SCHULMAN v. WOLFF & SAMSON, PC

No. A-4674-06T1

951 A.2d 1051 (2008)

401 N.J. Super. 467

Darren J. SCHULMAN and Allan Schulman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WOLFF & SAMSON, PC, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Frank W. Ryan, Jr., and Paul M. Colwell, Defendants-Respondents.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Decided July 21, 2008.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

R. James Kravitz, Lawrenceville, argued the cause for appellants (Fox Rothschild, LLP, attorneys; Jonathan D. Weiner and Mr. Kravitz, on the brief).

Gage Andretta, West Orange, argued the cause for respondents Wolff & Samson, PC and Paul M. Colwell (Wolff & Samson, PC, attorneys; Mr. Andretta and Kiran V. Somashekara, on the brief).

Brian J. Molloy, Woodbridge, argued the cause for respondents Nixon Peabody, LLP and Frank W. Ryan, Jr. (Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., attorneys; Mr. Molloy, Willard C. Shih and Ruth A. Rauls, on the brief).

Before Judges PAYNE, SAPP-PETERSON and MESSANO.


The opinion of the court was delivered by

MESSANO, J.A.D.

Plaintiffs Darren J. Schulman and Allan Schulman appeal from two orders entered on April 11, 2007, that dismissed their complaint against defendants Wolff & Samson PC (Wolff Samson), Paul M. Colwell, Nixon Peabody LLP (Nixon Peabody), and Frank W. Ryan, Jr., with prejudice. Plaintiffs contend that the motion judge "afforded" the Supreme Court's holding in Puder v. Buechel,

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases