Attorney Aniello D. Cerreto's Legal Cases

Divorce and separation

Biagio Paternostro v. Louanne Paternostro

Mar 23, 2018

OUTCOME: I completely "destroyed' the certified matrimonial counsel in open court (3-0 in open court lifetime against certified matrimonial counsels.) His motion denied - My cross-motion granted - My client was overjoyed. He was fired.

Contested divorce and post divorce litigation. I was the 2nd lawyer for my client. I had to contest against a spouse who hired lawyers 2, 3, 4, and 5 on my watch. Despite settling the case the adversa ... ry spouse refused to honor it and was fabricating. The spouse hired a certified matrimonial attorney who unreasonably disparaged myself, and his own clients lawyer numbers 4 and 2 (I don't know about 3). I proposed the post judgment resolution and warned the certified counsel if he persisted and we litigated I was very confident it would not go well for him or his client at all and he should get the transcript before speaking further as he did not know what he was talking about and was wasting his clients and my clients money. The certified matrimonial attorney got the transcript but then ignored my humble advice and bumbled ahead with an very aggressive and unreasonable motion.

Criminal defense

State of New Jersey v. Keith Malucelli, Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County

Jun 20, 2014

OUTCOME: Aniello D. Cerreto, Esq. represented his defendant client through a full contested trial in open Court to a NJ Superior Court verdict of "Not Guilty" and all charges were "dismissed" on merit.

The Law Office of Aniello D. Cerreto, Esq. represented defendant Keith Malucelli in defense of the criminal charge of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9B (violating a Final Restraining Order). After rejecting all unre ... asonable settlement positions of the State for the defendant to plead guilty to a reduced charge and after the States refusal to outright Dismiss the Charge we made the decision to take the case to Trial before the NJ Superior Court. During a full trial the State presented evidence through the alleged victim herself, The Monmouth County Probation Department, and 2 separate Police Officers. However after the effective Cross-Examination by Aniello D. Cerreto, Esq. of all of the States witnesses, and, after Aniello D. Cerreto, Esq. made the decision to have the defendant himself testify on the stand and subject himself to the States Cross-Examination, The Superior Court of New Jersey promptly dismissed the charges against Mr. Malucelli on merit. Mr. Cerreto also had to withstand the States motion to remove Mr. Cerreto, Esq. from the case which the NJ Superior Court denied on merit. Lastly, Mr. Cerreto for his client had to overcome the States motion during the trial seeking to delay the case to amend their pleadings to add additional new charges which the NJ Superior Court denied on merit.

Domestic violence

O'Brien v. DiMaggio, Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County

N/A

OUTCOME: The Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, after full trial, dismissed the Temporary Restraining Order of the wife on merit.

Mr. Cerreto represented the defendant husband in a domestic violence dispute. The wife had sought a final restraining order by alleging harassment by her husband. The husband maintained his wife was f ... abricating the harassment claim in anticipation of divorce in the hopes of improving her chances for equitable distribution. Mr. Cerreto litigated a full trial on the merits taking the testimony of both parties with both represented by counsel covering 4 separate trial days. The Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, after full trial, dismissed the Temporary Restraining Order of the wife on merit and Mr. Cerreto represented the husband in the divorce which resulted with the wife voluntarily defaulting and being unable and unsuccessful in any effort to contest the divorce. The husband was relieved of the physical and emotional stress caused by his former wife's fabrications and highly appreciative of Mr. Cerreto's zealous representation. Mr. Cerreto does not discriminate between representation of men or women and is equally zealous upon their behalf. Mr. Cerreto represents people and advocates truth.

Chapter 7 bankruptcy

In the matter of Victor Alvarez, United States Bankruptcy Court, Trenton

N/A

OUTCOME: The Federal Discharge Order was officially granted by the United States Bankruptcy Court.

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. This was a case whereby Mr. Alvarez was able to declare bankruptcy and discharge certain equitable distribution of a divorce due to changing market conditions.

Divorce and separation

Files v ExxonMobil Pension Plan, 428 F.3d 478 (3rd Cir. 2005), Cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1160 (2006).

N/A

OUTCOME: Client prevailed over conglomerate and made new law after 7 years.

In 1999 while I did not represent Ms. Files in her her divorce, I noticed upon becoming employed at the firm that did, that her QDRO had not been completed. I advised her of the situation, reached out ... to the prior lawyer for the husband who replied her client was consenting. It was later discovered he had been dead already. I advised her I could not imagine a federal judge not giving her her money if a judge just looked at it. I worked with her new lawsuit counsel out of genuine concern for her well being, I procured the nunc pro tunc family court Order from Superior Court, and ultimately, after Exxon Mobile fought 7 years, by my initial advice, we and her counsel got her her money AND made new law. Parties were divorced and the PSA stated that the wife was entitled to one-half of husband’s Exxon Savings account and one-half of the pension. The transfer was to be by QDRO for the pension and by transfer to an account designated by the wife for the savings account. The pension plan was notified of the divorce and the provisions of the PSA relating to the pension and savings account. Husband died 2 ½ years after the divorce at age 54 and no QDRO had been submitted at that point. The pension plan refused to pay any survivor’s benefits to the wife since the PSA did not designate the wife as the surviving spouse. Wife filed a motion in Family Court for relief and the court entered an order nunc pro tunc as a QDRO to compel the pension plan to pay wife her share of the pension. The pension plan again denied benefits to the wife stating that since no QDRO was entered at the time of the husband’s death, no benefits were payable to any party. Wife filed suit in federal court against the pension plan and the attorneys for the parties in state court. The district court granted summary judgment to the pension plan finding that the PSA was not a QDRO and, relying on the decision in Samaroo, also found that the nunc pro tunc order was not a QDRO. Wife appealed. Circuit Court reversed distinguishing Samaroo and finding that the PSA had created a separate interest in husband’s pension plan for the wife prior to husband’s death and the nunc pro tunc order was a QDRO which was simply enforcing a right given to the wife in the PSA. The court went on to note that nothing in ERISA precluded the entry of a QDRO after the death of a plan participant.

Aniello D. Cerreto's Legal Cases (5)

Biagio Paternostro v. Louanne Paternostro

State of New Jersey v. Keith Malucelli, Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County

O'Brien v. DiMaggio, Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County

In the matter of Victor Alvarez, United States Bankruptcy Court, Trenton

Files v ExxonMobil Pension Plan, 428 F.3d 478 (3rd Cir. 2005), Cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1160 (2006).