From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bardis v. Stinson

Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Apr 27, 2016
134 A.3d 27 (N.J. 2016)

Opinion

04-27-2016

Alexander BARDIS and Monica Bardis, Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. Kitty STINSON and Stinson Claims Services, Defendants, and Cumberland Insurance Group, Defendant–Appellant.

Marc L. Dembling argued the cause for appellant (Methfessel & Werbel, attorneys; Mr. Dembling and Jacqueline C. Cuozzo, Edison, on the briefs). Constantine Bardis, Lake Como, argued the cause for respondents.


Marc L. Dembling argued the cause for appellant (Methfessel & Werbel, attorneys; Mr. Dembling and Jacqueline C. Cuozzo, Edison, on the briefs).

Constantine Bardis, Lake Como, argued the cause for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Superior Court, Appellate Division is reversed, and the Law Division's judgment is reinstated, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Sapp–Peterson's dissenting opinion, reported at 444 N.J.Super. 227, 240, 132 A. 3d 930 (App.Div.2014) (Sapp–Peterson, P.J.A.D., dissenting).

For Reversal —Chief Justice RABNER and Justices LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, PATTERSON, SOLOMON and Judge CUFF (temporarily assigned)—6.

Not Participating —Justice FERNANDEZ–VINA.


Summaries of

Bardis v. Stinson

Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Apr 27, 2016
134 A.3d 27 (N.J. 2016)
Case details for

Bardis v. Stinson

Case Details

Full title:Alexander BARDIS and Monica Bardis, Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. Kitty…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Date published: Apr 27, 2016

Citations

134 A.3d 27 (N.J. 2016)
224 N.J. 448