Appeals from unfavorable rulings are naturally high stakes. Likewise, when your attorneys achieve great success in the trial court and the losing party appeals, defending that impressive win is critical. Strong appellate advocacy often protects your bank account, your principles, your people, and even your industry. Parker McCay’s skilled attorneys—some of whom clerked for appellate judges—have significant experience briefing and arguing on behalf of clients in State and Federal appellate courts. Our team even includes retired New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Faustino J. Fernandez-Vina, who continues to advise, educate, and train our litigators, and offer invaluable insight for the firm’s clients.

An appeal is more than a fresh look by a new court. It requires an attorney to have a keen appreciation of the standard the appellate court will apply to the lower court’s ruling. Beyond that, appeals are often won or lost before they are even filed, meaning attorneys must make appropriate objections, raise issues, and otherwise preserve their client’s rights should an appeal be necessary. Parker McCay’s attorneys excel in this regard, and—if one of our attorneys was not your counsel in the lower court—can review and analyze the record below to take over on appeal or offer a valuable “second opinion” as an independent evaluation. Whether our client is filing an appeal, defending an appeal, or wishes to participate as amicus curiae (a “friend” of the Court who is not a party to the suit but has a strong interest in the outcome), we advocate aggressively and efficiently. Our appellate experience shines in many practice areas, including Business/Commercial, Construction, Creditors’ Rights/Foreclosure, Insurance Defense, Labor and Employment, Land Use and Zoning, Medical Malpractice Defense, Municipal and Government, Real Estate, and School Law. Parker McCay’s attorneys have been involved with numerous key cases in these areas.

Unlike some firms, Parker McCay does not separate appellate attorneys from our other litigation teams, providing clients with the institutional knowledge and experience of their specific matters throughout the life of the case. This structure affords clients the efficiency of a single litigation team for trial court and appellate work, as well as add additional appellate attorneys to offer insight when advantageous.

Notable Matters

• Commercial Litigation helped secure an important appellate win in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on behalf of a trade organization representing the New Jersey casino industry. A self-described compulsive gambler filed suit against multiple casinos seeking to recoup his substantial gambling losses, which he claims he sustained due to allegedly unlawful deception and enticement. The Third Circuit affirmed the federal district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s suit, agreeing that casinos had no additional legal duty to protect gamblers from themselves, and finding that enticing individuals to gamble—something that the casinos are by law permitted to and encouraged to do to achieve their mission of funding charitable programs and providing jobs to the Atlantic City region—is not an unfair or deceptive practice under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

• In Product Liability defense litigation on behalf of a manufacturer and distributor in Pennsylvania state court, our team succeeded in convincing the trial court to dismiss all claims against our client at the beginning of the suit. The opposing party then filed an interlocutory Petition for Review of the dismissal before Pennsylvania’s intermediate appellate court, who denied the Petition for Review in a per curiam decision.

• Defending an adult day care center client, our Insurance Defense team won before the trial court with a finding that there was no evidence of negligence and no expert medical opinion asserting causal relation between alleged negligence and injuries Plaintiff allegedly suffered. Summary judgment was granted dismissing the case. The decision was affirmed on appeal.

• The firm successfully defended a New Jersey municipality in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit against discrimination claims from a company attempting to obtain permits for a methadone clinic. Permits were initially approved but later rescinded due to improper language for state licensing, as well as determination that the facility was not adequate to handle the traffic and parking for the facility’s needs. The company filed suit, alleging disparate treatment in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act. Our attorneys were able to establish that the municipality’s decision was based on credible parking and traffic concerns, and not on anything discriminatory.

• Our Municipal and Government team defended the privacy interests of more than 77,000 members of the New Jersey State Firemen's Association by winning a novel case before the Supreme Court of New Jersey. The decision created new law and permits government agencies to employ a Declaratory Judgment Action to interpret the Open Public Records Act. This case started years earlier when seeking to protect our client’s interests by challenging the wording of the Act to prevent release of personal information on relief applications including the need to even disclose if an application was made or a relief check was issued.

• In a Construction litigation matter, our attorneys successfully defended the simultaneous bid challenges of the four lowest bidders for a $45 million project for a local university at the New Jersey Trial, Appellate Division, and Supreme Court levels, arguing that the project should continue pending the challenges saving the university significant costs and maintaining a critical construction schedule.

• Our Medical Malpractice Defense Practice Area, prevailed in the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division for a hospital client and several nurses.  The Appellate Division affirmed the grant of summary judgement and dismissal of the case. The plaintiff developed a MRSA infection in his spine 30 days after knee replacement surgery with spinal anesthesia. Plaintiff argued that a NJ statute that addressed infection prevention by a hospital of MRSA established that the development of a post-op MRSA infection was negligence under a res ipsa theory and that because the plaintiff was under anesthesia the burden of proof shifted to the defendants. The Appellate court agreed with our argument that the statute cited by plaintiff did not establish the standard of care of hospital in MRSA infections or that MRSA infections can only occur if the hospital was negligent.

  In a consolidated action in lieu of prerogative writs, our team defeated Plaintiff’s appeal of a lower Superior Court Order dismissing its complaints challenging a zoning ordinance amendment and preliminary site plan approval. The Appellate Division substantially affirmed the lower court’s nearly 100-page statement of reasons, serving as a lesson regarding the benefits of comprehensively asserting all factual and legal arguments at the trial court level.

• Our Construction Law and Commercial Litigation attorneys teamed up when a company tried to bully our client into resolving a complex construction and contract dispute in private arbitration. At the start of the case, our attorneys filed an Order to Show Cause to enjoin the arbitration and prevailed. The company then appealed and our attorneys again prevailed before the New Jersey Appellate Division in a reported decision.