Belgacem v. Veneziano

4 Citing cases

  1. Shambaugh v. Wolk

    302 N.J. Super. 380 (Ch. Div. 1996)   Cited 1 times

    N.J.S.A. 2A:34-28, through-52; N.J.S.A. 9:2-1, through-21; N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-21, through-62, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-11, through-24. Plaintiff responds, asserting the court's jurisdiction to consider and grant the relief sought by plaintiff pursuant to the language of R. 5, part V, and reported case law historically interpreting the equitable power of the Chancery Division to consider the issues herein raised, citing Leith v. Horgan, 13 N.J. 467, 100 A.2d 175 (1953); The "Historical and Organizational Note" to Part V of the New Jersey Court Rules ( R. 5:1-1); Belgacem v. Veneziano, 218 N.J. Super. 6, 526 A.2d 1090 (App.Div. 1986); Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, 139 N.J. Eq. 97, 108, 49 A.2d 896 (E. A. 1946); Graf v. Hope Building Corporation, 132 Misc. 352, 229 N.Y.S. 455 (N.Y.Sup. 1928), aff'd, 226 A.D. 787, 234 N.Y.S. 803 (1 Dept. 1929), rev'd, 254 N.Y. 1, 171 N.E. 884, 70 A.L.R. 984 (N.Y. 1930); Griswold v. Hazard, 141 U.S. 260, 11 S.Ct. 972, 35 L.Ed. 678 (1891). Plaintiff specifically argues that the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, has jurisdiction over all family actions.

  2. Wozniak v. Thomas

    DOCKET NO. A-3403-11T3 (App. Div. Apr. 12, 2013)

    The purpose of R. 1:13-4 is to insure that cases are transferred to the proper court when a court has determined that the case has been filed in the wrong division. Belgacem v.Veneziano, 218 N.J. Super. 6, 9 (App. Div. 1986). "No action is to be dismissed merely because it has been brought in or transferred to the wrong division." O'Neill v. Vreeland, 6 N.J. 158, 169 (1951).

  3. In re Kokinakos

    DOCKET NO. A-2103-10T4 (App. Div. Sep. 6, 2011)

    Div.), certif. denied, 134 N.J. 476 (1993); Lopatkin v. Lopatkin, 236 N.J. Super. 555, 557-58 (Ch. Div. 1989); see also R. 1:13-4; O'Neill v. Vreeland, 6 N.J. 158, 169 (1951); Belgacem v. Veneziano, 218 N.J. Super. 6, 9 (App. Div. 1986). --------

  4. Kay v. Kay

    405 N.J. Super. 278 (App. Div. 2009)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that to absolutely prohibit an estate's assertion of equitable claims against a surviving spouse "is in tension with general principles governing the exercise of a court's inherent equitable jurisdiction"

    We leave it to the trial court to determine whether the estate's claims should be addressed in the Family Part of the Chancery Division or transferred to another Part or Division of the Superior Court as the matter proceeds. See R. 5:1-2(a); In re Estate of Roccamonte, 174 N.J. 381, 398-99, 808 A.2d 838 (2002); Conforti v. Guliadis, 128 N.J. 318, 323, 608 A.2d 225 (1992); Dey v. Varone, 333 N.J.Super. 616, 619-20, 756 A.2d 652 (Ch.Div. 2000); Carr v. Burgess, 264 N.J.Super. 191, 193-94, 623 A.2d 1384 (Ch.Div. 1991), aff'd, o.b., 264 N.J.Super. 10, 623 A.2d 1384 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 134 N.J. 476, 634 A.2d 524 (1993); Lopatkin, supra, 236 N.J.Super. at 557-58, 566 A.2d 559; see also R. 1:13-4; O'Neill v. Vreeland, 6 N.J. 158, 169, 77 A.2d 899 (1951); Belgacem v. Veneziano, 218 N.J.Super. 6, 9, 526 A.2d 1090 (App.Div. 1986). Reversed and remanded to the Family Part.