Law Office Of Paul DePetris
paul@newjerseylemon.com

Lemon 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 .

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of the statutes, rules, codes, files or forms, that they lack typographical errors or that they have not been amended, repealed or superseded by other federal or state law.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this database may include laws that: (1) never became operable due to unmet conditions; (2) expired; (3) were repealed or amended; (4) were declared void by a court of law; (5) or are otherwise invalid.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.

Jeep Cherokee Lemon -- On May 3, 1997, the Jeep owners leased a new 1997 Jeep Grand Cherokee.
Several warranty repairs were performed between May 1997 and February 1998 and are not the basis for the Jeep owners’ Lemon Law claim. One of the Jeep owners testified that she first experienced severe shaking of the entire vehicle and almost lost control of the New Jersey lemon vehicle on the highway on January 3, 1998, while driving her mother to a doctor's appointment. After pulling off the road, turning off the engine, and then restarting it,one of the Jeep owners was able to continue her trip. She drove the New Jersey lemon vehicle to the dealer the same day, but the dealer's mechanic was unable to reproduce the condition in a test-drive, and there was no written record of that service visit. The Jeep owners’ mother testified and corroborated the Jeep owners’ version of the incident. On February 27, 1998, when the New Jersey lemon vehicle had traveled 14,723 miles, one of the Jeep owners again
experienced severe shaking and vibration of the New Jersey lemon vehicle which impaired her control. One of the Jeep owners brought the New Jersey lemon vehicle to the dealer and also reported an inoperable brake light. The dealer diagnosed a loose steering box and a chafed brake light wire. The severe vibration occurred again. This time, the New Jersey lemon vehicle began to shake badly while one of the Jeep owners was negotiating a curve in the road. The brake light also failed again, and both conditions led one of the Jeep owners to return to the dealer on March 27, 1998. The dealer again replaced the steering box and ordered a new module for the brake light. The severe vibration in the car
occurred again the same day. One of the Jeep owners returned to the dealer with the same two complaints on April 14. The dealer installed a new brake light module, but claimed to be unable to reproduce the vibration while test-driving the New Jersey lemon vehicle. Both conditions occurred again, and one of the Jeep owners returned to the dealer on May 21, 1998. This time the dealer found a leak in the steering damper and a short in the brake light wiring. Both defective parts were replaced. One of the Jeep owners testified that the vibration condition then improved substantially, from a "ten" on a scale of one to ten to a "one or two," although there were still intermittent incidents of vibration in the steering wheel. After the May 21 repairs, the New Jersey lemon vehicle itself no longer vibrated severely so as to threaten loss of control, and the brake light functioned properly. On May 28, 1998, the jeep owners’ attorney filed a lawsuit against Chrysler Corporation alleging substantial defects and nonconformities in the New Jersey lemon vehicle. After a jury verdict for the Jeep owners, the trial judge announced that
judgment would be entered against defendant, Chrysler Corporation, for the adjusted lease price of a 1997 Jeep Cherokee under the New Jersey Automobile Lemon Law, N.J.S.A. 56:12-29 to -49 (the New Jersey lemon law). The judge denied Chrysler’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. On appeal, the appellate court rejected Chrysler’s argument that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. In support of its argument that it was error to deny its motion for a new trial, Chrysler claimed that since one of the Jeep owners testified that the vibration was first reported in January, but the jury found that any nonconformity was first reported at 14,723 miles (the mileage in February when the brake light problem was first reported), the jury must have found only the brake light, and not the vibration, to be the substantial defect under the New Jersey lemon law. Chrysler argued that a brake light cannot, as a matter of law, constitute a Lemon Law nonconformity. Assuming (without deciding) that a defective brake light alone would not support a Lemon Law claim, the appellate court reject Chrysler’s assertion that the jury verdict could not stand. For, there was sufficient credible evidence that "reasonable minds might accept . . . as adequate to support" the jury's conclusion that a nonconformity remained after attempted repairs in February, March, and April, and that the unrepaired defects continued for an unreasonable period of time. The jury apparently believed the Jeep owners’ testimony concerning the repeated, unrepaired problems with the New Jersey lemon vehicle. There was no dispute that the New Jersey lemon vehicle's spontaneous and excessive vibration was diagnosed on May 21 as a defective steering damper and repaired on that date, along with the malfunctioning brake light. Moreover, the testimony of Chrysler’s expert automobile mechanic, could be understood to support the Jeep owner’s testimony that the vibration and loss of steering control that she experienced in February,March, April, and May (and perhaps in January as well) were caused by the defective damper problem that was diagnosed on May 21, 1998, and constituted a substantial impairment under the New Jersey lemon law. As the Jeep owners’ attorney asked the jury rhetorically in his closing argument, "If you have a car that you cannot control on the road, is it reasonable to take from January 3rd to May to repair it, May 21st, is that reasonable? . . . Is that reasonable to drive a vehicle from February until May without brake lights?" The jury was instructed to consider whether the manufacturer, through its authorized dealer, was unable to accomplish the repairs for an unreasonable period. The jury had to decide whether the defective conditions of the New Jersey lemon vehicle, namely the intermittent, severe vibration that affected control of the car, along with the malfunctioning brake light, continued for an unreasonable period of time without the manufacturer being able to repair, and if so whether those defects substantially impaired the value, use, or safety of the New Jersey lemon vehicle. The jury answered "yes" to both questions, and we are satisfied that there was sufficient credible evidence to support the jury's answers. The appellate court was satisfied that there was no error of law that unfairly prejudiced the jury's verdict and no miscarriage of justice. Accordingly the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s verdict in favor of the jeep owners.

Toyota Corolla Lemon -- The New Jersey Division of New Jersey Consumer Affairs found after a hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge that a 1991 Toyota Corolla was a "lemon" under the New Car Lemon Law. Toyota appealed, contending that the wrong standard was applied and that the decision was "logically incoherent" and "contrary to the weight of the evidence." The appellate court disagreed with Toyota and affirmed the decision that the car was a lemon. On April 4, 1991, the New Jersey lemon buyer leased and took delivery of a 1991 Toyota Corolla. On November 19, 1991, her vehicle stalled and could not be restarted. It was towed to the dealer. Similar problems occurred in December 1991 and January 1992. The stalling occurred when the car was parked in her driveway facing downward at an angle of approximately thirty degrees and the car had less than a half tank of gas. Toyota's field technical administrator testified that if the fuel level of the tank is low enough and the grade is steep enough, then the problem may arise. He testified that this problem would not impair safety but did impair the car's use. The New Jersey Administrative Law Judge concluded that the manufacturer's fuel system had: a design defect which substantially impairs the use, safety and value of the New Jersey lemon vehicle to this
New Jersey consumer. Although respondent seeks to trivialize the importance of the problem by stating it operated within factory standards or represented it as normal, the evidence clearly shows that the failure to start not only interferes with the owner's enjoyment and use of her new car, but will affect its safety and value. Furthermore, the proofs amply demonstrate that the New Jersey lemon buyer's response to the problem is not unduly demanding. Any reasonable person would be likely to act similarly. The problem is not one that every buyer must tolerate within the intendment of the New Jersey lemon law. The Director of the Division of New Jersey Consumer Affairs adopted as her final decision the findings and conclusions of the New Jersey Administrative Law Judge. Toyota contended that to prove that a car is a lemon the New Jersey lemon buyer must establish a violation of a warranty. Toyota argued that the "manifest intention of the statute as a whole is to enforce the warranties, and these warranties, be they express or implied, do not reach every condition, defective or otherwise, which might impair a vehicle's use, value or safety, for any particular New Jersey consumer." The appellate court disagreed with such a restrictive interpretation. The Legislature in enacting the New Jersey lemon law statute recognized that the purchase of an automobile is "a major high cost New Jersey consumer transaction," and that "the inability to correct defects in these vehicles creates a major hardship and an unacceptable economic burden on the New Jersey lemon buyer." The "intent" of the New Jersey lemon law is to "provide procedures to expeditiously resolve disputes between a New Jersey consumer and a manufacturer when defects in a new motor vehicle are not corrected within a reasonable time," and to provide "specific remedies where the uncorrected defect substantially impairs the use, value, or safety of the new motor vehicle." Toyota's construction of the statute would turn this expeditious administrative proceeding into a full blown litigation entangling the New Jersey lemon buyer in the intricacies of design defects and other complexities of product liability law. The Legislature clearly intended to spare the unfortunate buyer of a "lemon" those hazards and costs. The Legislature's concern for the New Jersey lemon buyer is further demonstrated by its creation of a statutory presumption for the New Jersey lemon buyer. The New Jersey lemon buyer in this case presented her car to Toyota at least three times for repair of the nonconformity, but the nonconformity persisted. Consequently, the New Jersey consumer is entitled to the statutory presumption that Toyota is unable to repair or correct the nonconformity. Toyota contends that the Division of New Jersey Consumer Affairs improperly used a subjective standard, namely New Jersey consumer satisfaction, and that an objective standard should be used in determining whether the defect or nonconformity substantially impairs the use, value or safety of the car. However, even under
warranty law whether a defect or nonconformity substantially impairs the use or value of the goods to a
buyer is not purely "objective." It may be "personalized in the sense that the facts must be examined from
the viewpoint of the buyer and his circumstances, objective in the sense that the criterion is what a
reasonable person in the buyer position would have believed." An important factor is whether the
nonconformity "shakes the buyer's confidence" in the goods. The purchase of a new car is a major
investment "rationalized by the peace of mind that flows from its dependability and safety." A reasonable
person in the New Jersey lemon buyers position could readily conclude that a condition in which a car stalls and won't restart when parked on an incline impairs the use and value of the car and shakes her confidence in it. The appellate court found that the agency's decision was supported by substantial credible evidence, was consistent with legislative intent, and was clearly not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable and therefore had to be sustained.

Nissan Lemon Claim Dismissal Reversed -- The lessee of a Nissan automobile took delivery of the
Nissan from the dealer, Warnock, on July 18, 1995. On October 6, 1995, when the New Jersey lemon vehicle had 2,019 miles on it, the New Jersey lemon buyer was driving it between 55 and 60 miles per hour on Interstate Route 78 when the New Jersey lemon vehicle began to buck, all the panel lights came on, and the New Jersey lemon vehicle stalled. She was able to restart the New Jersey lemon vehicle and
continue her journey. The New Jersey lemon vehicle stalled on several occasions for the remainder of her trip to downtown Newark, and from there it was towed to Warnock. Warnock had the New Jersey lemon vehicle from October 6 to October 27 and attempted to repair it. On November 2, 1995, five days later, the New Jersey lemon buyer was driving to her sister's house in Hillside when she experienced bucking and stalling. Again, all the panel lights came on. The New Jersey lemon vehicle was again towed to Warnock where a repair was attempted. The New Jersey lemon buyer retrieved her vehicle on
November 8. On November 13, 1995, while she was travelling on Interstate 78, the New Jersey lemon vehicle bucked and then stalled. She was able to restart it after fifteen minutes and drive the New Jersey lemon vehicle. It stalled again, followed by another restart, followed by another stall and restart. The New Jersey lemon vehicle was towed to Warnock. The New Jersey lemon vehicle stalled on February 23, 1996, and on February 24, 1996, The New Jersey lemon buyer wrote her "last chance" letter to
Nissan. N.J.S.A. 56:12-33b. She had received no response by March 1, 1996 when the New Jersey lemon vehicle stalled again. The car was taken to Warnock and a Nissan representative told her that they were not able to duplicate the problem. The New Jersey lemon buyer testified that it stalled on June 4 and was in Warnock's service center from June 11 to June 24. She also testified that it stalled on July 13, 1996. The New Jersey lemon law hearing before the New Jersey Administrative Law Judge was on September 4, 1996 and, at that time, the mileage was 12,800. The New Jersey lemon buyer further testified that the problem occurred in wet and rainy weather and that Warnock finally had told her that it was not going to touch the car because it could not duplicate the problem. The New Jersey lemon buyer’s expert qualified as an expert in automotive repair and computer diagnosis. The New Jersey lemon buyer’s expert testified that weather is a primary problem with electronic systems in modern-day vehicles. According to the New Jersey lemon buyer’s expert, damp moist days can have an adverse effect on electronics because moist air can get into a circuit if it has not been sealed properly, thereby causing the circuit to malfunction. In addition to a defective weather seal on a connector, other possible causes of a stalling problem are inadequate grounding or a defective connection. A transmission problem can also cause the stalling phenomenon. According to the New Jersey lemon buyer’s expert, diagnosis
of these problems is often very difficult. The New Jersey lemon buyer’s expert ultimately opined that the cause of the stalling was an electrical problem due to a poor ground or a faulty connection which will manifest itself on wet and damp days. The New Jersey lemon buyer’s expert stated that the actual location of the problem may be impossible to find. The New Jersey lemon buyer’s expert had been unable to duplicate the problem or to diagnose it more specifically. Nissan's sole witness was employed by Nissan as a dealer technical specialist, and he assists dealers in the diagnosis and repair of difficult to repair vehicles. He provides the dealers with technical information. Nissan’s expert drove the New Jersey lemon buyer' vehicle twice because the dealership asked him for help. He could not duplicate the condition, and a computer diagnosis of the car's electronic system resulted in no positive findings. He
agreed, however, that the computer would not detect mechanical failures. At one point in his testimony, he appeared to assume that there was, in fact, a problem and testified that he could not say with one hundred percent assurance that it was an electrical problem. However, he finally testified that because he was not able to duplicate the problem, he was satisfied that there is no problem. On cross-examination, he admitted that he had experience with stalling vehicles where the cause of the problem was not detected by the computerized diagnosis. He also conceded that it is possible for a circuit to open temporarily and then close, in which event the computer would not detect a problem. In a written initial decision, the Administrative Law Judge rejected the New Jersey lemon buyer' claim and the Director of the Division adopted the New Jersey Administrative Law Judge's initial decision as his final decision. On appeal, the court noted that the threshold issue was whether the Nissan had a defect, i.e., whether the stalling and bucking difficulties described by the New Jersey consumer occurred. Resolution of that issue required an assessment of the New Jersey lemon buyer' credibility and the credibility of her husband, who corroborated her testimony. If the credibility issue is resolved in favor of the New Jersey consumer, then the issue was whether the defect described by them constitutes a "nonconformity" as defined in the New Car Lemon Law. The appellate court explained that the New Jersey Administrative Law Judge ruled that there can be no finding of a defect in the absence of expert testimony establishing its cause. If the New Jersey consumers are determined to have been credible, then their testimony established objective facts, the bucking and stalling of their vehicle on the specified dates. While their testimony may not have been of a technical nature, it was not subjective. Overturning the New Jersey Administrative Law Judge’s dismissal of the New Jersey consumer’s case, the appellate court concluded that the absence of corroborating expert testimony is not fatal to a claim, though such testimony may be relevant regarding the credibility of the owner/lessee's allegations and other issues. The first issue is whether the defect described by the New Jersey lemon buyer exists. Resolution of this issue requires a determination of the credibility of Mr. and The New Jersey lemon buyer. In resolving the credibility issue, expert testimony is relevant, but not necessarily dispositive. If it is determined that the defect exists, the next issue is whether the defect qualifies as a "nonconformity" under the New Car Lemon Law. If so, then the claimant is entitled to a refund pursuant to the New Jersey lemon law. Accordingly, the appellate court reversed the Agency's final decision and directed that a new hearing be held on the New Jersey lemon buyer’s Lemon claim.

2005 Chrysler Town and Country wagon -- The New Jersey lemon buyer purchased a 2005 Chrysler Town and Country wagon, showing five miles on the odometer. The New Jersey lemon buyer testified that the family purchased the Chrysler minivan to provide family transportation. During the New Jersey lemon law hearing, the New Jersey lemon buyer provided clear, concise, and credible testimony that within a few months of the New Jersey lemon vehicle's purchase, she experienced several occasions when the New Jersey lemon vehicle would not start. Specifically, in June 2004, and on three separate occasions, the New Jersey lemon buyer's minivan would not start and, as a result, she had to have it towed to local Chrysler dealerships. On each occasion, she was told that the dealership service technicians either saw no problem with the New Jersey lemon vehicle or that the starting problem had been fixed. After these three separate incidents, and upon picking up her vehicle after the third incident, it was only a matter of days before the New Jersey lemon vehicle again would not start. Given the history of four separate instances where the New Jersey lemon vehicle would not start, and given the dealership's apparent inability to fix the New Jersey lemon vehicle during the first three non-start incidents, the New Jersey lemon buyer sent a ten-day letter under the New Jersey lemon law to Chrysler. The New Jersey lemon buyer received no written response to her claim. The New Jersey lemon buyer had no contact with either Chrysler or its dealerships until she telephoned Freehold Chrysler and spoke to Ricky on July 12, 2004. At that point, the ten-day repair period had expired. During that telephone conversation, the New Jersey lemon buyer was told that the New Jersey lemon law did not apply to a condition that resulted from three separate causes. Additionally, the New Jersey lemon buyer was told that the New Jersey lemon law repair period was ten "business days" and not ten "calendar days." As a result of the call, the New Jersey lemon buyer initially decided that she would have the car towed in once again to the Chrysler dealership (notwithstanding the fact that the ten-day period had expired). However, the New Jersey lemon buyer then consulted with her attorney and thereupon decided that given the history of the failed attempts, as well as the failure to remedy the problem during the ten-day Lemon Law period, that her best interest would be served by continuing to proceed with her Lemon Law complaint. As of the first day of the New Jersey lemon law hearing, August 11, 2004, the New Jersey lemon buyer's vehicle was still "dead" in her driveway. On March 6, 2004, Chrysler did not repair the New Jersey lemon vehicle within the ten-day period. Neither Chrysler (nor any Chrysler dealership) made a good faith, diligent attempt to remedy the condition complained of (non-starting) during the ten-day Lemon Law period. Neither Chrysler (nor any Chrysler dealership) sought to document by means of certified letter (or even a regular mail letter) that Chrysler (or any Chrysler dealership) was having problems contacting the New Jersey lemon buyer in order to inspect the New Jersey lemon vehicle and then make the necessary repairs during the ten-day Lemon Law period. The New Jersey lemon buyer received no contact or communication from Chrysler (or any of its dealerships) during the ten-day period. Having had the opportunity to listen to the witnesses, review the documents in evidence and hear the arguments of counsel, the judge found that it was clear that Chrysler's arguments and positions were without merit. The New Jersey lemon buyer purchased a new minivan from Chrysler and envisioned that vehicle would be used for safe and reliable transportation of her young family. Contrary to her expectations, what the New Jersey lemon buyer got was a vehicle that was unpredictable and unreliable. Simply put, the engine would not start; the New Jersey lemon vehicle would not run. Contrary to Chrysler's assertions, the New Jersey lemon buyer brought her vehicle in for repairs on three separate occasions. On each of the three occasions, two separate Chrysler dealerships misdiagnosed or negligently diagnosed the cause of the non-starting problem. Rather than fix the problem, or take the time to correctly diagnose it, these Chrysler dealerships released the New Jersey lemon vehicle back to the New Jersey lemon buyer and placed her in peril of being stranded by a vehicle that contained a defect that caused it to refuse to start on a completely random and unpredictable basis. It is fortunate that the New Jersey lemon buyer was not stranded in some distant or foreign location with her young children because of the defect in this Chrysler vehicle and because of Chrysler's inability to fix it. After the three failed attempts to fix the non-starting problem, the New Jersey lemon vehicle once again would not start. This time the New Jersey lemon vehicle was dead in the New Jersey lemon buyer's driveway. Frustrated by the failure of this significant New Jersey consumer purchase to operate as intended, and frustrated by the Chrysler dealership's inability to remedy the problem, the New Jersey lemon buyer elected to rely on the laws available to her in such circumstances and filed a Lemon Law complaint. To suggest that the New Jersey lemon buyer operated in "bad faith" or tried to "manipulate" the system plainly ignores the facts and evidence adduced during the New Jersey lemon law hearing before this tribunal. If there were ever a set of facts that justify relief under the New Jersey lemon law, this is it. It is worthy of note that as of the beginning of this Lemon Law hearing, the New Jersey lemon buyer's vehicle remained dead and sitting in her driveway. As of the conclusion of this case on August 18, 2004, the New Jersey lemon buyer's vehicle was still not fixed. At that point, however, Chrysler was certain that it had competently diagnosed the cause of the problem. Contrary to Chrysler's initial position, there was no abuse, neglect, or unauthorized modifications or alterations shown. Rather, it took Chrysler's in-house technical advisor to correctly diagnose the New Jersey lemon vehicle and then track down the problem. This was after the three faulty repair attempts, with their commensurate incorrect diagnoses, and after the ten-day Lemon Law time period expired. The New Jersey lemon buyer had to retain an attorney and go through an entire two-day hearing. After all that, Chrysler rather cavalierly and somewhat arrogantly points to the problem as a simple fix and so argues that the New Jersey lemon vehicle has suffered no impairment to its use, value, or safety. The judge ruled that the New Jersey lemon buyer proved by a preponderance of the evidence that a defect existed and continued to exist in her vehicle as of the date of the conclusion of the New Jersey lemon law hearing before this tribunal and that the defect qualifies as a non-conformity substantially impairing the value of the New Jersey lemon vehicle and that the New Jersey lemon buyer established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that the defect complained of entitled the New Jersey lemon buyer to relief pursuant to the New Jersey lemon law, entering judgment for a total refund of $40,595.22, including attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $2,781.40.

Dodge Neon Owner Representing Themselves Loses Lemon Case – A New Jersey consumer who was not represented by an attorney lost her lemon case involving a 2003 Dodge Neon purchased from Walsh Dodge-Daewoo in Jersey City, New Jersey, for a total of $16,000. The New Jersey lemon buyer's initial complaint was made on January 30, 2003, when she brought her car to the dealership complaining of squeaking brakes. She was advised that there was a break-in period in the braking system and no repairs were done. On April 26, 2003, the New Jersey lemon buyer took her car in for various maintenance checks and again complained of squeaking brakes. The brakes were checked and the front rotors and rear drums were resurfaced . The New Jersey lemon buyer next took her vehicle in for service on August 2, 2003, at which time no brake concerns were noted. The New Jersey lemon buyer next took her car in for service on November 15, 2003, for certain maintenance issues and requested again that the brakes be checked. No repairs were made to the brakes on that occasion. The New Jersey lemon buyer took her vehicle in for service on February 14, 2004, for various maintenance issues and squeaking brakes. On that occasion, the squeaking brake noise was detected and a brake service was performed on the front rotors to resolve it. The New Jersey lemon buyer brought her car in on April 3, 2004, with the same complaint. She asked that the brake system be replaced, and, as a result, the front brake pads were replaced and the rotors refaced. The New Jersey lemon buyer brought her car in on April 30, 2004, again indicating that the brakes were squealing and the rear brake shoes were replaced. The New Jersey lemon buyer brought her car in on June 29, 2004, complaining about the brakes. The repair order indicates that the brake inspection found no apparent problems and that the car was safe to drive. No repairs were made. At the time of the New Jersey lemon law hearing, the New Jersey lemon buyer's car had approximately 17,300 miles on the odometer. No defect in the braking system was found, and the New Jersey lemon vehicle had no difficulty stopping. The New Jersey Administrative law judge found that the New Jersey lemon vehicle made noise when the brakes are applied but that: (1) the New Jersey lemon vehicle's use has not been affected by the noise; (2) no evidence was offered that the New Jersey lemon vehicle's safety is decreased by the brake noise; and (3) presented no evidence to support her contention that the New Jersey lemon vehicle's value is diminished. Under any objective evaluation, the New Jersey lemon buyer was unable to sustain a claim for Lemon Law relief because the squeaky brakes cannot reasonably be found to substantially impair the New Jersey lemon vehicle's value. Her mere subjective belief that the value is diminished is insufficient for the undersigned to find a "substantial impairment of value" as the New Jersey lemon law requires before relief can be given.

Lexus SC 400 Owner Representing Themselves Lose Lemon Case – The New Jersey lemon buyer purchased a Lexus SC 400 from Prestige Lexus of Ramsey, 955 Route 17 South, Ramsey, New Jersey with 40 miles. The odometer reading on the car as of the date of the New Jersey lemon law hearing was 1,986 miles. The New Jersey lemon buyer claimed that he was pulling into a parking spot in front of his house and struck a small parked car because his brakes did not grab. After his brakes failed a second time that day, he called the dealership, Prestige Lexus of Ramsey, and brought his car in the following day. The dealership told him that it replaced the master cylinder and the brake actuator, but could not duplicate his complaint. The New Jersey lemon buyer also claimed that the New Jersey lemon buyer was exiting his garage in the path of oncoming traffic. The New Jersey lemon buyer claimed he pressed the brake pedal, but his car did not stop. His car allegedly just kept going and eventually skidded to a halt. After another visit to the dealer, the New Jersey lemon buyer claimed that he pulled up to a stop sign; he pressed on the brake and the car did not stop. The New Jersey lemon buyer claimed he brought his car to the dealership for the third and last repair attempt on January 4, 2000 and that he left his car at the dealership until the date of this hearing because neither the dealership nor the manufacturer notified him about the results of that repair attempt. The judge found that the distance between the brake and gas pedal on New Jersey consumer's Lexus SC400 is 2 inches or 57 millimeters, there are no federal or safety standards regarding width and height differential of brake pedals in cars, a survey of 40 different vehicles prepared by respondent reflects that the placement of brake and gas pedals vary both in width and height differential, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not issued a recall for pedal placement for the New Jersey lemon vehicle and it had the same pedal cluster as every other similar model, that the New Jersey lemon buyer produced no proof that any New Jersey consumer complaints have ever been received by NHTSA about pedal placement, that the New Jersey lemon buyer's car does not have a design defect, that the New Jersey lemon buyer's complaint can be rectified by moving his foot to the left a few inches to avoid depressing the brake and gas pedals simultaneously, that the New Jersey lemon buyer road tested a number of vehicles at the dealership before he purchased the New Jersey lemon vehicle, that the New Jersey lemon buyer made a bad choice and bought a car that does not suit his unique driving habits and finally, that the New Jersey lemon buyer complained about a design defect only on January 4, 2000 and thus, that the dealership did not have three repair attempts to correct a design defect even if such a correction could be made. The judge found that the New Jersey lemon vehicle was designed by the manufacturer for the average driver and that the New Jersey lemon buyer's complaints appear to be subjective based upon his own unique driving habits, while he produced no proof that the New Jersey lemon vehicle was a safety hazard because of pedal placement. The judge concluded that the New Jersey lemon buyer's car may not be designed to his liking but it was not defectively designed and there was no substantial impairment to the use, value or safety of this value pursuant to the New Jersey lemon law.

2003 four door, Ford Freestar Limited Owners representing themselves lose lemon case -- The New Jersey lemon buyers purchased a 2003 four door Ford Freestar from the Ridgewood's Village Ford dealership in Ridgewood, New Jersey. The odometer reading on the car on the date of delivery was 20 miles. The odometer reading on the New Jersey lemon vehicle as of the date of the New Jersey lemon law was 12, 057 miles. The New Jersey lemon buyers testified at hearing that at that time the New Jersey lemon vehicle's dashboard navigation system was not working properly, although the dealership's technician testified that even though the system is an aftermarket accessory, which Ford did not manufacture, the system was working properly. There is no persuasive evidence of a malfunction with the navigation system. Had there been a malfunction the New Jersey lemon buyers surely would have included that as a defect in their application filed with the Division of New Jersey Consumer Affairs, which they did not do. Indeed, there is no evidence that the repair order of September 3 is anything other than a preinspection report of the New Jersey lemon vehicle by the dealership, although the New Jersey lemon buyers had taken possession on August 30. The New Jersey lemon vehicle's airbag dashboard light indicating a problem with the airbag system began to occasionally illuminate. The New Jersey lemon buyers testified that the New Jersey lemon vehicle manual urges owners to return the New Jersey lemon vehicle to the dealership for service when that occurs. They returned the New Jersey lemon vehicle for service. On October 10, 2003, a repair order states that the New Jersey lemon buyers reported the New Jersey lemon vehicle's airbag light was on for 10 days, but now was unlighted. The technician wrote that he could not verify through his tests that the light had been on, and while he found codes for the repair of such conditions, presumably in the Ford service manuals, he could not locate a definition. The airbag warning light system passed all tests and no problems were found at that time. It is also noted that on the same day, the technician reported that the rear lift gate was hard to open as reported by the New Jersey lemon buyers, but that he had to specially order new lift gate pistons. The New Jersey lemon buyers report no other problem with the lift gate. The New Jersey lemon vehicle was returned to the New Jersey lemon buyers the same day, October 10. On November 11, 2003 a repair order shows that the New Jersey lemon buyers returned the New Jersey lemon vehicle to the dealership for installation of the pistons to the rear lift gate and because the "airbag light comes on intermittently." The service technician wrote that he removed and inspected connectors for the passenger airbag, that he tightened pins, and reattached everything. The technician concludes "All OK at this time." The New Jersey lemon vehicle was returned to the New Jersey lemon buyers the same day, November 11. Sometime on or before December 1, 2003 the airbag light problem surfaced again for on that day, petitioner wrote a Last Chance Letter, claiming that the problem with the New Jersey lemon vehicle was the air bag warning light indicating a malfunction in the airbags and that while this light is lit the airbags are inoperable rendering the New Jersey lemon vehicle, from a safety perspective, inoperable while traveling. The Ford dealership accepted the New Jersey lemon vehicle for repair of the safety bag light on December 4, 2003. While the repair order states the mileage of the New Jersey lemon vehicle as 3,050 on December 4, the service technician who explained he miscopied the mileage manually inserted the correct reading of 3900. The repair order states the following work was performed at Ridgewood's Village Ford: Air bag light goes on. Light went on following morning after Reed [a service repair technician] insulated and grounded antenna wire. WDS Diag. Found codes for side airbag fault. Traced wires from seat to monitor. All OK. Installed test plug.cose still there. Replaced diagnostic monitor. Cleaned connectors on both passenger and driver seats. Technician, service advisor and owner test drove. All OK at this time. The New Jersey lemon vehicle was returned to the New Jersey lemon buyers December 12, 2003. The airbag light was apparently corrected to the New Jersey lemon buyers' satisfaction. Although the New Jersey lemon buyers did not carry through with their demand for a refund or a replacement vehicle, they determined they no longer wanted this vehicle because of the problems already presented. Nevertheless, the New Jersey lemon buyers did retake possession of their purchased vehicle on December 12, 2003. The demands for repair set out by the New Jersey lemon buyers in their letter of December 1, 2003 were sufficiently satisfied by the manufacturer for them to forgo seeking relief at that time under the New Jersey Lemon Law, N.J.S.A. 56:12-29 - to 49. At or near the beginning of June 2004, the dashboard brake light on the New Jersey lemon buyers' vehicle began to illuminate. According to the New Jersey lemon vehicle owner's manual, the light illumination suggests there may be a problem with the braking system. The New Jersey lemon buyers did as the manual suggested and returned the New Jersey lemon vehicle on June 4, 2004 to the dealership for repair. They testified that by this time they just wanted to get rid of this particular vehicle and get a replacement vehicle because they lost trust in it. On the same day, the New Jersey lemon buyers penned another letter to the manufacturer alleging that the current problem with the New Jersey lemon vehicle was the select trac braking system and that the New Jersey lemon vehicle supposedly required a brake booster. The dealership had to order and have delivered a brake booster kit which corrected the improper illumination of the light on the dashboard indicating a brake problem. The New Jersey lemon vehicle was out of service between June 4, the date of the Last Chance Letter, and June 22, 2004, a total of eighteen days. These 18 days, added to the prior 11 days, show the New Jersey lemon vehicle was out of service for 29 days, although the service center's records show that the New Jersey lemon vehicle was in the shop for 37 actual days of service, some of which were for regular maintenance. As an example, the evidence shows the New Jersey lemon vehicle was in the dealership's service center on March 5, 2004 for its 6000-mile check-up, and for body repair for which there is no further evidence, and for work on the engine, for which there is no further evidence. The judge concluded that record was absent of persuasive evidence that during the time of the airbag dashboard light improper illumination that the airbags were inoperable. During the time of the trac braking system dashboard light improper illumination, the evidence does show the brakes did not fail at any time it was being operated by either petitioner. One New Jersey consumer testified the brakes did not fail to stop the New Jersey lemon vehicle as intended. The judge found that the evidence in the record did not support the New Jersey lemon buyers' assertions that there was a `failure' of the airbag safety system and of the brake system. There is no evidence to show circumstances existed within which the airbags should have deployed and did not, or that the brakes should have stopped the New Jersey lemon vehicle but did not. Indeed, the New Jersey lemon buyers testified the brakes did not ever fail to stop the New Jersey lemon vehicle. What did fail were the warning lights on the dashboard that indicated there may be a problem with the airbags and that there may be a problem with the brakes; but, in neither case did either feature of the New Jersey lemon vehicle "fail" in the sense of not performing the function it was intended to perform.

MINI Cooper S owner representing themselves lose lemon case -- The New Jersey lemon buyer purchased a 2002 MINI Cooper S from Prestige MINI (Prestige) on September 30, 2002. When the New Jersey lemon buyer took delivery of the New Jersey lemon vehicle, the odometer reading on the New Jersey lemon vehicle was 10 miles. As of the date of the commencement of the New Jersey lemon law hearing, the odometer reading on the New Jersey lemon vehicle was 7,674 miles. The New Jersey lemon buyer had six "repair visits" with regard to the New Jersey lemon vehicle. The first service of the New Jersey lemon vehicle by Prestige occurred on January 16, 2003, at which time the New Jersey lemon vehicle had 1,810 miles. Three concerns were raised. The service invoice reflects the customer's advice that the New Jersey lemon vehicle jerks with light throttle, mainly in second and third gears. At the New Jersey lemon law, the customer described this concern as a "hesitation" or "bucking," which he first noticed in October 2002. Prestige contacted the technical hotline and it was recommended that the DME be reprogrammed using the latest software version. No fault codes were found. The second issue involved the tires having a "flat spot." According to the service invoice, the tires have "slight flat spots when sitting over night," which "goes away after warmed up," and this occurred "especially when cold outside." At the New Jersey lemon law, the customer described that the tires would vibrate for a few miles, which resulted in the New Jersey lemon vehicle shaking to the point that the images in the rear and side view mirrors were distorted. In response to this concern, the service manager at Prestige informed the customer that he would contact the tire manufacturer. An additional issue was raised regarding the driver's seat squeaking. According to the service invoice, this complaint could not be verified after an approximate eight-mile road test. The customer testified that after this service visit he went to Ramapo Tire with regard to the flat spot issue. According to the customer, he was told that the company was not equipped to work on "run flats." Subsequently the customer was referred to another tire dealer in New York. The next service of the New Jersey lemon vehicle was on July 7, 2003, at which time the New Jersey lemon vehicle had 4,008 miles. During this service visit, the customer indicated the New Jersey lemon vehicle hesitates in second and third gears. The service invoice reflects that the DME program was not up to date and Prestige reprogrammed the DME, after which the New Jersey lemon vehicle test-drove well with no hesitation. The customer also complained of a noise in the right front end of the New Jersey lemon vehicle, which the customer described at the New Jersey lemon law as a "knocking" noise. According to the service invoice, no noise was heard during a test drive. In connection with this service, the technician found the DCS and tire lights on, an issue that the customer did not raise. The service invoice reflects that Prestige determined that the steering angle sensor needed recalibration and, after recalibration, the DCS light did not illuminate. Another issue involved a solvent smell in the New Jersey lemon vehicle, which Prestige attributed to a leaking coolant expansion tank that was changed. According to the customer, he drove the New Jersey lemon vehicle with the technician and later contacted the service manager, which culminated in a service appointment on July 18, 2003. As of the date of this service, the New Jersey lemon vehicle had 4,050 miles. With regard to this visit, the customer indicated that, since Prestige installed the new software, the car bucks in first gear. At the New Jersey lemon law, the customer described that, in first gear, the engine cut out and then cut back, which caused the New Jersey lemon vehicle to buck. According to the service invoice, no codes related to the DME were stored, the DME was sent to Montvale to reprogram and the DME was installed. An additional concern related to the New Jersey lemon vehicle making noise over bumps. According to the service invoice, the front of the sunroof area would creak when driving over certain bumps. Prestige removed the inside sunroom trim, loosened four of the front sunroof cassette bolts and oiled the spots. The service invoice reflects the "creaking" did not return during the test drive. The next service transpired on August 6, 2003, at which time the New Jersey lemon vehicle had 4,472 miles. The customer's complaints related to the hesitation in second and third gears and the sunroof making a noise while driving. Prestige found the sunroof bolts in the front portion of the New Jersey lemon vehicle were loose. According to the service invoice, it tightened the bolts, test-drove the New Jersey lemon vehicle and the noise was gone. With regard to the hesitation, the customer testified that the service manager indicated his intention to contact the technical hotline. The service invoice reflects that Prestige spoke with a representative. The invoice states "Working on a fix. Nothing they can do at this time." In or around August 22, 2003, the customer sent an e-mail correspondence to a representative of the MINI Division, Customer Relations, regarding notice of a final repair attempt "to remedy hesitation/bucking in second and third gears." The correspondence noted, "[a]lso unresolved, is a vibration throughout the car caused by the tires flat spotting in temperatures below 65 degrees." According to the customer, he later spoke with this representative, who verbally declined his e-mail demand. Subsequently, the customer sent a letter, dated September 30, 2003, in which he made a written demand for relief under the New Jersey lemon law. In the letter, the customer stated that he was enclosing e-mail correspondence and repair orders "concerning the engine hesitation and bucking in second and third gears, knocking noise from the right front, solvent smell in interior and DSC/tire monitor lights (which intermittently come one) which have plagued my MINI since purchase." The customer indicated that he had brought the New Jersey lemon vehicle back to Prestige four times "for the engine hesitation and bucking," and noted his communication concerning an unresolved "vibration throughout the car caused by the tires flat spotting in cooler temperatures." In response to this communication, a service visit transpired on October 14, 2003, at which time the New Jersey lemon vehicle had 4,905 miles. Although the service invoice reflects a complaint that the New Jersey lemon vehicle was hesitating and stalling when the customer tries to accelerate, the customer testified that he did not complain of any stalling. The MINI representative for Prestige, test drove the New Jersey lemon vehicle for 42 miles on highway and back roads at varying speeds and testified, and the invoice for service reflects, that he did not experience any abnormalities in the way the New Jersey lemon vehicle handled – no hesitation, pulsation or bucking when operating the New Jersey lemon vehicle. The service invoice reflects the MINI expert's conclusion that all of the complaints noted in the earlier service invoices "are normal characteristics of the New Jersey lemon vehicle." With regard to the customer's concern that the sunroof was noisy in the right front area, the MINI expert testified, and the service invoice reflects, that he heard no abnormal noises during his test drive. Only wind buffeting was heard when fully open at high speeds. The third matter involved the illumination of the DCS light and tire lights. The service invoice reflects that a code had been taken from the New Jersey lemon vehicle, after which Prestige replaced and aligned the steering angle sensor. The final concern related to all of the tires having flat spots. At the New Jersey lemon law, The MINI expert confirmed that the tires flat spotted but testified that the vibration was not as severe as the customer described. During his test drive, The MINI expert felt a vibration in the steering wheel and through the seat, which stopped after a few miles. He did not observe the mirrors vibrating. The MINI expert explained that, because of the tire compound, the tires will flat spot if the New Jersey lemon vehicle sits overnight or in certain weather conditions. After the New Jersey lemon vehicle is driven for a period of time and the tire warms up, the flat spot goes away. The service invoice reflects that Prestige contacted an authorized Pirelli dealer and was informed that there was no defect in the tire. The MINI expert explained that, during his most recent test drive, he did not observe anything which confirmed the New Jersey lemon buyer’s complaints. The judge found that the record was bereft of sufficient evidence demonstrating that the New Jersey lemon vehicle exhibits any unusual hesitation or bucking. In short, the customer's complaint was not substantiated by expert or other objective factual evidence. The customer's subjective opinion, without more, was insufficient to sustain the customer's required burden of proof as to the existence of a nonconformity. Apart from this, the customer's claim was overborne by the persuasive testimony of respondent's expert. From the evidence, this concern appears to be attributable to the customer's driving style, rather than any defect in the New Jersey lemon vehicle. Turning to the vibration of the New Jersey lemon vehicle, there did not appear to be any disagreement between the parties that this concern is attributable to flat spots on the tires in cool weather. Succinctly stated, this issue appears to be a matter within the purview of the tire manufacturer and not a defect in the New Jersey lemon vehicle. The only other issue raised in the customer's Lemon Law Dispute Resolution Application involved the "knocking" noise, which the customer acknowledged no longer existed.

Lincoln Aviator 4 door sedan declared Lemon -- Petitioner leased a Lincoln Aviator 4 door sedan from Holman Lincoln Mercury on February 14, 2004. The New Jersey lemon vehicle had been driven 13 miles as of the date of delivery and at the time of the New Jersey lemon law it had approximately 17600 miles. Shortly after the date of delivery, petitioner experienced several problems including but not limited to, the air conditioning not producing cold air, heated seats not working, rear window stuck open, driver’s seat moving forward while the New Jersey lemon vehicle is in motion, rear lift gate opening while the New Jersey lemon vehicle is in motion, radio going on by itself and the blower fan increasing by itself. Petitioner's primary concerns are the lift gate opening and driver’s seat moving while the New Jersey lemon vehicle is in motion. These present safety concerns according to petitioner. Respondent's service and investigation of the alleged defects has been extensive. Between the period July 2004 and January 2005, the dealership and Ford have engaged in 7 inspections or repairs and test driven the New Jersey lemon vehicle over 200 miles. It has been in the possession of the dealership for over 25 days. Only one time was a defect duplicated and it was repaired. The lift gate assembly was replaced. The test drives, inspections and computer diagnostics have not yielded any evidence of a serious non-conformity. One explanation is the defects observed by petitioner are so intermittent that they are unable to be duplicated. But, these should be stored in the New Jersey lemon vehicle's computer system. If confirmed, a seat or lift gate malfunction are the types of non-conformities that could substantially impact the use, safety or value of the New Jersey lemon vehicle. If the lift gate malfunctions permitting property to fly out of the New Jersey lemon vehicle and/or distracts the driver, it could cause a serious accident. Similarly, if the driver's seat malfunctions as described by petitioner, it could cause the operator to lose control of the New Jersey lemon vehicle. The driver could be tightly pressed into the steering wheel, lose ability to properly steer the car, or lose the ability to properly operate the gas or brake pedal. These conditions, if true are dangerous and could cause an accident. However, in the present matter the respondent was unable to verify or duplicate the seat malfunction on numerous occasions. And, the lift gate was repaired on August 12, 2004. The judge found that the fact petitioner has not driven the New Jersey lemon vehicle for any substantial period after the last chance repairs Ford made did not prevent her from establishing her Lemon Law claims. The judge found that the seat and lift gate defects described by petitioner did occur. The New Jersey lemon buyer was credible and forthright. She had no reason to contrive these defects. Written statements were offered, confirming petitioner's and her sister's experiences with the seat and lift gate. The dealership confirmed defects with the lift gate after a few service attempts. Thus, petitioner's version of events was partially corroborated by the repair made on August 18, 2004, even though the defects were not found on August 3, 2004, or August 10, 2004. Petitioner stated that she thoroughly enjoys the New Jersey lemon vehicle. She did not want a new vehicle, money or damages. Petitioner continued to pay the lease payments even while the car sat at the dealership lot for several months. She simply wanted the car fixed so as to restore her faith and confidence in its safety. Therefore the judge concluded that petitioner met her burden of proof. She offered reliable proof that her vehicle has defects that substantially impact its use and safety.

Nissan Frontier Declared a Lemon – On September 20, 2002, the New Jersey lemon buyer purchased a 2002 Nissan Frontier showing 26 miles on the odometer. On November 13, 2003, the New Jersey lemon buyer noticed a problem with his power steering and returned the New Jersey lemon vehicle to the Nissan dealership for repair (with an odometer reading of 11,420 miles). The Nissan dealership ordered a power steering pump. On December 4, 2003, the New Jersey lemon buyer returned his vehicle to the Nissan dealership and the power steering pump was replaced. However, the New Jersey lemon buyer observed that the power steering problem still existed in his vehicle. On December 19, 2003, the New Jersey lemon buyer returned to the Nissan dealership and again sought repair of the power steering problem in his vehicle. The New Jersey lemon buyer was told that a hose with a pressure switch was ordered. On February 10, 2004, the New Jersey lemon buyer again returned to the Nissan dealership still experiencing and complaining of problems with the power steering in his vehicle. The dealership ordered a power steering gear. On February 12, 2004, the New Jersey lemon buyer sent a ten-day Lemon Law notice letter to Nissan North America advised Nissan of the power steering difficulties as well as the several failed attempts to remedy the problem. Nissan received the New Jersey lemon buyer's ten-day notice letter and Nissan did not repair the New Jersey lemon vehicle within the ten-day period beginning on February 18, 2004. Neither Nissan nor any Nissan dealership made a good faith, diligent attempt to remedy the condition complained of (power steering problems) during the ten-day Lemon Law period. The New Jersey lemon buyer received no contact or communication from Nissan (or any of its dealerships) during the ten-day period. The judge found that the New Jersey lemon vehicle was a lemon, noting that a vehicle that exhibits such a wide variation in the amount of effort required to turn it (when making a left turn as opposed to a right turn) does pose a significant danger to the user and to others on the highway as one would attempt to navigate in traffic. It is, therefore, a substantial diminution of the safety element. The judge awarded the New Jersey lemon buyer $23,735.14 and attorney’s fees of $2,742.99.

NEED HELP WITH YOUR NEW JERSEY CASE?
Handling your New Jersey case wrong from the beginning may only cost you more money and time in the end!! Do it right the first time by seeking legal advice from a competent New Jersey lawyer!
Let the Law Office of Paul DePetris help you with your New Jersey case. Not all New Jersey cases require you to pay expensive legal fees to get legal help.

WHY SHOULD NEW JERSEY PRO SE PLAINTIFFS AND NEW JERSEY PRO SE DEFENDANTS SEEK HELP FROM A NEW JERSEY LAWYER?
Handling your New Jersey case wrong from the beginning may only cost you more money and time in the end!! Do it right the first time by seeking legal advice from a competent New Jersey lawyer!
Many New Jersey pro se plaintiffs and New Jersey pro se defendants make the mistake of not consulting a New Jersey lawyer before filing New Jersey Court papers only to later learn that the New Jersey pro se plaintiffs and New Jersey pro se defendants made serious mistakes that could cause them to lose their New Jersey case. Let the Law Office of Paul DePetris help you with your New Jersey case.

CAN I RELY ON NEW JERSEY COURT PERSONNEL FOR LEGAL ADVICE?
New Jersey Court employees cannot give you “free” legal advice and a New Jersey Court judge may refuse to let you claim that you were right in taking an action (or in deciding not to take action) because you relied on advice from such employees. Most New Jersey Court employees are not trained New Jersey attorneys and therefore, they may not know what advice to give you. Working at the New Jersey Court as a non-judge is not the same as practicing law.

CAN I RELY ON NEW JERSEY COURT FORMS PROVIDED BY THE NEW JERSEY COURT?
The New Jersey Court usually provides certain types of New Jersey Court legal forms to the public and those forms are often very helpful. However, beware relying on New Jersey Court forms provided by the New Jersey Court – the New Jersey Court forms are often deceptively simple, while New Jersey cases often are much more complex than they first appear to be. There is simply no substitute for a competent New Jersey attorney licensed to practice law in New Jersey who has experience handling New Jersey cases. New Jersey Court forms don’t talk and New Jersey Court forms and their directions rarely, if ever, cover every possible situation, set of facts or legal issue that may arise in a New Jersey case. Each New Jersey case has its own particular legal issues and therefore, its own challenges. If you can afford a competent New Jersey attorney, it is best to have the New Jersey attorney prepare your New Jersey Court paperwork for you.

CAN I HANDLE A NEW JERSEY CASE MYSELF?
Many New Jersey pro se plaintiffs and New Jersey pro se defendants can and do successfully handle New Jersey cases, from filing the first paperwork to the collection of a New Jersey Court judgment. However, many other New Jersey pro se plaintiffs and New Jersey pro se defendants also make mistakes that lead to the dismissal of their New Jersey cases or that result in the entry of a New Jersey Court money judgment against them. The greater the money at stake, the greater the reason to consider using the services of a competent attorney licensed to practice law in New Jersey to handle part or all of the New Jersey case. The following are reasons to use an attorney to handle part or all of your New Jersey case:
• New Jersey Court fees often change
• New Jersey Court rules often change
• New Jersey Court employees cannot give you “free” legal advice and a New Jersey Court judge may refuse to let you claim that you were right in taking an action (or in deciding not to take action) because you relied on advice from such employees
• New Jersey Court forms available on websites may not cover every situation you may face in Court
• each New Jersey case has its own particular legal issues and therefore, its own challenges
• it is very common for New Jersey pro se plaintiffs and New Jersey pro se defendants to file inadequate or incorrect New Jersey Court complaints that result in the New Jersey Court complaints or answers to New Jersey Court complaints being rejected by the New Jersey Court or being dismissed by the New Jersey Court after filing and before or after trial because of procedural deficiencies.
• it is not uncommon for judges to get very frustrated by an unrepresented party’s lack of preparation or ignorance of the facts or law of the New Jersey case.
• a Court has the power to punish unprepared New Jersey plaintiffs and New Jersey defendants, such as by throwing their New Jersey case out of Court or limiting what they can present at the New Jersey Court trial.
• New Jersey has many published cases, laws, regulations, Court rules and rules of evidence that can be very tricky to understand and that can be used to prevent you from doing much of what you want to do at the New Jersey Court trial.
• it is very common for Courts to refuse to allow a party to use or refer to documents or items at the New Jersey Court trial that the person themselves never prepared. Often New Jersey plaintiffs and New Jersey defendants stumble into New Jersey Court with a video, photograph, bill or affidavit or other form of written statement, thinking they are going to use it as proof that they lost money or that they are not responsible for someone else’s damages, only to have a New Jersey Court judge tell the New Jersey plaintiffs and New Jersey defendants that it is not going to even consider such items or documents.
• without the proper preparation, items and documents may never be considered by the New Jersey Court. Also, if there are any legal issues to be dealt with at the New Jersey Court trial, you must be prepared to argue them, which may require you to refer to Court rules, evidence rules, laws, regulations or published cases.
• you cannot show up at the New Jersey Court expecting the judge hearing your New Jersey case to explain Court rules, evidence rules, Court procedure or the details of the law that applies to your New Jersey case. The judge hearing your New Jersey case is not permitted to give you legal advice.

It is important to remember that even if you have an attorney, you could lose your New Jersey case. Hiring an attorney to handle part or all of your New Jersey case does not guarantee your success. However, it may provide what is needed to win your New Jersey case or to avoid certain mistakes.

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