2020 Firm News

SOBEL HAN & CANNON, LLP reappointed as Borough Attorney for Red Bank, New Jersey.

SOBEL HAN & CANNON, LLP reappointed as Borough Attorney for Allentown, New Jersey.

SOBEL HAN & CANNON, LLP reappointed as Borough Attorney for Roosevelt, New Jersey.

SOBEL HAN & CANNON, LLP appointed as Borough Attorney for Bradley Beach, New Jersey.

SOBEL HAN & CANNON, LLP reappointed as Tenant Advocate for City of Hoboken, New Jersey.

Diandra Velazquez joined the firm as Legal Assistant.

Astride Lopez joined the firm as Legal Assistant.

SOBEL HAN & CANNON, LLP successfully defended a landlord in a dog bite case where a sheriff’s officer was bitten by a tenant’s pitbull. The plaintiff’s legal argument was that a landlord should have known that a pitbull was naturally an aggressive breed and therefore should have evicted the tenant from the premises. SHC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint as to the landlord. The Court agreed with our legal reasoning and found that the sheriff’s officer had to either prove that the landlord knew that this particular pitbull was vicious and likely to cause harm or required expert testimony proving that all pitbulls are inherently vicious. The sheriff’s officer could prove neither and therefore the court properly dismissed the complaint.

SOBEL HAN & CANNON, LLP filed a Motion in the Interest of Justice to remove a tenant during the COVID-19 pandemic. The defendant/tenant, during the hearing, agreed to vacate the property after plaintiff set forth its arguments. The Court ordered that in the event the defendant/tenant failed to vacate by the set date, our client would be allowed to proceed despite Executive Order 106 as execution of the warrant of removal was in the interest of justice. The court reasoned that the removal of the tenant was warranted, despite the moratorium on evictions, as the tenant’s continued occupancy was a public health concern as clearly demonstrated by SHC on behalf of its client.

SOBEL HAN & CANNON, LLP successfully argued its motion filed in the “interest of justice” to proceed on a Writ of Possession despite Executive Order 106. Our client purchased a property at a Sheriff’s Sale prior to the pandemic and the then current occupants refused to vacate. The new owner had been carrying the property for several months and was unable to gain access to the premises due to the occupants’ refusal to cooperate. SHC successfully argued that Executive Order 106 was not designed to benefit one class of citizens over another, and that this matter was not subject to the moratorium on removal of tenants from leased property. The Court agreed and issued an Order ordering the Sheriff’s Department to assist in the removal of the occupant.

SOBEL HAN & CANNON, LLP relocated its main office to Rochelle Park.

SOBEL HAN & CANNON, LLP successfully argued its opposition to a Motion for Summary Judgment filed in the Law Division on a breach of contract claim. Our client’s claims originated when the adversary failed to close on a real estate transaction involving the sale of our client’s home. The buyer argued that an awning had been removed prior to closing and therefore the buyer was not obligated to proceed with the transaction. Our client’s position was that the removal of the awning was not a material breach as it was not a material component of the overall purchase. The Court agreed and denied the buyer’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

SOBEL HAN & CANNON, LLP, on behalf of its client, received approval on sixteen vacancy capital improvement applications for a multi-family property in New Jersey, and was also successful in working with the city to set initial rents as the legal rent in another building without the need to go through the application process to raise the previously registered rents. The successful vacancy improvement applications and our ability to work with city officials to set the initial rents without having to go through the traditional application process resulted in significant savings in time and cost to our client.

SOBEL HAN & CANNON, LLP successfully represented its client in an appeal filed by an appellant. The defendant/appellant was cited for seven violations on a clearly deficient property. After conditionally pleading guilty before the municipal court, the Judge sentenced the defendant to the maximum fine on all seven charges. Defendant argued, in his appeal, that: (1) the tickets/summonses were deficient and/or (2) he was denied due process before the Municipal Court. The Superior Court of New Jersey, after oral arguments, upheld the defendant’s seven convictions and affirmed the fines. The defendant then filed an appeal to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Court, after oral arguments, affirmed a previous ruling that a municipality need not charge a violation of a municipal ordinance with such particularity and strictness as would be necessary in an indictment. The Appellate Court further concluded that the municipality in this instant matter did not and was not “taking action” against the defendant’s property when it issued summonses. Rather, it was merely seeking to have the defendant remedy the violations or face monetary sanctions as could be imposed by a court if defendant failed to cure the violations.

SOBEL HAN & CANNON, LLP was a proud sponsor and participated in the Michaels Education Foundation Annual Golf Classic which has awarded over $1.2M in 2020.

Deborah Bryant joined the firm as Senior Counsel.

SOBEL HAN & CANNON, LLP successfully obtained a favorable decision for our client, a relative of divorcing parties who had moved into a house that our client purchased as an investment property. The husband alleged that the house was purchased by our client on behalf of the divorcing parties whose credit prevented them from making the purchase themselves, and that there had been an agreement that the house would be placed in their names after the credit issued cleared. The husband asserted that our client was a “straw purchaser” who purchased the house with marital funds and that the divorcing parties’ monthly payments to our client were in fact mortgage payments and not rent. Additionally, the husband’s mother, who had been living with the divorcing parties, asserted that she had spent substantial funds renovating the house to further support that the house was marital property. We expeditiously obtained supportive documents and defended our client’s examination such that we were able to then successfully move to dismiss the motion to join our client to the proceeding.