We have not found any cost information for this lawyer
Martin L. Borosko is the managing member of Becker Meisel. Mr. Borosko has represented land developers, contractors, sureties, public entities, and other interested parties in matters relating to major redevelopment, development and construction projects throughout New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts. Among the clients he has represented are: Asbury Partners, LLC; Lennar Corporation; US Homes; the Wilf Organization (Highlands at Morris); Dornoch Holdings, LLC; Triton Capital Fund; Premeir Rinks, Inc. d/b/a Athletica; Tom Martin Construction Company, Inc.; Fireman's Fund Insurance Company; the New Jersey Turnpike Authority; and Schoor DePalma.
In representing these entities and others, Mr. Borosko has a broad range of experience in all facets of real estate development and redevelopment, including, among other things, providing counsel to clients in connection with: municipal adoption of redevelopment plans or major amendments to existing redevelopment plans; structuring the terms of redeveloper agreements with local redevelopment entities; and implementation of redevelopment plans, including acquisition of property by eminent domain. He has also served as lead counsel in a number of landmark cases creating new law and involving complex questions of redevelopment law. See e.g. Jersey Urban Renewal, LLC v. City of Asbury Park, et al., 377 N.J. Super. 232 (App. Div. 2005) allowing a municipality to restrict competing development within an area in need of redevelopment; Britwood Urban Renewal, LLC v. City of Asbury Park, et al., 376 N.J. Super. 552 (App. Div. 2005) defining a municipality's right to require property owners to contribute to the costs of improving off-site infrastructure associated with a redevelopment effort; D&M Asbury Realty, LLC v. City of Asbury Park, 2005 WL 3693210 (App. Div. 2005) involving a challenge to the validity of a redevelopment plan and redevelopment agreement; and Asbury Park Board of Education vs. City of Asbury Park, 2006 WL 870986 (App. Div. 2006) involving the right of a municipality to take the property of a local school board.
Mr. Borosko has additional experience litigating complex multi-party commercial actions in state and federal courts throughout the region in areas such as, ERISA, securities, real estate, and construction law. He has handled matters for clients, such as Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, US Bancorp, the Trump Casinos, Vornado Realty Trust, and Waste Management, Inc. On a number of occasions, he has been involved in cases that have made new law. See e.g. In re Lymcare, Inc. 301 B.R. 662 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2003)(deciding a health care provider's standing to bring certain federal ERISA and state court claims against a health insurer for alleged wrongful denial of claims).
Mr. Borosko is a frequent contributor to legal, real estate and business publications and also lectures on emerging legal issues in the real estate industry.
We have not found any cost information for this lawyer
Quickly connect with top attorneys through our legal directory to get help with your legal issue.
Chat with a live agent who can match you with the right attorney for your legal needs.
Chat withState: New Jersey
Acquired: 1992
No misconduct found
State: Pennsylvania
Acquired: 1993
No misconduct found
354 Eisenhower Parkway, Eisenhower Plaza II, Suite 1500, Livingston, NJ, 07039
Not Yet Reviewed
No Endorsement Data Available Yet
This attorney hasn't created any attorney endorsements recently on Avvo.
2010
"Super Lawyers" List, New Jersey Super Lawyers Magazine
2009
"Super Lawyers" List, New Jersey Super Lawyers Magazine
2008
"Best of the Best" List, Mid-Atlantic Real Estate Journal
2007
"Rising Star", New Jersey Super Lawyers Magazine
2006
"Rising Star", New Jersey Super Lawyers Magazine
N/A
"Top Real Estate Attorney" List, Real Estate New Jersey
N/A
"40 Under 40", New Jersey Law Journal
This case involved the right of a municipality to take the property of a local school board.
This case allowed a municipality to restrict competing development within an area in need of redevelopment.
This case defined a municipality's right to require property owners to contribute to the costs of improving off-site infrastructure associated with a redevelopment effort.
This case involved a challenge to the validity of a redevelopment plan and redevelopment agreement.
This case decided a health care provider's standing to bring certain federal ERISA and state court claims against a health insurer for alleged wrongful denial of claims.
N/A
BA - Bachelor of Arts
N/A
JD - Juris Doctor
English