Attorney Melissa J Totaro's Legal Cases

Discrimination

Sandra Smith v. Hillside Village, 279 F. Supp. 3d 537 (D.N.J. 2017)

Sep 11, 2017

OUTCOME: Plaintiff-tenant prevailed on motion

Counsel for plaintiff-tenant in action alleging that a landlord refused a request for reasonable accommodation for disability (hoarding disorder) and improperly deprived tenant of possession of her apa ... rtment in which she had lived for over 50 years. Before Houston & Totaro’s involvement there had been two state court actions involving the same parties and facts: an eviction action and an action under New Jersey’s Unlawful Detainer statute. When Smith, represented by Houston & Totaro, filed her federal Complaint asserting claims under the Fair Housing Act Amendments and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination defendant landlord filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that New Jersey’s Entire Controversy Doctrine barred the action. Smith opposed, arguing that the Entire Controversy Doctrine is one of equity, that Smith had not had a fair opportunity in the prior state court actions to litigate her discrimination claims, and that the totality of the circumstances demanded that Smith be allowed to pursue her claims in the federal action. The District of New Jersey court agreed with Smith and denied landlord’s Motion to Dismiss.

Consumer protection

Anthony D’Agostino v. Ricardo Maldonado, 216 N.J. 168 (2013)

Oct 03, 2013

OUTCOME: New Jersey Supreme Court held in accord with arguments in amicus brief

Submitted a brief to the New Jersey Supreme Court on behalf of amicus curiae Consumers League of New Jersey to address the issue of ascertainable loss and treble damages under the New Jersey Consumer F ... raud Act (CFA) in a case involving an unconscionable foreclosure rescue scheme in which the homeowners had signed over title to their home to the defendant. Our amicus brief argued that limiting the homeowners’ remedy under the CFA to return of title to their home, as the Appellate Division had done, satisfied only one level of treble damages, did not fulfill the deterrent, punitive and private attorney general functions of treble damages, undermined the Consumer Fraud Act’s express intent that its remedies be cumulative to other remedies, and was not supported by the language or policy of the Consumer Fraud Act. The Supreme Court so held in all respects.

Consumer protection

Laufer v. The United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York, 385 N.J. Super. 172 (App. Div. 2006)

Feb 15, 2006

OUTCOME: Insured prevailed on appeal

Represented plaintiff and (b)(2) class of New Jersey insureds in consumer fraud class action which established for the first time that only the named plaintiffs in a class action must be able to demons ... trate an ascertainable loss under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act in order to have standing to sue on behalf of a class.

Consumer protection

Scott v. Mayflower Home Improvement; BankAtlantic, FSB, 363 N.J. Super. 145 (Law Div. 2001)

Aug 10, 2001

OUTCOME: Homeowners and class prevailed on motion

Represented plaintiff class of homeowners in class action lawsuit against a home repair entity, its principals, and banks which took assignment of the installment contracts. The trial court decision es ... tablished, among other things, that 1) TILA does not abrogate the Federal Trade Commission Preservation of Consumers Claims and Defenses Rule, 16 C.F.R. 433, 2) contrary to case law across the country, the Federal Trade Commission Preservation of Consumers Claims and Defenses Rule, 16 C.F.R. 433, applies to all claims and defenses, not just those proving that the homeowner received little or nothing of value; 3) that home repair contracts, notes and mortgages that violate the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act or the New Jersey Home Repair Financing Act are void and unenforceable.

Foreclosure

Associates Home Equity Services v. Troup, 343 N.J. Super. 254 (App. Div. 2001)

Jul 25, 2001

OUTCOME: Homeowners prevailed on appeal

Represented homeowners in foreclosure action; brought defenses, counterclaims and third party claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, the federal Fair Housing Act, the Civil Rights Act, ... and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act against original lender and its assignee, as well as home repair related claims against lender and home repair contractor. Trial court granted summary judgment against defendants; Appellate Division reversed and its published decision ruled on a number of issues of first impression, for example: if the Notice required to be inserted into certain consumer credit contracts by the Federal Trade Commission Preservation of Consumers Claims and Defenses Rule, 16 C.F.R. 433, is improperly omitted by the lender, it shall be deemed an implicit provision of the note as a matter of state law (prior to this ruling lenders argued that consumers had no remedy for omission of the FTC Rule, relying on a body of law establishing that there is no private federal cause of action for violation of the FTC Rule); claims of predatory, discriminatory and unconscionable lending practices can be brought by homeowners by recoupment in a foreclosure action; claims of lending discrimination such as reverse redlining can be proven in New Jersey by proof of disparate impact as well as intentional discrimination.

Melissa J Totaro's Legal Cases (5)

Sandra Smith v. Hillside Village, 279 F. Supp. 3d 537 (D.N.J. 2017)

Anthony D’Agostino v. Ricardo Maldonado, 216 N.J. 168 (2013)

Laufer v. The United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York, 385 N.J. Super. 172 (App. Div. 2006)

Scott v. Mayflower Home Improvement; BankAtlantic, FSB, 363 N.J. Super. 145 (Law Div. 2001)

Associates Home Equity Services v. Troup, 343 N.J. Super. 254 (App. Div. 2001)