New Jersey Construction Attorneys Tag Archives

Published on: April 21, 2026

New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act Does Not Apply to Architects, Appeals Court Says’

Under New Jersey construction law, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act applies to most residential and commercial construction projects. It is applicable to contractors, subcontractors and suppliers. However, a New Jersey Appeals Court held in a recent decision that architects are not subject to the Consumer Fraud Act because of the “learned professional” exemption.

6-300x225

Background

The Borough of Caldwell contracted with Cozzarelli Cirminiello Architects, LLC for architectural services including design, construction and rehabilitation of Borough-owned facilities. CCA’s invoices were approved by municipal officials before being submitted to and approved by the Council before they were paid. After a new Council was elected, the Borough terminated its contracts with CCA. Caldwell then sued CCA in the Law Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey in Essex County for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Caldwell claimed that CCA failed to perform its services, failed to produce “products,” failed to support the Borough on construction bids, failed to produce construction documents, double billed the Borough, and billed it above the agreed upon rate.

Published on: November 26, 2024

New Jersey Construction Law Decision Explains How Consumer Fraud Act Balances Protections for Homeowners and Legitimate Contractors

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and home improvement practices regulations presented a dilemma – they provide valuable tools protecting homeowners from unscrupulous home improvement contractors by awarding them triple damages and attorneys fees when successful, but risk imposing drastic penalties on legitimate contractors who miss some of their more technical requirements. However, as the Appellate Division recently explained in the case of Philip Dattolo v. EMC Squared LLC and Edward T. Morgan, the requirement that a homeowner must prove house-225x300 ascertainable damages which result from the consumer fraud violations goes a long way toward resolving this conflict.

Background

The facts of the case are these. Dattolo contracted with EMC Squared LLC to construct a single-family home in Boonton, New Jersey in October 2018. EMC was solely owned by Edward Morgan. In March 2019, EMC offered a list of extras, and Dattolo accepted some. EMC created a written change order but it was never signed. In January 2020, Mogan told Dattolo that EMC was unable to continue. He told Dattolo that the project received final inspections. He gave Dattolo a final bill with credit for the unfinished work. Dattolo refused to pay, asserting many construction defects existed which would cause him considerable expense to correct.

Published on: September 9, 2024

New Jersey Construction Law Decision Examines Requirements for Personal Guarantees

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

New Jersey construction contractors and suppliers often have difficulty collecting money due them for their work or supplies. One of the tools available to help ensure payment is including a personal guarantee in their construction contracts. However, personal guarantees have certain requirements. The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey addressed this issue in house-225x300 the case of Extech Building Services, Inc. vs. E&N Construction, Inc., Shawn Roney and Joaquim Ferreira, et al.

Background

Extech Building Services, Inc., was the supplier of building materials on a construction project for the general contractor, E&N Construction, Inc. There was a written six paragraph agreement in which Extech extended credit for the project to E&N. The last paragraph of the agreement also had a provision for personal guarantees; however, the identity of the guarantors was not provided. There were three signature lines. Two had the names of Shawn Roney and Joaquim Ferreira, who were executives at E&N, which were signed; a third line was blank and unsigned.

Published on: February 6, 2024

New Jersey Passes Draconian Construction Law Imposing Drastic New Regulations on Home Improvement and Home Elevation Contractors

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

A recent New Jersey construction law development will greatly affect contractors.

The New Jersey Legislature passed a new law regulating home improvement and home elevation contractors, which Governor Murphy signed into law on January 8, 2024. The building-home-construction-contractor-blueprint-architecture-300x200 regulations governing home improvement contracts and home elevation contractors were already draconian, but the new law is a sea change, greatly expanding the regulatory requirements for New Jersey contractors, including a new requirement that they be licensed.

Applicability: Every Job Over $500

Published on: December 28, 2023

Claims of Negligence by an Engineer in New Jersey Construction Litigation Must be Supported by Expert Opinion in an Affidavit of Merit

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

New Jersey construction litigation often involves claims against contractors for improper construction or delay. Contractors, in turn, often argue as a defense, counterclaim or cross-claim that any delay or improper construction was the fault of the licensed professional on 6-300x225 the project, such as the engineer or the architect. Owners may also make these claims against architects and engineers directly. A trial judge in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Morris County recently addressed what is required to maintain such a claim in the case of Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills vs. Thomas Controls, Inc.

Background: The Lawsuit

The Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills sued Thomas Controls, Inc. over its work on construction improvements to the Township’s wastewater management treatment plan project. The Township had separately contracted with Keystone Engineering Group to act as engineers on the project. Thomas filed counterclaims against the Township and filed a third-party complaint against Keystone, suing it for alleged negligence, delay and professional malpractice. Keystone filed a motion to dismiss Thomas’s third-party complaint, arguing that the New Jersey Affidavit of Merit Statute requires that an affidavit of merit must be filed within 120 days of a defendant filing an answer when the defendant is a licensed professional and the claims are for negligence or professional malpractice. As a licensed engineer, Keystone argued that this law protected it because Keystone did not file an affidavit of merit within the required time frame.

Published on: December 7, 2023

New Jersey Construction Law Decision Examines Role of Good Faith in Construction Contracts

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

An appellate court recently examined the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in New Jersey construction contracts in the case of Konopka vs. Brown’s Heating, Cooling, Plumbing.

5-225x300

Background

Konopka hired Brown’s as a contractor to install a Carrier gas furnace in his home. Brown was to supply labor and materials in exchange for the homeowner paying $19,800. The contract provided that change orders had to be in writing. One-third of the contract price was payable on signing, one-third when work started, and one-third upon completion. The homeowner paid the first installment. The job started on August 26, 2015. The homeowner had not yet paid the second installment, but the contractor wanted to work with him. However, on September 9, 2023, Brown’s sent an email which terminated the contract. The Court explained that:

Published on: October 19, 2023

New Jersey Construction Law Decision Examines Prompt Payment Act

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

One of the most difficult problems in New Jersey construction law for contractors and subcontractors is getting paid. Fortunately, a powerful remedy exists in the New Jersey Prompt Payment Act. A recent appellate court decision examined frameup-225x300 the New Jersey Prompt Payment Act in the case of Jo-Med Contracting Corp. vs. City of Linden.

Background

The City of Linden contacted Jo-Med to submit a bid for emergency repair work on approximately 20 feet of sewer repair, together with approximately 30 feet of related curb replacement. Jo-Med submitted a bid for $25,000 based on the job description provided by the City engineer; the bid stated that the cost would be higher if Jo-Med ran into unforeseen problems not apparent in the City’s description, in which case it would bill the City on a time and materials basis. Jo-Med was awarded the contract. The City’s engineer told Jo-Med’s owner that he would “work with him for additional charges to finish the work.”

Published on: July 22, 2021

Appellate Division Enforces Subcontractors’ Right to be Paid in New Jersey Construction Law Decision

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

The Problem: Getting Paid

One of the most important considerations for construction contractors and subcontractors is getting paid for the work they perform. A recent construction law opinion examined some of the issues which contractors and subcontractors face under New Jersey construction law when seeking to get paid for their work.

The J&M Interiors Case

Published on: December 3, 2020

Appellate Division Decision Demonstrates Enforceability of Arbitration Awards in New Jersey Construction Law

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Construction Arbitration

Complex New Jersey construction law cases can be extremely expensive to litigate in court because of the amount of documents involved, the number of witnesses, and the need for experts. Therefore, many construction contracts contain arbitration provisions. The view is that arbitration can save money in the 352099_construction_3-002-300x225 litigation process, but still provide an enforceable dispute resolution process.

However, it would not be accurate to call construction arbitration “cheap” or “inexpensive.” Essentially, arbitration is a private litigation process with limited discovery and appeal rights. By limiting discovery, particularly depositions, a significant source of expense is eliminated, and by limiting appeal rights, arbitration can provide more finality. However, there is still discovery. Documents are generally exchanged before the hearing, so there is still expense, but costs are saved because arbitration rarely involves depositions. Likewise, while experts are not normally deposed, they are still required and must prepare pre-hearing reports about their expected testimony. All of this entails significant expense. In addition, while there are minimal filing fees and the services of courts are generally free, the use of an arbitration forum in construction law disputes entails significant fees, and in addition the parties have to pay the arbitrator for all his or her time.

Published on: July 2, 2020

Appealing Denials of Construction Permits and Other Local Government Actions Under the New Jersey Uniform Construction Code and New Jersey Uniform Fire Code to New Jersey Construction Boards of Appeals

by Maurice W. McLaughlin

Under New Jersey construction law, each county must establish a construction board of appeals. A construction board of appeals hears the applications of any “person who is aggrieved by any ruling, action, notice, order or decision of a local enforcing agency that enforces either the New Jersey Uniform Construction Code or the New Jersey Uniform Fire Code, including, without limitation, any refusal to grant an application or any failure or refusal to act upon an application, building-home-construction-contractor-blueprint-architecture-300x200 but not including any order requiring the taking of emergency measures….” This is an important tool under New Jersey construction law to challenge wrongful denials by local authorities of building and construction applications.

Most county construction boards of appeals have websites with information about their locations, hours and local procedures. For example, the Passaic County Board of Construction Appeals can be found here. The Essex County Board of Construction Appeals can be found here. The Bergen County Board of Construction Appeals can be found here. The Monmouth County Board of Construction Appeals can be found here. The Morris County Board of Construction Appeals can be found here.

Appeals must be filed and received by the local county construction board of appeals within 15 days of receipt of the written notice of the action, ruling, notice or order which is to be appealed. While the law states 15 days from receipt, we recommend that appeals be received by the construction board of appeals within 15 days from the date on the notice to avoid any later dispute over the date of receipt and the possible rejection of the appeal as untimely.