Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Haworth Coleman & Gerstman, LLC - Defending a New Jersey Municipality

43 views

Published on

A graduate of New York University School of Law, Scott Haworth has practiced law in New York for over two decades. Scott Haworth leverages his experience to lead as partner of Haworth Coleman & Gerstman, LLC, where he and his fellow attorneys have obtained favorable outcomes in a number of cases, including a case in which they successfully defended a New Jersey municipality.

Published in: Law
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Haworth Coleman & Gerstman, LLC - Defending a New Jersey Municipality

  1. 1. Haworth Coleman & Gerstman, LLC - Defending a New Jersey Municipality Scott Haworth
  2. 2. Introduction • A graduate of New York University School of Law, Scott Haworth has practiced law in New York for over two decades. Scott Haworth leverages his experience to lead as partner of Haworth Coleman & Gerstman, LLC, where he and his fellow attorneys have obtained favorable outcomes in a number of cases, including a case in which they successfully defended a New Jersey municipality. In the aforementioned case, Haworth joined associates Richard Barber and Barry Gerstman to defend a New Jersey municipality that was facing a lawsuit related to a retaining wall on a commercial building owner’s property.
  3. 3. Haworth Coleman & Gerstman, LLC • The wall was built following state approval of an improvement project involving a wetlands area creek and culvert situated between the municipality’s property and that of the building owner. The owner claimed that the retaining wall caused damage to his building and that the state had unconstitutionally taken over part of his property. The court granted the municipality’s motion for a summary judgment, citing the pre-approval of the project by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The court also stated that the municipality was not liable for damages, per the Design or Plan Immunity provision of the state’s Tort Claims Act.

×