Law Office of Eugenie Voitkevich, 705A Amboy Avenue, 2nd floor, Woodbridge, NJ 07095 732–407–1047
Disclaimer: Any and all information contained in this Law Blog and at the website of Eugenie Voitkevich, Esq., does NOT constitute legal advice and does NOT create attorney-client relationship. The purpose of the Law Blog is solely informational. If you need to contact the attorney with a specific legal problem or issue, please use this contact form.

Attorney Eugenie Voitkevich named as New Jersey Rising Star by Super Lawyers Magazine for Fourth Consecutive Year

We are honored to announce that for the fourth consecutive year, Attorney Eugenie Voitkevich has been named among New Jersey “Rising Stars” (2017) by Super Lawyers Magazine. Please read here about the Rising Stars nomination selection process. According to Super Lawyers Magazine, “while up to five percent of the lawyers in the state are named to Super Lawyers, no more than 2.5 percent are named to the Rising Stars list.”

Attorney Eugenie Voitkevich speaks English, Russian, and Belarusian and focuses his practice on civil and criminal litigation.

(Necessary Disclaimer, required by New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct: “No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey").

14.03.17

Attorney Eugenie Voitkevich is named as New Jersey Rising Star 2015 by Super Lawyers Magazine


We are pleased to announce that in the second consecutive year, Attorney Eugenie Voitkevich, Esq. was named as one of the New Jersey “Rising Stars” (2015) by Super Lawyers Magazine. Please read more here — http://www.superlawyers.com/new-jersey/lawyer/Eugenie-Voitkevich/231a87be-4e18–4a01-aa51–14477c408869.html Following this link, you can find out about Rising Stars nomination selection process. Attorney Voitkevich speaks English, Russian, and Belarusian languages.

(Necessary Disclaimer, required by New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct: “No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey").

03.07.15

Eugenie Voitkevich, Esq., Secures Verdict on behalf of Kazakhstan Consumer for Violations of New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act

9/17/14. Elizabeth, NJ. On September 11, 2014, a Union County, New Jersey, jury awarded a consumer from Kazakhstan $39,420 in damages in a case he filed in the New Jersey Superior Court against an Elizabeth-based car dealer, a car dealer’s corporate officer, and an employee. Hon. Alan G. Lesnewich, J. S. C, who presided at trial, trebled Plaintiff’s damages, in accordance with the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, which resulted in the final award of $118,260. The plaintiff was represented by Eugenie A.Voitkevich, Esq.

The plaintiff testified at trialthat in May 2011, he found a car (2006 Infinity) on the dealer’s website online,as listed for sale. The plaintiff testified that the car was listed as locatedat the dealer’s warehouse in Finland. The plaintiff further testified that when he asked a company employee about a delivery time to Kazakhstan, the employee replied via email that the car could be delivered within 20 days. After the plaintiff paid in full for the car and delivery, and the car was not delivered within 20 days, he demanded his money back. Plaintiff testified that he never received his money back. According to some testimony, obtained at trial, the subject car was subsequently sold to someone else in the United States.

The plaintiff, who came to New Jersey to participate in trial, demanded compensation under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The plaintiff requested the full reimbursement of the money he paid for the vehicle ($24,420). In addition, the plaintiff testified that because of the defendants’ actions, he lost an opportunity to bring a car to Kazakhstan at a substantially lower customs duty rate and demanded reimbursement for such loss.

“This case is a great example that the civil justice system and trial by jury do work in New Jersey. The Consumer Fraud Act is powerful law, and consumers worldwide deserve its protection — if a New Jersey-based merchant violates the law and if the purchase is connected to New Jersey. Shopping for merchandise in New Jersey, even when a customer is not physically present here, should be fair to everyone,” stated Eugenie Voitkevich.

The Law Office of Eugenie A. Voitkevich is located in Woodbridge, New Jersey. For more information, pleasevisit the lawyer’s website www.triallawyernj.com

17.09.14

Eugenie Voitkevich, Esq. was nominated for «Rising Star 2014» by New Jersey Super Lawyers Magazine

We are pleased to announce that Eugenie Voitkevich, Esq. was named as one of the New Jersey “Rising Stars 2014” by Super Lawyers Magazine. Here you can find out about Rising Stars nomination selection process: http://www.superlawyers.com/about/rising_stars.html

Please read more here.

(Necessary Disclaimer, required by New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct: “No aspect oft his advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey").

27.03.14

Can foreign customers count on protection of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act?

It is widely known that the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA) is one of the strongest consumer-protection statutes in the United States. If rights of a consumer were violated under the NJCFA, the consumer may be entitled for treble damages, attorney’s fees, and costs of lawsuit.

But what if the consumer, who purchased some goods or services from a New Jersey seller, is a foreign citizen? What if such customer never physically came to New Jersey and simply made a purchase from a New Jersey seller via Internet (say, a buyer from Russia buys a car via Internet from a New Jersey car dealer)? Can such customer bring a lawsuit under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act in a New Jersey court, if his or her rights were violated?

There is no simple answer to those questions. Every factual scenario is different, and an answer depends on many factors. However, it seems that New Jersey courts have recognized that foreign citizens, who purchased goods and services from a New Jersey seller located in New Jersey, may count on protection of the NJCFA.

For example, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in the case Boyes v. Greenwich Boat Works, 27 F.Supp. 2d 543, 547 (1998) held: “This court has little doubt that the New Jersey Legislature intended its Consumer Fraud statute to apply to sales made by New Jersey sellers even if the buyer is an out-of-state resident and some aspect of the transaction took place outside New Jersey. Courts have declared that the Consumer Fraud Act should be construed liberally in favor of protecting consumers.

The Court in the Boyes case explained why it is important for the New Jersey courts, in some instances, to protect rights of those foreign consumers who purchase goods and services from New Jersey sellers. The court in Boyes said: “While there can be no doubt that the New Jersey legislature desired to protect its own residents,it is equally clear that this state has a powerful incentive to insure that local merchants deal fairly with citizens of other states and countries. Its magnificent seashore, to say nothing of casino gambling, bring millions of visitors annually to New Jersey making tourism a major industry. This industry would suffer if the state developed a reputation as a place where sellers ripped off the unsuspecting visitor.New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, came to a similar conclusion in the case International Union of Operating Engineers v. Merck, 384 N. J. Super. 275, 288 (App. Div. 2006) (reversed by NJ Supreme Court on other grounds).

In sum, if a consumer lives outside New Jersey or even outside the United States, but his or her rights were violated in New Jersey, such consumer may still be under protection of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. It may be worthwhile to consult with a competent New Jersey lawyer, if one suspects that consumer fraud has occurred in New Jersey.

30.03.13

New Jersey Legislature Seeks to Preclude Plaintiff Attorneys From Contacting Potential Accident Victims within 90-day Period

The lower House of New Jersey State Legislature passed a bill that precludes police departments from releasing auto accident reports to general public within 90 days from the date of the accident — according to the New Jersey Law Journal.This means that plaintiff attorneys (mostly, solos and small firms) won’t be able to promptly get auto accident victims’ addresses and contact them with advertisement of legal services. On one hand, this is good news because people’s right to be left alone should be respected. But on the other hand, insurance representatives of potential defendants will still be able to contact unrepresented victims directly and push them into low-ball settlements. It appears that the measure will also benefit large plaintiff firms – they have marketing budgets for TV and Google commercials and don’t need to bother with relatively cheap direct solicitation.

03.11.12

New Jersey Appellate Court: under Circumstances Police May Enter, without Search Warrant, Third-Party Residence to Arrest Dangerous Suspect

New Jersey Constitution protects private property, especially one’s home, from warrantless search and seizure. However, under certain circumstances, the police may enter a private residence to arrest a dangerous suspect, even if there is no warrant to enter and search such residence. In such case, any evidence, such as weapons or illegal drugs, found in the residence in plain view, may lead to separate charges.

In a recent published opinion, State v. Craft (Docket# A-5022–10T2), decided on May 14, 2012, New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, looked at one of those cases. In that case, the police had a warrant to arrest one James Craft, based on a shooting incident. Police officers arrived to the residence of James Craft’s mother, but they did not have a warrant to enter her residence. The Court found, however, that the mother voluntarily let the police enter the apartment. Next, the mother said that she did not know where her son was and offered to the police officers that she would call on the son’s cell phone. When she called James Craft’s cell phone, one police officer heard a phone ringing in one of the rooms of the residence, behind a closed door. The officer then entered that room and found the suspect there trying to escape through a window. The police then arrested James Craft and found an unregistered weapon and illegal drugs in the room, in plain view.

The issue before the Appellate Division was whether the police officer could open the bedroom door in the mother’s residence, without having a warrant to search that residence, after the officer heard the phone ringing behind the door. The Court held that under the circumstances the actions of the police officers were “objectively reasonable” and they could enter the mother’s bedroom. The Court reasoned that the police had reasons to believe that potentially armed and dangerous suspect was in the bedroom, after they heard the phone ringing, and it was impracticable in that situation to obtain a separate search warrant. The Court thus concluded that the weapon and the illegal drugs found in the bedroom in plain view should not be suppressed from the evidence.

23.05.12

Are websites like avvo.com really good for seeking legal advice?

Many people these days go online to look for legal help. In turn, many lawyers realize that potential clients use Internet to look for legal help – and attorneys do advertise online. Websites like avvo.com are becoming very popular among lawyers and potential clients. Avvo.com can be generally described as an Internet forum where anybody can post a legal question and wait to see if a lawyer will answer that question on-line. Needless to say, that those questions and answers become visible to general public.


So, if you are hit with a legal issue in your life, is it wise to go online and ask your question at sites like avvo.com? Well, it may be a good first step, but chances are that you should probably speak to an attorney in private, if your situation is serious enough. Consider these points:

  • Many legal situations are very fact-sensitive. This means that in order to better evaluate your case, an attorney may need to ask you many follow-up questions, which you may consider totally irrelevant, but answers to which can be very important for your specific case. Posting question at avvo.com often does not involve any follow-up questions and answers.
  • Attorneys’ answers to your questions posted at avvo.com do not constitute legal advice: this is the policy of the company that runs the website. Most lawyers are very careful when answering those questions online – they emphasize that you should not rely on their general responses to your on-line questions. By posting an answer to your question, they may provide some general idea of what to expect if you go to court, and what kind of lawyer you should talk to.
  • When posting your legal question at avvo.com, you are required to indicate your town and state. Note, that some lawyers, who answer question at avvo, are not even licensed to practice law in the state where the asker resides. This means that such lawyers may be ineligible to represent you in your state – they are just giving you some general idea about your question.
  • Whatever you post online becomes public information, and, under certain circumstances, may be used against you in court. Therefore, you should be very careful when disclosing your private sensitive information on-line – in fact, you probably should notdisclose it to public at all!

In sum, while it may be good to use avvo.com as a starting point in looking forlegal help, it is probably wise not to rely on the website too much: you may want to meet and discuss your matter with an attorney in private.

06.03.12

new web-site :)

www.triallawyernj.com is on-line !!! :)

06.03.12