ZUKERMAN v. PIPER POOLS, INC.


232 N.J. Super. 74 (1989)

556 A.2d 775

ETHAN ZUKERMAN, AN INFANT, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ROBERT ZUKERMAN, AND ROBERT ZUKERMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. PIPER POOLS, INC., DAVID HOLDEN, ZEITA HOLDEN, ATREO MANUFACTURING CO., INC., ESTHER WILLIAMS POOLS, POSEIDON POOLS, A DIVISION OF S & V POOLS, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO ATREO MANUFACTURING CO., INC., GIBRALTAR FACTORS CORP., GIBRALTAR CORP., J/S/A, & AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO ATREO MANUFACTURING CO., INC., AND ARTHUR RAMBO AND JAMES RAMBO, INDIVIDUALLY, TRADING AS XYZ COMPANY OR XYZ CORPORATION, FICTITIOUSLY NAMED BUSINESS ENTITIES, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Decided March 23, 1989.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Gerald M. Eisenstat argued the cause for appellants Ethan Zukerman, an infant, by his guardian ad litem, Robert Zukerman (Eisenstat, Gabage & Berman, attorneys; Gerald M. Eisenstat, and Tina M. Labrusciano, on the brief).

Joseph H. Kenney argued the cause for appellant Robert Zukerman, Individually (Kenney & Kearney, attorneys).

Robert F. Colquhoun argued the cause for respondent Piper Pools, Inc. (Colquhoun & Colquhoun, attorneys; Robert F. Colquhoun, on the brief).

John P. Montemurro argued the cause for respondent Atreo Manufacturing Co., Inc. (Tomlin, Clark & Hopkin, attorneys; John P. Montemurro, on the brief).

Michael E. Benson argued the cause for respondent S & V Pools, Inc., t/a Poseidon Pools (Buonadonna & Benson, attorneys; Michael E. Benson, on the brief).

Thomas A. Shovlin argued the cause for respondents Poseidon Pools, Inc. & Gibraltar Corp. of America (Riley & DiCamillo, attorneys; Thomas A. Shovlin, on the brief).

Sharon Hardy argued the cause for respondents Arthur Rambo and James Rambo (Stanley P. Stahl, attorney; Beth A. Wright, on the brief).

William P. Doherty, Jr. argued the cause for respondents David Holden and Zeita Holden (William P. Doherty, on the brief).

Before Judges PETRELLA, SHEBELL and GRUCCIO.


The opinion of the court was delivered by PETRELLA, P.J.A.D.

This interlocutory appeal focuses on whether the judge in a negligence suit brought in part on behalf of an infant plaintiff may remove the father of that infant as guardian ad litem because the father will not accept the settlement offers. We find no basis under the circumstances of this case to warrant the judge's removal of the guardian ad litem and his appointment of a substitute guardian...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases