Case ID: nj-super_264/html/0578-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

625 A.2d 488
    KOSTELANETZ, RITHOLZ, TIGUE & FINK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. DR. VICTOR HIMMELWRIGHT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
    Argued February 22, 1993
    Decided March 9, 1993.
    Before Judges J.H. COLEMAN and ARNOLD M. STEIN.
    
      Hilton L. Stein argued the cause for appellant (Mr. Stein and Leonard A. Giusti on the brief and reply brief).
    
      Jeffrey M. Kadish argued the cause for respondent (Morgan, Melhuish, Monaghan, Arvidson, Abrutyn & Lisowski, attorneys; Joseph De Donato, of counsel and on the brief).
   PER CURIAM.

The order dismissing counts three and seven of defendant’s counterclaim, alleging that plaintiff attorneys violated the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -48, is affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Ironson in his oral decision of June 14, 1991. See Vort v. Hollander, 257 N.J.Super. 56, 61-63, 607 A.2d 1339 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 130 N.J. 599, 617 A.2d 1221 (1992).

The order dismissing the remaining counts of defendant’s counterclaim and entering summary judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Alley’s written opinion reported as Kostelanetz, Ritholz v. Himmelwright, 254 N.J.Super. 249, 603 A.2d 168 (Law Div.1991).

Affirmed.