Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

Mark TANNEN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Wendy TANNEN, Defendant–Respondent,

PER CURIAM.

On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 416 N.J.Super. 248 (2010).Edward S. Snyder argued the cause for appellant (Snyder & Sarno, attorneys; Mr. Snyder and Tracey Alfano on the brief). Jay J. Rice argued the cause for respondents Wendy Tannen Trust, et al. (Nagel Rice, attorneys; Mr. Rice and Randee M. Matloff, Roseland, on the briefs). Shelley D. Albert argued the cause for respondent Wendy Tannen (Dario Yacker Suarez & Albert, attorneys).Glenn A. Henkel, Haddonfield, argued the cause for amicus curiae New Jersey State Bar Association (Richard H. Steen, President, attorney; Mr. Steen, of counsel; Mr. Henkel, Martin L. Bearg, Livingston, Lawrence A. Friedman, Bridgewater, Richard H. Greenberg, Woodbridge, Stephanie F. Hagan, Morristown, Richard Kahn, Florham Park, Jeralyn L. Lawrence, Bridgewater, Daniel M. Serviss, Roseland, and Thomas J. Snyder, Denville, on the brief).PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Messano's opinion of the Appellate Division reported at 416 N.J.Super. 248, 3 A.3d 1229 (2010). For affirmance—Chief Justice RABNER, and Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, HOENS, and PATTERSON—6. Opposed—None.

Not Participating—Judge WEFING (temporarily assigned)—1.
Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Tannen v. Tannen
(Dec 8, 2011)