Source: https://www.kdvlaw.com/professional/iram-p-valentin/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 05:06:21+00:00

Document:
Iram P. Valentin is a business-minded litigator, who routinely represents the interests of clients in various industries, including, but not limited to, the legal, insurance, financial, real estate, collections, and construction industries. In addition, he has successfully litigated complex matters on behalf of businesses in the restaurant, hospitality, transportation and manufacturing industries. Mr. Valentin is Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Civil Trial Attorney and has secured several defense jury verdicts.
Mr. Valentin served as a law clerk to the Honorable Joseph P. Perfilio, J.S.C., Superior Court of New Jersey, Union County. A graduate of the College of the Holy Cross and Fordham University School of Law, he was a Notes & Articles Editor on the Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, a premier banking and finance law journal. While at Fordham, Mr. Valentin interned for the Honorable Denny Chin, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and at the New York Stock Exchange Division of Enforcement, as well as participated in the Securities Arbitration Clinic, appearing before the NASD. Mr. Valentin is fluent in Spanish.
Roseblatt v. Stripto, et al.(New Jersey, Appellate Division, 2017) – In this legal malpractice action, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s evidentiary ruling and grant of summary judgment in favor of Mr. Valentin’s client due to plaintiff’s failure to secure adequate expert testimony to establish proximate cause.
Estate of Caruso v. Fin. Recoveries (U.S.D.C., N.J., 2017) -In this putative class action for alleged violations of the FDCPA, the United States District Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Mr. Valentin’s client, finding that plaintiff failed to show a particularized harm and, therefore, lacked Article III standing to maintain an action under 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(8), and also failed to establish the existence of a private cause of action for an alleged failure to post a bond under N.J.S.A. 45:18-1.
Fox Paper, Ltd. v. Hanover Ins. Co., et al. (New Jersey, Law Division, 2016) – In this insurance broker malpractice action, the trial court held, among other things, that a conflict existed between the substantive law of New York and New Jersey as it related to the duty of a broker to an insured and, thus, New York’s substantive law would apply.
Wolf v. Escala, et al. (U.S.D.C., N.J., 2015) – In this social worker malpractice action, the United States District Court dismissed §1983, constitutional, professional malpractice, unjust enrichment, and disgorgement claims.
Brown v. Lopez, et al. (New Jersey, Appellate Division, 2013) – In this decision, the Appellate Division upheld the grant of summary judgment in favor of the attorney for the seller of real estate, finding that there was nothing in the record to support the conclusion that he knowingly assisted the seller in defrauding the plaintiff or that he made any misrepresentations to her.
Lewandowski v. Hi-Tech Homes, Inc., et al. (New Jersey, Appellate Division, 2013) – In this decision, the Appellate Division affirmed the award of counsel fees to Mr. Valentin’s client due to Plaintiffs’ decision to take an improvident voluntary dismissal after summary judgment was filed by the Defendants. The matter was remanded to the trial court for a determination of the amount of the award.
Lieber v. Marcus (U.S.D.C., N.J., 2012) – In this decision, which was upheld in 2014, after motion for reconsideration, the United States District Court ruled that New Jersey’s Entire Controversy Doctrine and the doctrine of collateral estoppel precluded a second action raising legal malpractice claims not perfected in a prior state court action.
Mendoza v. Metropolitan Group Property & Casualty Ins., et al. (New Jersey, Law Division, 2012)- Mr. Valentin represented Metropolitan Group (MetLife) in defense of a case brought by a Plaintiff seeking insurance proceeds. At trial, the burden was shifted to the defense to show that the Plaintiff had made a material misstatement of fact or fraudulent statement in connection with the insurance claim. Mr. Valentin secured a defense jury verdict in favor of MetLife.
Triarsi v. BSC Group Services, LLC, et al. (New Jersey, Appellate Division, 2011) – In this decision published at 422 N.J. Super. 104, the Appellate Division clarified the application of the Affidavit of Merit statute to insurance professionals.
West 133rd Street Realty Corp. v. F&L (New Jersey, Law Division, 2011) – Mr. Valentin represented an attorney in legal malpractice action arising from the attorney’s representation of a corporation in the sale of commercial real estate. A no-cause jury verdict was secured for the defense.
Viglione v. Biagiotti, Marino, et al. (New Jersey, Law Division, 2010) – Mr. Valentin represented an attorney in legal malpractice action arising from attorney’s representation of client in divorce action. A no-cause verdict was secured for the defense at binding arbitration.
Mancini v. McAllister Fuels (New Jersey, Appellate Division, 2010) – Mr. Valentin represented a regional energy company in a toxic tort and wrongful death action. The Appellate Division affirmed the grant of summary judgment due to plaintiff’s failure to secure sufficient expert testimony.
Bergen v. Able Energy (New Jersey, Appellate Division 2009) – Mr. Valentin represented a regional energy company against personal injury claims brought by employees in connection with a propane explosion. The Appellate Division affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer and affirmed the finding that the employees’ claims against employer were barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act.
Shah v. S&K (New Jersey, Law Division, 2009) – Mr. Valentin represented an attorney in legal malpractice action resulting from the attorney’s appointment as an attorney-in-fact during an underlying divorce action. A no-cause jury verdict was secured for the defense.
Rego v. Giordano (New Jersey, Law Division, 2008) – Mr. Valentin represented an attorney in legal malpractice action arising from the the attorney’s handling of a fire insurance claim. The court allowed defendants to prosecute plaintiffs for committing a fraud on the court when it was discovered that they had altered documents in discovery. A defense jury verdict was secured, whereupon the court dismissed plaintiffs’ suit.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1692
 v. 
 v. 
 §1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.