TEL: 201-525-6305
FAX: 201-678-6305
slipsky@coleschotz.com
V-Card 

Legal Secretary: Dawn Brea
TEL: 201-489-3000, ext. 5019
dbrea@coleschotz.com

Sean Lipsky’s practice focuses on complex commercial and corporate litigation, business and contract disputes, shareholder actions, commercial real estate disputes, estate litigation, surety law, chancery litigation, insurance coverage disputes, insurance defense and tax litigation. He has been involved in matters at the trial level in the state and federal courts of New Jersey and New York. Mr. Lipsky also has extensive experience in proceedings before the American Arbitration Association. He has represented numerous clients before appellate courts in both New Jersey and New York, including the New Jersey Supreme Court, resulting in a number of reported decisions.

Frugis v. Bracigliano, 177 N.J. 250 (2003) Supreme Court of New Jersey decision that established a school board has a heightened duty of care to ensure the safety of its students. The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that, as a matter of law, a school board was responsible for the harm caused to two elementary school students who were molested by their principal where the school board failed to respond to signs of the principal’s sexual misconduct and did not implement any reporting procedures.

RCN Telecom Services, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation, 23 N.J. Tax 520 (N.J.Tax Ct. 2007) and RCN of New Jersey, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation,  23 N.J. Tax 22 (N.J. Tax Ct. 2006). Twin decisions by the the Tax Court of New Jersey holding, as a matter of law, that millions of dollars of purchases by our cable television provider client were exempt from sales taxes. The result not only was a substantial victory for our client in the instant matter, but created a precedent that will provide a significantly financial benefit to all of New Jersey's cable television providers well into the future.  The most recent decision was also profiled in the Sales and Use Tax Monitor.

StayinFront, Inc. v. Tobin et als., 2006 WL 3228033.  Decision by the Hon. Stanley R. Chesler, USDJ, ordering the law firm of Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland and Perretti to produce e-mail mesages between Riker Danzig, its client (the defendant) and the defendant's lay adviser. In reaching this decision, the Court rejected Riker Danzig's argument the communications were exempt from disclosure on grounds of attorney-client privilege. Specifically, the Court held that since defendant's lay adviser was communicating with Riker Danzig and the defendant concerning matters beyond his statutory role as a lay adviser, these communications were not privileged under New Zealand or New Jesey law. In addition, the Court ruled that plaintiffs had pierced work product privilege and (including opinion work product) because the defendant had engaged in a course of wrongful conduct that could only be exposed through the disclosure of the subject e-mails. The decision was also profiled by the New Jersey Law Journal in an article which can be found at http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1162820130107.

Hartman v. Mountain Valley Brewpub, Inc., 754 N.Y.S.2d 31 (2d Dep’t 2003) New York Appellate Division decision affirming a determination by the trial court granting summary judgment for defendant in a premises liability action where the plaintiff failed to provide direct evidence of causation and plaintiff’s expert merely asserted conclusory allegations.

• New York Insureds Beware, Cole Schotz Docket

• New Jersey Bar Association
• Bergen County Bar Association
• Bergen County Bar Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee