Law Office Of Paul DePetris
paul@newjerseylemon.com

New Jersey Consumer Fraud Case Examples

Read below to learn more about this topic.

Or, to receive a no cost phone consultation about what the Law Office of Paul DePetris might be able to do for you, call Mr. DePetris at 609-714-2020 or send an email to Mr. DePetris at paul@newjerseylemon.com.

The information in this article is only for New Jersey Law Division, Civil Part cases and not for other New Jersey court cases, such as those in New Jersey Special Civil Court, New Jersey Small Claims Court or New Jersey Chancery Court!!! Do not use this article if you have a New Jersey Special Civil Court, New Jersey Small Claims Court or New Jersey Chancery Court case!!! Also, no website is a substitute for competent advice from a New Jersey lawyer!

Warning – this article does not necessarily include each and every New Jersey court rule that may apply to your New Jersey case! The Law Office of Paul DePetris does not guarantee that the statutes, rules, codes, files or forms on this website are the latest versions of the statutes, rules, codes, files or forms, that they lack typographical errors or that they have not been amended, repealed or superseded by other federal or state law. The New Jersey Statutes, United States Statutes, New Jersey Administrative Code and Federal Code in this database are not annotated. Accordingly, this database may include laws that: (1) never became operable due to unmet conditions; (2) expired; (3) were repealed or amended; (4) were declared void by a court of law; (5) or are otherwise invalid. Further, effective dates of the laws are not necessarily included in the database. Accordingly, you should not rely upon the statutes, rules, codes, files or forms on this website contained in this database for any purpose and before taking any legal measures, you instead should read all applicable federal and state source law and case law and consult with an attorney for any changes in the laws. Be certain to cross reference all applicable rules before preparing, filing or serving any papers!!! For example, Special Civil Part Rules often cross reference other rules – rules that apply to Special Civil Part Cases as well as to other types of civil cases not being heard in Special Civil Part.


NEW JERSEY CAR SALES CONSUMER FRAUD ACT CASES

NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD ACT APPLIES TO CERTAIN INTERNET CAR SALES
The New Jersey Supreme Court decided that the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act applies to the sale of automobiles on the internet by a merchant located in New Jersey. An out-of-state consumer
purchased a used automobile from a seller located in New Jersey via the internet. The merchant assured the New Jersey consumer that the automobile was in good condition and could be driven from New Jersey to Missouri. Once the automobile arrived in Missouri, consumer had it taken to a specialty repair shop for an examination, whereupon he learned: (1) the frame was rusted nearly in half, thereby disqualifying the automobile from registration in Missouri; (2) the convertible top was in poor condition; (3) the seats were ripped in various places; (4) the driver's seat frame was broken; (5) the radio/tape player was not original equipment; (6) the engine hesitated during acceleration; and (7) the carburetor was out of tune. The New Jersey consumer claimed that: (1) the automobile’s description did not match its condition at delivery; (2) had he known this information, he never would have made the purchase; (3) he paid over $13,000 for an automobile worth between $5,000 to $8,000; and (4) consumer also paid in excess of $40,000 for professional work to make the automobile the worth between $25,000 to $30,000. The Court noted that whether defendant was a “dealer” within the meaning of the New Jersey Used Car Lemon Law was irrelevant to whether the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act was applicable to the case because, by the very terms of the New Jersey Used Car Lemon Law, it and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act supplement rather than preempt one other. The Court decided that: (1) the merchant satisfied the legal definition of “person”; (2) the automobile satisfied the statutory definition of “merchandise”; (3) the New Jersey consumer proved he suffered an ascertainable loss -- a “textbook” New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claim – since he presented an expert witness who corroborated the New Jersey consumer's claims concerning the automobile’s condition and claimed that that, as delivery, the automobile was unsafe to drive.

NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD BY DEALERSHIP SELLING 1994 MITSUBISHI GALANT ES
On August 11, 1994, the New Jersey consumer went to Gateway Mitsubishi in response to a newspaper advertisement concerning the 1994 Mitsubishi Galant ES. After test driving a Galant, the New Jersey consumer and a salesman entered into negotiations for its purchase. When they were not able to reach an agreement, the New Jersey consumer began to leave the dealership. According to the New Jersey consumer, at that point, the salesman “went after them” and told them he could give him a better deal if the New Jersey consumer was willing to “pay it out,” which would purportedly allow the New Jersey consumer to pay a certain amount of the purchase price each month until the outstanding debt was paid off. After more time at the dealership, the New Jersey consumer signed several documents. One of the New Jersey consumer was seventy-three years old at the time of this transaction and according to him, one of the documents he signed was folded over so that only the signature line was visible. After he took delivery of the car, he realized that that document was a lease and not a contract for sale. When he telephoned the salesman to complain, he was told that he could keep the lease or sign a new contract to purchase the vehicle for a sum substantially higher than the amount he was quoted for outright purchase early in the negotiations. Several days later, disgusted by the whole transaction, and not wanting to be saddled with lease, the New Jersey consumer signed a new contract for the higher price. Within one week, he paid off the entire balance. Gateway Mitsubishi recounted a different version of the events, maintaining that the salesman had fully discussed the lease arrangement with the New Jersey consumer and that the New Jersey consumer had simply changed his mind about the arrangement several days later. Gateway maintained that when the New Jersey consumer allegedly changed his mind, he was offered the option of switching the lease to a contract for purchase. In December 1994, the New Jersey consumer filed a complaint against Gateway and others, alleging common-law fraud, breach of contract, negligence, and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“the Act”), the Uniform Commercial Code, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The New Jersey consumer later amended his complaint to add claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. At trial, the trial court dismissed all of the New Jersey consumer's claims, except those relating to the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breach of contract, and common-law fraud. The jury found Gateway and the others liable for breach of contract and for violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act but found no liability under common-law fraud. The jury awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $7,300, which the trial court trebled as required. The Superior Court of New Jersey further entered an award for counsel fees and costs, totaling $23,638.59. Thus, the New Jersey consumer's final award amounted to $45,538.59. Gateway appealed, the Appellate Division set aside the jury's verdict and remanded the matter for a new trial and the Supreme Court of New Jersey overturned the Appellate Division and let the verdict in favor of the New Jersey consumer stand.

NEW JERSEY HOME REPAIR CONTRACT CONSUMER FRAUD ACT CASES

NEW JERSEY HOME IMPROVEMENT SERVICES – HOME RENOVATOR SUCCESSFUL IN NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD SUIT AGAINST NEW JERSEY SUBCONTRACTOR
A New Jersey appeals court found that the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act applied to the New Jersey Consumer Fraud claims of a New Jersey business of buying, renovating and reselling residential properties that contracted with a New Jersey Consumer Fraud defendant family-owned companies to purchase and renovate a building and then met with delays, shoddy workmanship and overcharges. The New Jersey court explained that the New Jersey subcontractor’s testimony established that they were involved in the sale or advertisement of New Jersey home improvement services, either directly or indirectly to the public, and that the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act protects business entities like the New Jersey renovation business as well as New Jersey individuals.

NEW JERSEY HOME REPAIR CONTRACTOR VIOLATES NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD ACT
A New Jersey home repair contractor sued homeowners for the balance due on a New Jersey home repair contract and they counterclaimed alleging a New Jersey Consumer Fraud claim. The New Jersey home repair contractor’s complaint for money due for the New Jersey home repairs was dismissed and the Superior Court of New Jersey found that the New Jersey home repair contractor committed New Jersey Consumer Fraud and awarded the homeowners $22,146.14 in treble damages, attorney's fees.

NEW JERSEY LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR COMMITS NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD
A New Jersey landscape irrigation contractor brought a New Jersey lawsuit against its customer, seeking the balance due on sprinkler installation contract and the customer counterclaimed, alleging violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The Superior Court of New Jersey ruled that the New Jersey home repair contractor violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, was not entitled to enforce the contract and had to pay the customer a refund and attorney’s fees. On September 15, 2004, Michael Finnegan, the owner of the company, prepared and presented for signature a document entitled “Irrigation Contract Proposal.” The proposal was signed on or about September 29, 2004, by both Finnegan, owner of the New Jersey home repair contractor company and the customer. The contract was entered for the purpose of the installation of a sprinkler irrigation system in the customer's back yard. The installation took one day. The contract price was $3,500. While the contract provided for a deposit of $1,500, the customer only paid a $500 deposit. The contract price was reduced by $150. The New Jersey home repair contractor claimed it was because the customer insisted on performing the system connection to the house and the customer says the reduction had nothing to do with the connection, but was simply a negotiated reduction of price. The New Jersey home repair contractor sought $2,850 from the customer. The contract was silent as to whether the New Jersey home repair contractor or any of its employees were licensed. The customer was not aware of the requirement for a license or certificate until after the system was installed. The customer did not pay the New Jersey home repair contractor after the system was installed because he believed that the New Jersey home repair contractor did not fulfill the terms of the contract. The New Jersey home repair contractor installed five sprinkler zones but the customer interpreted the contract as requiring the installation of nine zones. Item 1 under the contract stated: “Automatic Controller, Nine Zone LXI plus (Rainbird).” As it turned out, the New Jersey home repair contractor installed an eight-zone Rainbird controller. The controller became an issue in the case. The customer specifically wanted a nine-zone LXI Rainbird brand controller. Rainbird only makes an eight-zone or twelve-zone controller. The distinction between the capacity of the controller and the number of zones actually to be installed was not made clear in the contract and was not understood by the customer. On this point, the credibility of Finnegan was severely tested. Finnegan did not testify in his case-in-chief. In fact, he was not present in the Superior Court of New Jerseyroom to hear his office manager testify. His office manager testified on the first day of the trial that upon learning a nine-zone Rainbird was not even available she ordered the eight-zone controller on her own because it was closest to nine zones. She did it without consulting the customer. She was believable. Finnegan, on the other hand, was somewhat evasive in his testimony. He testified only on rebuttal. To the direct question by the Superior Court of New Jersey as to who ordered the controller, he said that he did. Finnegan said that he explained to the customer that the controller had to be eight zones and not nine. His testimony on this point was not credible, clearly contradicting his office manager. He also tried to give the impression that he was at the customer's home during most of the installation, but his installer's testimony hardly mentioned his presence. Clearly, Finnegan's testimony lacked credibility. His explanation that the contract called for five zones to be installed was based on Item 2 on the form contract, which stated: “Electric Valves with Boxes 4-7.” Finnegan explained that this meant four to seven zones would be installed because each valve is a zone. While it may be true that each zone has electric valves, this explanation is not included in the contract. The contract is not clear. Next, the customer believed that the system was to provide water to his entire property, including the area on both sides of his driveway. Finnegan said that was not provided for under the contract. The contract, however, is silent as to the scope of area to which the system would provide water. Thirdly, there was the issue as to who would tie in the system to the house. The contract provides that the New Jersey home repair contractor would have that responsibility and would install a new “one-inch ball valve and drain spigot.” It was the customer who actually had another contractor make the final connection. The evidence shows that the New Jersey home repair contractor’s installer tried to make the connection on the far side of the water conditioner, but because of low water pressure the customer had to have a second contractor make the connection on the well side of the water conditioner. The New Jersey home repair contractor states that the customer insisted on the tie-in be on the far side of the water conditioner so that the water would not stain his concrete. Customer denied that. The Superior Court of New Jersey found that the New Jersey home repair contract called for a nine-zone Rainbird controller, which the defendant wanted and specified. The New Jersey home repair contractor had the obligation not to specify a product that does not exist. He should have informed the homeowner in advance of signing the contract that such a product as the homeowner wanted was not available. In the event that the New Jersey home repair contractor realized that only an eight-zone or twelve-zone controller of that brand was available, a written change order to the contract should have been prepared. The Superior Court of New Jersey noted that the contract was prepared by the New Jersey home repair contractor on September 15th and installation did not take place until September 29th, leaving adequate time to renegotiate the contract and provide a written change order with the appropriate controller, instead of the nine-zone controller specified in the original contract. The evidence showed that there were two significant changes in the contract. The first is, as discussed above, that the controller was changed from a nine-zone to an eight-zone controller. And secondly, there was a change that was testified to by the plaintiff that the connection of the system to the house would no longer be done by the plaintiff as called for in the contract. Neither of these two changes was made in writing and thus this constitutes a violation of the regulations. If there had been written changes, the dispute among these parties may never have occurred. In addition, while the contract has a starting date, it does not provide for an ending date or a time for performance. The New Jersey home repair contractor, Finnegan, testified that was because the system was installed on the same day as the homeowner signed the agreement. The regulations do not provide for such flexibility or discretion for the New Jersey home repair contractor. As the contract is written, a contractor could have started the job in the morning and left the site not to return until some indefinite period in the future. It is this circumstance, undoubtedly, that the regulations seek to avoid. In summary, the Superior Court of New Jersey found that the New Jersey home repair contractor violated regulations and thereby violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The Superior Court of New Jersey also found that the New Jersey home repair contractor was a landscape irrigation contractor and no persons employed by the company held the required certificate. The New Jersey home repair contractor conceded these facts as well. The customer argued that the New Jersey home repair contractor, acting contrary to the law undertook an unconscionable and unlawful act by entering into the subject contract contrary to the terms of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and, therefore, that the customer was entitled to a refund. The Superior Court of New Jersey reasoned that to now permit the New Jersey home repair contractor to enforce the contract in the face of the unlawful regulatory violations and its failure to operate with the mandated license and recover the unpaid sums otherwise due would strip the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act of the gravitas intended by the Legislature as a remedial statute. Accordingly, the Superior Court of New Jersey dismissed the New Jersey home repair contractor’s complaint.

NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD ACT CASES

NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS AND NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD
A New Jersey Consumer Fraud claimant filed a New Jersey Consumer Fraud lawsuit against a builder, seeking damages for the failure of a retaining wall at site of a new home she purchased from the builder. A jury found that the builder breached the contract of sale and committed New Jersey Consumer Fraud, entered judgment for $403,652.93 — $89,250 in damages and $135,902.93 for attorney fees. The builder appealed and the appellate court found that the evidence was sufficient to prove New Jersey Consumer Fraud but reversed the jury’s finding of New Jersey Consumer Fraud and directed a new trial because the jury charge was clearly capable of leading to a verdict based on insufficient grounds. The judgment based on violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act was reversed and remanded for a new trial. Further, the appellate court noted that the contract damages were excessive since they exceeded the amount necessary to make the claimant whole and thus, the Superior Court of New Jersey reduced the contract damages to $55,250.

NEW JERSEY REAL ESTATE SALES NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD ACT CASES

EXAMPLES OF NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD ACT CASES INVOLVING NEW JERSEY REAL ESTATE BROKERS, NEW JERSEY REAL ESTATE AGENTS OR NEW JERSEY REAL ESTATE SALESPEOPLE
• A New Jersey real estate broker representing a New Jersey builder developer of New Jersey homes allegedly failing to disclose off-site physical conditions known to the New Jersey builder-developer and not readily observable by the New Jersey home buyer which affected the habitability, use, or enjoyment of the New Jersey property, thereby rendering the New Jersey property substantially less desirable or valuable to the objectively reasonable New Jersey home buyer.
• The New Jersey real estate agent of a New Jersey home developer was liable for the New Jersey developer’s affirmative misrepresentations to home purchasers where the New Jersey real estate agent never verified the information provided by the New Jersey developer and never established a procedure to confirm the veracity of its New Jersey real estate agent’s representations to prospective home purchasers.
• A New Jersey realtor’s describing an inexperienced New Jersey builder who had a history of shoddy workmanship as having built hundreds of homes and being one of the best New Jersey builders in New Jersey who was noted for his attention to detail and craftsmanship and misrepresenting the quality of the homes the New Jersey builder constructed.
• A New Jersey real estate agent for alleged failure to correct a statement by the New Jersey real estate seller that there had been no leaks or problems with the roof or ceiling when in fact prior roof repairs were performed to the New Jersey property.
• New Jersey real estate agent allegedly characterized real estate’s termite infestation as “minimal” while another New Jersey real estate agent described the house as “riddled” with termites and the first New Jersey real estate agent allegedly had knowledge of the second New Jersey real estate agent’s statement. The New Jersey home buyers hired their own New Jersey termite inspector but thereafter claimed that the first New Jersey real estate agent misrepresented the severity of a home’s termite problem.
• A New Jersey real estate broker’s alleged misrepresentation about the neighborhood in which a New Jersey house is located.
• In New Jersey Consumer Fraud lawsuit involving responsibility for repair of a dam that has a foundation resting, in part, on two New Jersey homes, responsibility for the dam became an issue in 2004, when the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) directed New Jersey Consumer Fraud plaintiffs and one of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud defendants to submit for its approval plans to remove or repair and maintain the dam. New Jersey Consumer Fraud plaintiffs brought a New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claim against their New Jersey realtors, asserting that until DEP contacted them, they did not know the dam was on their property or that they had any responsibility for it. The New Jersey realtor unsuccessfully claimed that New Jersey Consumer Fraud plaintiffs were unable to “establish that the alleged misrepresentation was a proximate cause of their injury. Their theory is that New Jersey Consumer Fraud plaintiffs’ consultation with the New Jersey attorneys prior to closing is an intervening cause.”

ONE TIME SALES OF RESIDENCES BY NEW JERSEY HOMEOWNERS AND NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD
The New Jersey Consumer Fraud case brought by purchasers of a real estate lot was dismissed because the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act does not apply to one-time sales of residences by New Jersey homeowners.

NEW JERSEY INSURANCE AND NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD
PAYMENT OF NEW JERSEY INSURANCE BENEFITS
A New Jersey Federal Court refused to dismiss a New Jersey Consumer Fraud claim on the ground that the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act does not apply to the payment of New Jersey insurance benefits by New Jersey insurance companies. The New Jersey court concluded that the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act would cover the provision of New Jersey insurance benefits.
PROFESSIONAL NEW JERSEY INSURANCE CLAIM SURVIVES MOTION TO DISMISS
In a federal case involving New Jersey insurance defense of malpractice actions, a New Jersey Consumer Fraud lawsuit was filed asserting that the New Jersey Consumer Fraud defendant impermissibly applied legal fees and costs toward the insured’s deductible. The New Jersey Consumer Fraud defendant’s motion to dismiss for the New Jersey Consumer Fraud plaintiff allegedly lacking a valid New Jersey Consumer Fraud claim was dismissed. The New Jersey court found that New Jersey Consumer Fraud plaintiff’s incurring legal expenses it need not have otherwise suffered satisfies the New Jersey Consumer Fraud ascertainable loss requirement of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The New Jersey federal court also defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act does not apply to the payment of New Jersey insurance benefits by New Jersey insurance companies since a higher federal court predicted that the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act would cover the provision of New Jersey insurance benefits.



CIGARETTE SALES

CIGARETTE RETAILER ASSESSED FINES, FEES & COSTS OF $762,000 FOR UNAUTHORIZED CIGARETTE SALES
A New Jersey Superior Court entered an order requiring a cigarette retailer -- Red Jacket Tobacco of Salamanca, New York -- to pay $762,776 in penalties, attorney’s fees and costs for the following misconduct:
• selling unregistered cigarettes without having a license
• avoiding taxes
• failing to confirm purchasers were above the age of 19
• violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, including administrative regulations.
The retailer’s direct-mail ads, called "Money Mailers," were sent to approximately 60,000 New Jersey residents, violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and administrative advertising regulations by claiming that the retailer sold cigarettes "tax-free" and promising that "if we don't have it, we can order it" when in fact the only cigarettes able to be sold are those which make the attorney general's list of approval. By selling cigarettes without a license and by failing to comply with tax and sale practices, laws and regulations, the retailer committed unconscionable commercial practices.

DOES THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL DEPETRIS HAVE EXPERIENCE HANDLING NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD ACT DISPUTES?
Yes. Paul DePetris has performed the following tasks:
• represented consumers, home buyers, home sellers, New Jersey home repair customers, New Jersey home repair contractors, home inspectors, real estate brokers, real estate agents, junk yard dealers, automobile purchasers and owners, new and used car dealers, banks and automotive lenders, boat purchasers and owners, watercraft purchasers and owners and marinas in New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act disputes.
• appeared in court in cases involving New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act disputes.
• mediated, arbitrated and tried New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act cases.

DOES THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL DEPETRIS HAVE EXPERIENCE HANDLING NEW JERSEY CASES?
Yes. Paul DePetris has performed the following tasks:
• handled New Jersey cases for plaintiffs and defendants across New Jersey, from Bergen County New Jersey to Cumberland County New Jersey, including representations of individuals, small businesses and large corporations.
• settled New Jersey cases for plaintiffs and defendants across New Jersey.
• reviewed many New Jersey Court settlement agreements.
• enforced many New Jersey Court settlement agreements.
• provided New Jersey pro se plaintiffs and New Jersey pro se defendants with New Jersey Court legal advice and prepared New Jersey Court legal forms
• prepared and filed many New Jersey Court complaints
• tried New Jersey Court jury trials
• mediated many New Jersey cases
• argued New Jersey Court motions
• handled New Jersey Court proof hearings
• handled New Jersey Court post judgment collection proceedings

Mr. DePetris has appeared before the Superior Court of New Jersey in the following counties:
• Atlantic County New Jersey Court
• Bergen County New Jersey Court
• Burlington County New Jersey Court
• Camden County New Jersey Court
• Cape May County New Jersey Court
• Cumberland County New Jersey Court
• Essex County New Jersey Court
• Gloucester County New Jersey Court
• Hudson County New Jersey Court
• Mercer County New Jersey Court
• Middlesex County New Jersey Court
• Monmouth County New Jersey Court
• Morris County New Jersey Court
• Ocean County New Jersey Court
• Passaic County New Jersey Court
• Salem County New Jersey Court
• Somerset County New Jersey Court
• Sussex County New Jersey Court
• Union County New Jersey Court
• Warren County New Jersey Court

IN WHAT NEW JERSEY COUNTIES WILL THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL DEPETRIS HANDLE NEW JERSEY CASES?
The Law Office of Paul DePetris offers to handle and help individuals and businesses with New Jersey Court Claims cases in North, Central and Southern New Jersey, including cases in the following New Jersey counties:
• Atlantic County New Jersey Court
• Bergen County New Jersey Court
• Burlington County New Jersey Court
• Camden County New Jersey Court
• Cape May County New Jersey Court
• Cumberland County New Jersey Court
• Essex County New Jersey Court
• Gloucester County New Jersey Court
• Hudson County New Jersey Court
• Mercer County New Jersey Court
• Middlesex County New Jersey Court
• Monmouth County New Jersey Court
• Morris County New Jersey Court
• Ocean County New Jersey Court
• Passaic County New Jersey Court
• Salem County New Jersey Court
• Somerset County New Jersey Court
• Sussex County New Jersey Court
• Union County New Jersey Court
• Warren County New Jersey Court

WHAT IF I DON’T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY TO HANDLE MY NEW JERSEY CASE FROM BEGINNING TO END?
In many situations, the Law Office of Paul DePetris offers alternatives to handling New Jersey cases for an hourly fee, such as by offering to handle your New Jersey case up to trial for a fixed fee or to help you handle your New Jersey case by yourself. Such flexible methods may allow you to keep the amount legal fees you spend on your New Jersey case to a fixed sum, while providing you the help you need to handle your New Jersey case. For a no obligation phone consultation about what the Firm might be able to do for you, call Mr. DePetris at 609-714-2020 or send an email to Mr. DePetris.
Website Builder