Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2017

Granata v. Broderick

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Decided November 14, 2017 · Albin, Fernandez, Lavecchia, Patterson, Rabner, Solomon, Timpone, Vina

231 N.J. 135; 172 A.3d 548

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Daniel Ricca and Georgina Ricca (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 2021)
Anthony Ventre v. Arthur E. Balsamo, Esq. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024)
JOHN GIOVANNI GRANATA VS. EDWARD F. BRODERICK, JR., ESQ. (L-3278-07, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019)
STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. FRANKLIN JACK BURR, II (04-05-0726, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021)
DCPP VS. A.L. AND S.B., IN THE MATTER OF AU.L. (FN-12-0172-17, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2020)
STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. J.P.M.-S. (16-03-0178, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2020)
MELISSA MORALES VS. JULIO MORALES (FM-19-0181-11, SUSSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019)
STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SEAN P. MCARDLE (13-07-1338, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019)
JANE DOE, ETC. VS. CITY OF TRENTON (L-1813-17, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019)
SCOTTY PINE, INC. VS. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION (TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM

The Court granted certification to review petitioners’ challenges to the Superior Court, Appellate Division’s determinations regarding the distribution priorities of the attorney’s fee award, more specifically the rulings that an attorney’s pledge of anticipated attorney’s fees can be considered an account receivable and se*136cured under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and that the lender here complied with the requirements of the UCC to perfect its security interest by filing a financing statement covering the collateral of the anticipated attorney’s fees. Having considered the parties’ arguments presented in their briefs and at oral argument, the judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in those parts of Judge Guadagno’s opinion addressing the distribution priorities of the attorney’s fee award, reported at 446 N.J. Super. 449, 143 A.3d 309 (App. Div. 2016).

CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, PATTERSON, FERNANDEZ-VINA, SOLOMON, and TIMPONE join in this opinion.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.