1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.J.
  4. 264 N.J.
  5. 264 N.J. Super. 578 (1993)
 

KOSTELANETZ, RITHOLZ v. HIMMELWRIGHT

264 N.J. Super. 578 (1993)

625 A.2d 488

KOSTELANETZ, RITHOLZ, TIGUE & FINK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. DR. VICTOR HIMMELWRIGHT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Decided March 9, 1993.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Hilton L. Stein argued the cause for appellant (Mr. Stein and Leonard A. Giusti on the brief and reply brief).

Jeffrey M. Kadish argued the cause for respondent (Morgan, Melhuish, Monaghan, Arvidson, Abrutyn & Lisowski, attorneys; Joseph De Donato, of counsel and on the brief).

Before Judges J.H. COLEMAN and ARNOLD M. STEIN.

PER CURIAM.

The order dismissing counts three and seven of defendant's counterclaim, alleging that plaintiff attorneys violated the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -48, is affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Ironson in his oral decision of June 14, 1991. See Vort v. Hollander, 257 N.J.Super. 56, 61-63, 607 A.2d 1339 (App.Div.), certif. denied,...

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