnered with a Texas law firm in the appeal of an order approving a class action lawsuit and a large award of attorneys' fees that, the appellant contended, exceeded the reasonable value of attorney services provided. After filing of briefs in support of the appeal, the parties reached a favorable settlement resolving the attorneys' fee issue contested on appeal.

HEGGE & CONFUSIONE PERSUADES APPELLATE COURT TO REVERSE JUDGMENT AGAINST CLIENT ARISING FROM ALLEGED BREACH OF COMMERCIAL LEASE

Hegge & Confusione persuaded an appellate panel to vacate a bench trial judgment assessing damages against the client for alleged breach of a commercial lease and partnership agreement. The appeals panel agreed that the trial judge erred in failing to recognize the client's right to abatement of the lease payments and establishment of breach of partnership duties by the defendant.

HEGGE & CONFUSIONE REVERSES LAW DIVISION ORDER

The appeals court agreed with Hegge & Confusione in reversing a Law Division order denying the client’s motion to enforce litigant's rights and for counsel fees, relating to defendants' failure to comply with the terms of the parties' settlement agreement.

THE APPEALS COURT AGREES WITH HEGGE & CONFUSIONE

The appeals court agreed with Hegge & Confusione in vacating the alimony termination order and remanding for a plenary hearing, “which shall particularly focus upon the critical disputed factual issue of the frequency of the alleged cohabitation.”

SUCCESS IN REVERSING THE DISMISSAL OF COUNTS ONE AND THREE

The appeals court agreed with Hegge & Confusione in reversing the dismissal of counts one and three of the plaintiff’s complaint and reinstating the client’s claims for conspiracy and tortious interference with contract and prospective economic advantage.

Victory in the Supreme Court

Hegge & Confusione has persuaded the New Jersey Supreme Court to reverse lower court rulings limiting Hegge & Confusione’s client to equitable distribution of assets earned only during the parties’ brief, 14-month marriage. Hegge & Confusione persuaded the Supreme Court that the family court, as a court of equity, was required to evaluate the client’s equitable share of a $2.25 million deferred compensation bonus paid to the ex-husband in light of not just the formal marriage period but, also, the parties’ eight years of living and raising their daughter together preceding the formal marriage. Applying principles of unjust enrichment and constructive trust, “Aucoin-Thieme is entitled to a percentage of the portion of the closing bonus that Thieme earned during the parties' cohabitation," Justice Patterson said in a unanimous ruling for the Court.