Carmen Lawrence Aiello v. Law Offices of Jonathan Stone, Esq.
A-0999-23/A-1002-23
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 3, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Carmen and Madeline Aiello sued their former attorney, Jonathan Stone, alleging legal malpractice arising out of Stone’s representation in a bankruptcy proceeding.
- The main allegation was Stone’s failure to disclose Carmen’s joint interest in a valuable gas station during the bankruptcy filing, leading to adverse consequences in the bankruptcy case.
- The malpractice action experienced lengthy procedural delays due to the plaintiffs’ bankruptcy, repeated stays, remands, and issues relating to the submission of an Affidavit of Merit (AOM).
- Plaintiffs failed to meet court-ordered deadlines for serving an expert report necessary to support their malpractice claim.
- The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Stone, finding the plaintiffs failed to show exceptional circumstances for reopening discovery and could not establish their malpractice claims without expert testimony.
- The appeals were consolidated; plaintiffs challenged the summary judgment and denial of their motion to reopen discovery, while Stone’s cross-appeal of earlier procedural orders was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery should be reopened to allow late service of expert report | Delay was due to counsel’s personal hardships; no willful conduct | Plaintiffs failed to pursue timely discovery and show exceptional circumstances | No reopening; no exceptional circumstances shown |
| Whether expert testimony is required for a bankruptcy-related legal malpractice claim | The claim is simple; jurors can decide based on basic duty | Expert testimony is essential to establish breach and causation in complex malpractice | Expert testimony required; summary judgment appropriate |
| Whether Stone was properly granted summary judgment | Plaintiffs could prove malpractice without expert; facts were undisputed | Lack of expert report is fatal; no triable issue of fact | Summary judgment for Stone affirmed |
| Whether interlocutory procedural orders were appealable by Stone | Orders adverse to Stone warranted review | Judgment was in Stone's favor; no aggrievement | Stone's cross-appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Pomerantz Paper Co. v. New Cmty. Corp., 207 N.J. 344 (deference to trial court in discovery matters)
- Sommers v. McKinney, 287 N.J. Super. 1 (expert testimony required unless duty is basic and within jury’s common knowledge)
- Buchanan v. Leonard, 428 N.J. Super. 277 (expert needed when attorney duties are not commonly known)
- Kranz v. Tiger, 390 N.J. Super. 135 (explains when expert testimony is required in malpractice)