One of the region’s largest, most experienced groups of commercial trial lawyers, our Litigation Department has achieved success in hundreds of trials in state and federal courts.  Throughout New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Maryland and Texas, we are recognized as a “bet the company” litigation team.  We frequently arbitrate and mediate as alternatives to litigation.  We also counsel our clients on how to avoid litigation.  First and foremost, our clients see us as problem solvers.


Litigation Representative Matters

  • Successfully obtained a reversal in the Appellate Division and then decision from the New Jersey Supreme Court, in favor our client in an eminent domain matter where our clients’ property was taken from them, as the Court determined, without constitutional just compensation, based on the valuation date used by the trial court and advocated by the municipality taking the property.

  • Recovered a substantial judgment on behalf of a surety client against the State of New Jersey after a 10-day bench trial and a 175-page written decision.  The Court found that the State had improperly terminated our client from the renovation of a state building after our client had funded substantial work, refusing to pay our client for such work, and rejecting the State’s counterclaims based on the work performed by the State’s substitute completion contractor.

  • Represented a national retailer of fine jewelry, in a breach of contract action relating to the production of a line of jewelry allegedly licensed by a celebrity.  We defeated a motion by the manufacturer seeking to prevent our client from selling that jewelry, and the matter settled shortly thereafter favorably to our client.

  • Obtained a judgment for a client declaring the non-infringement and invalidity of a real estate tax patent owned by another company, which determination we were able to successfully defend on appeal before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

  • Represented a New Jersey state authority against a multi-million dollar claim that it had negligently failed to require that a payment bond be posted under the New Jersey Bond Act for a particular major development project.  We obtained dismissal of the claim by written decision based on numerous grounds, including a lack of jurisdiction by the trial court, the inapplicability of the Bond Act and immunity under the Tort Claims Act.

  • On behalf of an employer client, we obtained a temporary restraining order preventing its former employee from (1) violating his non-compete agreement by working for one of the client’s competitors; (2) disclosing any of our client’s confidential and proprietary information to any other person or entity; (3) soliciting or communicating with any of our client’s competitor’s clients; and (4) ordering that the former employee immediately return all confidential and proprietary information to our client.  This decision led to the negotiation of a settlement on very favorable terms.

  • Successfully represented an individual removed as a Director of a non-profit corporation for alleged misconduct.  Following an eight-day bench trial, our client prevailed and obtained all of the relief requested in the Complaint, which led to our client’s reinstatement as a member of the Board of Directors and as a Trustee, and the by-laws and member list advanced by our client were declared to govern.

  • Concluding nine years of litigation, the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the prior decisions we obtained in the Appellate Division, trial court and in arbitration in favor of our client, the majority owner of an automobile dealership chain, against the minority owner who was ousted.

  • At trial, we succeeded in establishing equal ownership for our client in a group of large, closely held businesses and obtained a judgment directing the forced sale of the opposing shareholder's interests.  Then, on appeal, we obtained favorable valuation rulings, as the Appellate Division recognized a key man marketability discount in the first reported New Jersey case applying such a discount.

The Presiding Judge of the New Jersey Tax Court held in our favor, ruling that our clients can proceed with their claims against the State of New Jersey, Division of Lottery challenging the retroactive taxation of their lottery winnings.
On June 9, 2000, Melvin Milligan won the top prize in the Big Game Drawing totaling approximately $46 million. When Mr. Milligan won and claimed his New Jersey Lottery prize, winnings from the New Jersey Lottery were specifically excluded by statute from taxable income under the New Jersey Gross Income Tax Act, N.J.S.A. § 54A:l-l, et seq. After consulting with counsel, and in reliance on the State tax laws in existence at that time, Mr. Milligan opted to receive his prize in 26 annual installments of approximately $1,769,000 each.
Mr. Milligan received the agreed-upon installments without issue until 2009, when the State of New Jersey amended the law to subject New Jersey Lottery winnings over $10,000 to the New Jersey Gross Income Tax. This amendment was enacted on June 29, 2009, but made effective retroactively as of January 1, 2009. As a result, beginning tax period 2009, and every year thereafter, Mr. Milligan and his wife, Kimberly-Lawton Milligan, began reporting the New Jersey Lottery winnings as income and paying the applicable tax in excess of $133,000 each year. The Milligans dispute New Jersey’s right to collect income tax on their prize money – a prize won over nine years before the change in the law – and have filed a lawsuit against the State of New Jersey, Division of Taxation and State of New Jersey, Division of Lottery. The Milligans allege breach of contract, violations of both the United States Constitution and New Jersey State Constitution, as well violations of the common-law “manifest injustice” doctrine based on the retroactive application of the tax.
On February 24, 2015, the Honorable Patrick DeAlmeida, Presiding Judge of the Tax Court in Trenton, New Jersey, ruled that the Milligans can proceed with their lawsuit against the Division of Lottery who sought to dismiss the Millgans’ action for failure to state a claim. In his opinion, Judge DeAlmeida held that “[a]n inference can be drawn” that the Milligans were induced to play the lottery and that “the Division of State Lottery breach[ed] the resulting contract when in 2009 it paid [the Milligans] less than the contractually agreed upon sum certain.” Rejecting the Division of Lottery’s arguments, the Court further held that “[t]he Complaint without question suggests a contract claim against the Division of State Lottery … based on legal precedents recognizing a contractual relationship between the bearer of a winning lottery ticket for the June 9, 2000 drawing and the Division of State Lottery.” A copy of the full opinion can be found here.
In addition to the Milligans, this firm represents over two dozen other plaintiffs who are similarly challenging the State’s retroactive taxation on their lottery winnings. The Court’s ruling in Milligan applies across the board to our other clients.

In May 2006, a national bank instituted an action against an individual and his entities seeking to restrain transfers of actions relating to more than 300 real properties in New Jersey.  The commencement of this action forced numerous lenders, property owners, investors and creditors claiming an interest in the properties and business entities to intervene and/or file related proceedings, resulting in the largest Chancery Court case in New Jersey of that year.  Over 30 related actions were filed shortly after the commencement of this action.  The Court appointed a fiscal agent/trustee in liquidation to oversee the management, operation and liquidation of the properties, valued at approximately $400 million.

Cole Schotz counseled its client through a myriad of intricate issues, protecting his ownership interest in the properties and prosecuting and defending numerous claims against the principal defendant and certain creditors.  The proceedings presented complex litigation, real estate, corporate and potential insolvency issues.  A team of Cole Schotz attorneys across different departments analyzed the various claims and issues of the parties and formulated a strategy to protect and stabilize the assets and the client's position.  This complicated and fast-paced litigation resulted in the entry of over 250 court orders in 2006.

The proceedings afforded the multidisciplinary group of Cole Schotz attorneys opportunities to negotiate the sale of several substantial commercial properties to potential buyers, assist the fiscal agent in establishing the process and procedure for marketing and liquidating the properties in a manner that maximizes value to the estate, assist in establishing the procedure for pursuing and adjudicating creditor claims, and demonstrate its sophisticated litigation expertise.

The largest New Jersey Chancery Court cases provided the firm with the forum in which to demonstrate its capabilities across different commercial practice areas.


Hosted on the FirmWise platform.

© Cole Schotz P.C.


The materials on this site have been prepared by Cole Schotz P.C. for general informational purposes only and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel on the specific facts and circumstances in question from an attorney licensed in their jurisdiction. Use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between the user and Cole Schotz or any lawyer(s) within the firm. Any information sent to Cole Schotz or its lawyers through this site will not be treated as confidential and is not protected by the attorney-client privilege.

© Cole Schotz P.C.

Attorney Advertising

This website is an advertisement for a law firm. Statements and previous outcomes do not imply similar results in your matters.

© Cole Schotz P.C.