April 14, 2009 by Peter B. Paris, Esq.

As a former social worker and police officer, I have alot of experience with troubled youth.  There is no single prescription for helping them turn things around, but my experience has shown me that young men and boys in trouble tend to lack the psychological self-awareness necessary to understand the roots of their behavior and learn to  control their impulses.  

My fundamental belief is that all adolescents can benefit from professional counseling, even those not in trouble.  But, for those who have behavior problems that get them in trouble at school or with police, counseling is imperative.  The main challenge, of course, is to get young men and their parents to “buy in” to therapy as an opportunity for growth, not as a symbol of personal or parental failure. 

It is my firm belief that when teenagers and young adults engage in behavior that leads to police involvement, the behavior should be viewed as a cry for help.  I also believe that police, prosecutors, and judges want to believe the same thing.  But they also know that some kids and young adults simply do not have the kind of support necessary to answer the cry.  When that is the case, the State will step in to fill the void — one way or another.  It is my job to help convince judges and prosecutors that the family and the individual know what they need to do and are taking the necessary steps to correct misbehavior so the State can turn to those truly in need of intervention.

From an attorney’s persective, simply defending the case does not answer the young person’s cry for help.  Even if I get the case dismissed, without counseling and other life-changes, the problem is likely to recur.  Therefore, I believe in taking a “holistic approach” to each case, which is designed to create a positive overall experience out of a negative incident.  While the “heavy lifting” must still be done by the young person and his family, I try to use the incident as a motivator and opportunity for real change.

The first step is to engage support services soon after an arrest has occurred.  Strategically, judges and prosecutors appreciate that a defendant has decided to take positive action before being ordered to do so.  But even if the young person is 100% innocent, and the case could be dismissed or won at trial, the young person needs to appreciate the gravity of the situation and learn to examine past misbehavior or unhealthy friendships in productive ways.  

In sum, I try to help families “treat the patient, not just the symptom.”  A professional counselor will provide a safe, confidential environment for the young person to discuss life with an adult who is skilled at creating a relationship of trust.  Only good can come of that.

If your child or a young person you know is in trouble, call Peter Paris at Maselli Warren, PC to discuss ways to approach the case itself as well as ways to create positive change.

Posted in Criminal Defense, Municipal Court, Family Law | Comments Off

February 26, 2009 by Peter B. Paris, Esq.

Homeowners who are contemplating or undergoing major home-improvement projects must know their rights when dealing with contractors.  The first step is SIGN A CONTRACT.  Long gone are the days of handshake deals with the local contractor.  It is imperative that homeowners insist on obtaining a detailed bid and contract before any work begins and certainly before writing any checks.

We all know that major renovations often encounter “unanticipated” construction problems.  Usually, these “unanticipated” issues should have been anticipated by a careful contractor and accounted for in the contract.  Unfortunately, many contractors take advantage of homeowners by underbidding the job, securing the contract, beginning work, and then trying to coerce homeowners into paying more money for “unanticipated” problems.  By doing so, they are essentially altering the contract in midstream – and it always means more money. 

Homeowners take one look at their incomplete house – with a dumpster in the front yard, drywall stacked against the walls, and holes in the roof — and say to themselves, “I guess we have to pay the extra money.  What else can we do?” 

While that reaction is understandable, homeowners must understand that you signed a contract for a reason.  If there are “unanticipated” problems with the job, it’s not your fault.  It is the fault of the contractor, who is supposed to have the expertise to anticipate the necessary work, and to be able to estimate beforehand what the job will take and what it will cost.  If the contractor is wrong about the estimates, and completing the job ends up costing more than the contract price, it is the contractor, not the homeowner, who must bear those extra costs. 

For example, in a recent New Jersey case, a contractor agreed to remove and replace the homeowners’ roof as well as other smaller tasks.  The parties signed a contract.  Soon after, the contractor told the homeowners that the contract was not priced correctly and tried to get them to sign a new contract which was for the same price but called for less work to be done.  The homeowners signed this new contract and made a downpayment. 

But when the contractor felt the job was completed, the homeowners disagreed, saying that the contractor had promised to do a lot more work under the original contract.  The contractor then had the nerve to try to get the homeowners to sign a THIRD contract to complete the work he had promised to do in the original contract, but had omitted from the second contract.  The homeowners were smart, and they refused to pay the balance of the second contract and did not sign the third. 

To add insult to injury, the contractor sued the homeowners for the balance on the second contract.  The homeowners counter-sued under New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act.  The Court was not amused, finding in favor of the homeowners.  The contractor was not allowed to change the original contract, because he bears the risk of underbidding the job, not the homeowners.  As the court stated, “If in fact a job is underbid, it is the bidder who bears that risk…This is a horribly botched job, which begins with an underbidding and then continues with a … lack of finishing or having an acceptance signed by the homeowners.”  Thus, the homeowners were justified in withholding payment on the balance of the contract.   And, the court awarded treble damages under the Consumer Fraud Act.  That is, the contractor had to pay three times the costs to fix the shoddy work and complete the original job. 

If you are remodeling or building a home, and your contractor has changed the contract in midstream, you may be the victim of consumer fraud.  Under the Consumer Fraud Act, and you may be entitled to compel the contractor to pay you three times the amount it takes to finish the job.   

Contact Peter B. Paris, Esq. at Maselli Warren if your contractor has violated your rights under the Consumer Fraud Act.

Posted in Consumer Fraud | Comments Off

February 15, 2009 by admin.

Welcome to The Law Blog for Maselli Warren, P.C.

Posted in General | No Comments »