dastilaw

News of the Law Firm


Leave a comment

Koutsouris Obtains Numerous Personal Injury Settlement Awards

Christopher K. Koutsouris has recently obtained numerous personal injury settlements totally in excess of $500,000.   Two of the cases involved injuries sustained from slip and falls.  In the case of Stueber v. The Joe Kubert School of Cartoons and Graphic Art, Mr. Koutsouris obtained a $200,000 settlement for the client for injuries sustained from a slip and fall down a flight of stairs. Weeks later, Mr. Koutsouris obtained a $160,000 settlement for the client in the case of Milovanovich v. J&M Quinn LP, Center for Diabetes Education, and Community Medical Center for the injuries sustained from a slip and fall on an icy sidewalk.

Mr. Koutsouris has also recently received settlement awards in pedestrian cases. In Black v. Leahy and Black v. GEICO (underinsured motorist claim), the plaintiff was struck by a motor vehicle when legally crossing the street and suffered injuries. Mr. Koutsouris received a total settlement from all parties in the amount of $235,000. In another pedestrian accident, Estate of Nolazco-Romano v. Clayton, Mr. Koutsouris received $100,000 settlement award when the pedestrian was fatally struck on Route 9.

Mr. Koutsouris focuses his practice in the areas of criminal and municipal court defense, civil litigation, which includes personal injury, employment law, and Social Security Disability applications & appeals.

 


Leave a comment

Dasti Successfully Defends Zoning Board Approval at Trial

In a decision released on September 23, 2015 in Van Schoick v. Jackson Twp. Zoning Board of Adjustment, et. als. the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division affirmed at trial the Jackson Township Zoning Board of Adjustment’s approval of use and bulk variance approval to the applicant to construct a commercial office facility. The Zoning Board was represented by Christopher J. Dasti. The court found that the decision of the Zoning Board in granting the approval was a “relatively minor adjustment” to the township’s zoning ordinance and was “reasonable in light of the unique circumstances affecting the subject property.” The court found that the actions of the Zoning Board would have negligible impact on the zone plan and master plan of the township and thus the action was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.