Barry S. Goodman

Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

• Conley v. Guerrero (2017), in which the New Jersey Supreme Court held that an attorney who sends a notice of disapproval of a residential sales contract prepared by a real estate licensee to the broker(s) during the three-day attorney-review period must send it by email, fax, overnight mail or personal delivery

• Timber Glen Phase III, LLC v. Township of Hamilton (2015), in which the Appellate Division held that a municipality does not have the authority under the Licensing Act to impose licenses and licensing fees for residential apartment units that provide tenancies for 175 days or more
• Zaman v. Felton (2014), in which the New Jersey Supreme Court held that, where a real estate licensee purchases a house that is in foreclosure with the seller having the right to buy back the property and continue to live there through a lease, the transaction may create an equitable mortgage but it is not subject to In re: Opinion 26 or the Consumer Fraud Act
• In re: Opinion 26 (1995), in which the New Jersey Supreme Court held that buyers and sellers of residential real estate can receive assistance from real estate and title agents during the closing process, as has been the practice in South Jersey, and do not have to retain a lawyer as has typically been done in North Jersey
• RE/MAX v. Wassau (2000), in which the New Jersey Supreme Court held that real estate salespeople are employees for purposes of workers’ compensation
• H.I.P. v. K. Hovnanian (1996), in which Mr. Goodman successfully represented a developer regarding an advocacy group’s claims that a development did not comply with the Fair Housing Act
• Mortgage Bankers Association of NJ v. NJ Real Estate Commission (1995), in which Mr. Goodman served as lead counsel. Following a 12-year court battle, the Appellate Division ultimately held that real estate licensees can receive a fee for providing mortgage-related services
• Reyes v. Egner (2010), in which the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a broker for a short-term summer rental is not liable to a tenant who was in the unit for nine days and then fell where a step was higher than the construction code permitted and there was no required handrail on the steps, and the broker therefore is not subject to the same duty to warn visitors as a broker in an open house situation
• Exit A Plus Realty v. Zuniga (2007), in which the Appellate Division held that real estate listing agreements are not automatically void, but are only voidable based upon the equities of the case if a real estate licensee violates the Real Estate Licensing Act
• CBTR v. Twin Rivers Homeowners’ Association (2007), in which the New Jersey Supreme Court held that homeowners’ associations’ policies regarding expressional activities will be upheld if they are reasonable but may be subject to constitutional scrutiny if they are unreasonable
• Danvers Motor Co. v. Ford Motor Co. (2005), in class action antitrust suit, the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that dealers challenging Ford’s nationwide incentive and satisfaction program stated particularized harm by alleging payments against their will and relinquishing control of dealership operations to satisfy constitutional standing requirements
• New Jersey Association of REALTORS® v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (2004), in which the Appellate Division held that a regulation requiring deed notices concerning environmentally contaminated sites be sent to the Association for distribution by its members to the public was void ab initio because it violated the New Residential Off-Site Conditions Disclosure Act
• Gordon Development Group v. Bradley (2003), in which the Appellate Division held that there only is one attorney-review period for both the buyer and the seller in a residential real estate transaction in New Jersey that begins when the fully executed contract has been delivered to both the buyer and the seller
• Danvers Motor Co. v. Ford Motor Co. (2002), in which the United States District Court held that class action antitrust plaintiffs must have particularized injuries to have Article III standing under the United States Constitution
• Inter-City Tire and Auto Center v. Uniroyal (1988), in which Mr. Goodman successfully defended a distributor in an antitrust suit who allegedly had conspired to monopolize a certain market and fix prices
• G&W v. Borough of East Rutherford (1995), in which Mr. Goodman prevailed before the Appellate Court in an antitrust action precluding his client from competing for business in a certain municipality
• Liberty Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Marketing Corp. (1993), in which the United States District Court held that an automobile dealers association can participate in case as amicus curiae if the individual dealership that was a party in the lawsuit was not adequately represented by counsel and the association will not be an advocate for one of the parties
• State v. Arace Brothers (1989), in which Mr. Goodman represented a trade association and certain individual defendants against allegations by the Attorney General that over the course of 25 years, the defendants had allocated public contracts among themselves in violation of the Antitrust Act
• New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985), in which the United States Supreme Court rendered a landmark decision circumscribing the scope of searches and seizures in public schools
• The Hospital Center at Orange v. Cook (1981), in which the Appellate Division held that a hospital is barred from suing indigent patient for fees where the hospital failed to advise a patient she was eligible to apply for free medical care under a federal program for which the hospital already had received funding