New Jersey DUI/DWI Lawyer: Two New Cases Discuss Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Drunk Driving Convictions

November 11, 2019 by

Drunk Driving ConvictionsHere, on the Edward M. Janzekovich law blog, we often remind our readers that a good lawyer can often help even after a driver has been convicted of DUI or DWI. Although most drivers believe that, once you have pled guilty to drunk driving, drugged driving, or driving while high, the matter is final, this isn’t true. In some situations, you can actually go back and revisit a past DWI or DUI conviction and have it dismissed.

But why would you want to?

Well, the reason this is important is because when you are convicted in New Jersey of drunk driving for a second or third time (or more), penalties get worse and worse – including increased fines, longer jail time, extended loss of driving privileges, and longer periods of driving with a Ignition Interlock Device. Successfully reopening and dismissing a past conviction – referred to as Post-Conviction Relief (PCR) – can sometimes lessen penalties for pending or future convictions.

Two recent cases passed last week and earlier this year discuss PCR, especially when the former conviction occurred as the result of not having an attorney or having a bad attorney who made a mistake or missed something during your case.

State v. Patel

In State v. Patel, which was decided on August 7, 2019, the New Jersey Supreme Court reaffirmed that every driver who is charged with DWI in the state is guaranteed a right to retain counsel or have counsel appointed.  Therefore, if a court fails to advise a defendant of his right to get a lawyer or have one appointed, then any subsequent conviction under those circumstances could deemed illegal.

In State v. Patel, the Court allowed the defendant to challenge a 1994 DWI conviction in Piscataway Municipal Court, because, at the time, he did not have an attorney and was not properly informed of his rights.   At the time, the defendant had not been able to afford an attorney, and he certified in a sworn affidavit that he was not informed that he could obtain a public defender.  The defendant was also permitted to challenge the 1994 conviction, even though over 15 years had passed since the conviction.

Based on these details, the Supreme Court determined that the 1994 conviction should not be considered by the municipal court when sentencing Mr. Patel under new charges of drunk driving.

State v. Walton

On November 1, 2019, the New Jersey Appellate Division decided the case of State v. Walton.  In this case, the Court revisited State v. Patel and considered whether or not it should apply retroactively.  The Court determined that it should, particularly to cases being appealed at the time that State v. Patel was decided.  However, the Court did not address whether it would be applied retroactively in all cases – for instance, whether it would apply to appeals or requests for PCR that had already been decided.

Ultimately, both State v. Patel and State v. Walton suggest that a past conviction, even a very old one, can be challenged.  If you or someone you know has been convicted in the past for DUI or DWI, it may not be too late to challenge that conviction.  A good lawyer may be able to reopen a past case or obtain post-conviction relief so that any future penalties will be decreased or made less severe.

New Jersey Defense Attorney Edward M. Janzekovich Can Help with Post Conviction Relief

Whether you are facing drunk driving charges now, in the future, or have already pled guilty to charges that you are now looking to appeal, a good attorney will be able to advise you of your rights. An experienced drunk driving lawyer can make all the difference.  To speak with an experienced New Jersey DWI/DUI lawyer about your situation, call us at 732-257-1137 contact us online today.  We serve clients throughout the state of New Jersey.

Filed Under: Drunk Driving Tagged With: ,

New Jersey Drunk Driving Attorney Examines Proposed Law Making Ignition Interlock Devices Mandatory for All DWI Convictions

June 28, 2017 by

DWI Convictions

A new bill introduced before the state legislature last year by State Senator Nicholas Scutari may drastically change the way drivers convicted of DUI in the state are convicted.  The proposed changes to the State’s Driving While Intoxicated law, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, seek to lessen some penalties for first time drunk drivers while making others more universal –  such as making Ignition Interlock Devices mandatory for all drivers convicted of DUI/DWI, even first time offenders.

Similar to the other proposed Senate Bill 404, discussed here earlier this year, it is important to recognize that there is no guarantee that this proposed bill will ever pass.  Also like that bill, the goal of Senator Scutari’s introduced legislation is to provide an alternative to drivers convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, showing some added leniency to such drivers while simultaneously making the roads safer.

Which Parts of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 Might Be Affected?

In New Jersey, the legal Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) limit for drunk driving in the state is .08%.  Under current law, someone convicted of DWI for the first time can have their license suspended for either 3 months (if his or her blood alcohol content is between .08% and .099%) or 7 to 12 months (if his or her blood alcohol content is .10% or greater). A judge has a lot of flexibility in deciding how long to suspend a driver’s license in those circumstances.

At the same time, a first time offender who is convicted with a blood alcohol content of .15% or greater must have an ignition interlock device installed on his or her vehicle during the period of license suspension until between 6 months to 1 year following license restoration.  An ignition interlock device is a device put on a car that requires a driver to provide a clean, alcohol breath sample before he or she can start the car.

How Will These Parts of the Law Change If the Proposed Bill is Passed?

Under Senator Scutari’s introduced legislation, a first time drunk driver who is convicted of driving with a BAC of between .08% and .099% will only have his or her license suspended for 30 days – a significant reduction from 3 months.  Similarly, a driver who is convicted of driving with a BAC of between .10% up to just less than .15% will have his or her license suspended for 45 days, while a driver who is convicted of driving with a BAC of .15% or higher will have his or her license suspended for 90 days.

At the same time, the proposed legislation hopes to make installation of an ignition interlock device mandatory for ALL drivers convicted under the DWI law.  The device must remain on the driver’s vehicle for the period of license suspension as well as an additional period of time between 3 months and 18 months after the driver gets his or her driving privileges reinstated.

What These Changes Would Mean if You Are Convicted

Losing one’s driving privileges is often the most severe penalty that first time drunk drivers face, because the penalty often means that a driver also loses his or her ability to go to work or otherwise provide for his or her family.  Reducing the period of license suspension for first time offenders recognizes this reality and tries to address the way the law punishes more than just the drunk driver.

At the same time, recent reports have estimated that ignition interlock devices have prevented more than 39,000 instances of drunk driving in New Jersey since 2010.  Therefore, requiring drivers to install an ignition interlock device attempts to make the roads safer for everyone.  The proposed law would not prevent a driver from being able to use his or her vehicle – for instance, to drive to work or buy groceries if necessary – but it would guarantee that the car could only be operated after a clean, alcohol-free breath sample is provided. 

The largest downside to the proposed law is that New Jersey requires the driver to pay for his or her own ignition interlock device, including the installation.  In addition to the nearly $1000 in fines that first time drunk drivers must already pay, an ignition interlock device could cost $70-150 to install and about $60-80 per month for additional monitoring and calibration.

Regardless of whether or not this bill becomes law, a person charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs should always contact an experienced drunk driving attorney, who will be able to provide the best advice or possibly defend the case and get the charges dismissed completely.

New Jersey Drunk Driving Attorney Edward M. Janzekovich Is Looking Out for You

A charge for driving under the influence of alcohol can carry extremely serious penalties that affect you as well as your family and loved ones.  At the same time, new laws, rules, and regulations take effect all the time. For that reason, it is important to consult a drunk driving lawyer knows what to look for in your specific situation.  If you or someone you know is charged with drunk driving or driving under the influence of any substance in New Jersey, an experienced DWI/DUI attorney will know the best way to help and can make all the difference. To speak with an experienced New Jersey DWI lawyer about your situation, call us at 732-257-1137 or contact us online today. We serve clients throughout the state of New Jersey.

Filed Under: Blood Alcohol Tests, Driving Under the Influence of Drugs, DWI - DUI Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

New Jersey Drunk Driving Attorney Discusses Prom Season, Graduation, Summer, and the Extreme Consequences of Underage Drinking

June 2, 2017 by

New Jersey Drunk Driving AttorneyProm season and graduation season are here and the New Jersey police are taking underage drinking seriously this year. With prom underway, graduation nearing, and the excitement of summer vacation and college freedom looming, it’s not consider the dangers associated with this behavior, drinking alcohol before the age of 21 is illegal in the Garden State. But as with many laws, there will always be those who decide to risk it, and many teens don’t always think before taking every action.

With this in mind, police departments across the state are gearing up to ensure the safety of high school students during these annual occasions. This includes generally being on high alert for young drivers, as well as DWI checkpoints. For example, the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Crash Investigations Unit is setting up DUI/DWI checkpoints at random that will pop up from now through the end of June. Additionally, law enforcement will be on the lookout for underage drinkers at places like the Jersey Shore, which are especially popular amongst teens at this time of year while off from school.

At the same time, we at the Edward M. Janzekovich law blog are also aware of the serious consequences associated with drinking and driving, especially for drivers who are underage. For that reason, we always recommend that anyone who is charged with driving while intoxicated consult with an experienced New Jersey DWI and drug DUI defense attorney, who has the knowledge and motivation to help.

New Jersey’s Zero-Tolerance Policy

New Jersey takes underage drinking very seriously. Indeed, if you are found driving under the influence of alcohol on prom night, you can expect a zero-tolerance policy. In New Jersey, the legal definition of intoxication for an underage driver is a blood alcohol level of.01%. A teen driver can be prosecuted even if his alcohol level is below the .08% legal limit allowed for adult drivers.

Part of the reason for this increased enforcement is because vehicle accidents are the number one cause of death for young people aged 12 to 19. In particular, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, approximately 1,000 youth under age 21 die each year in preventable tragedies while celebrating their high school proms and graduations. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the months of April through June are some of the most dangerous times of the year for teens, with nearly one-third of alcohol-related teen motor vehicle deaths occurring between these months.

Therefore, the State of New Jersey is looking to combat these numbers by escalating police presence of DUI checkpoints from now through the end of June, and until the end of summer at places like the shore.

Legal Consequences of Underage Drinking and Driving

Even if you are underage and it is your first offense, a DWI conviction could mean the loss of your license for a minimum of 30 days and a maximum of 90 days. You may also be sentenced to community service for a minimum of 15 days and a maximum of 30 days. Persons below the age of 21 convicted of DUI in New Jersey will also be required to undertake a highway safety program or pay fees and penalties as prescribed by the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center. Additionally, your car will be impounded, making it difficult to get to school or work. You may also face insurance rate increases and legal fees that cost thousands of dollars to resolve.

Not to mention, a DUI/DWI conviction will go on your record. Unfortunately, many teens don’t grasp the seriousness of this offense. They don’t realize that you may be required to disclose it on college applications, future job applications and even for financial aid requests. A drunk driving conviction could also make you permanently ineligible for certain jobs in the future.

If you decided to drink and drive before the age of 21, it may seem like a small decision at the time, but the consequences of a DUI conviction can last a lifetime.

New Jersey Drunk Driving Lawyer Edward M. Janzekovich Defends Underage Drivers Accused of Driving While Intoxicated

If you, your child, or anyone else has been charged with underage drinking, it is extremely important to contact an experienced DUI/DWI attorney who can answer all your questions and help defend you against potentially life-altering consequences. You do not need to face these battles alone. A knowledgeable drunk driving lawyer can review the evidence against you and present the best case in your defense. A good DUI attorney can make all the difference. To speak with an experienced New Jersey DWI lawyer about your situation, call us at 732-257-1137 or contact us online today. We serve clients throughout the state of New Jersey.

Filed Under: Drunk Driving, New Jersey Attorney, Nre Jersey Drunk Driving Penalties Tagged With: , ,

Drunk Driving Charges and Your Right to Receive Instructions in a Language You Can Understand

December 6, 2016 by

dwi-img

In all states, including New Jersey, if you arrested for driving while intoxicated, the police officer must read a “standard statement” that contains instructions telling the driver that he or she MUST submit to breath testing if there is probable cause to believe that the person was driving under the influence of alcohol. Part of the standard statement – sometimes referred to in New Jersey as Paragraph 36 – is the warning that if you refuse to submit to the breath test and “if a court finds you guilty of the refusal, you will be subject to various penalties, including license revocation of up to 20 years, a fine of up to $2000, installation of an ignition interlock, and referral to an Intoxicated Driver Resource Center. These penalties may be in addition to penalties imposed by the court for any other offense of which you are found guilty.” The entire statement is meant to inform you that there are serious consequences that will occur if you refuse to provide a breath sample. A copy of Paragraph 36, as updated in 2012, can be found at http://njpdresources.com/dui/pdfs/english1.pdf

But what happens if you or someone you know does not speak English? ¿Hablas Español? Nói tiếng Việt? Говорить по-русски? Another language? Regardless of what language you speak, New Jersey law also provides that you have a right to have these instructions provided to you in a language that you can understand. Otherwise, it is possible that your rights are being impermissibly violated.

State v. Rodriguez-Alejo

In State v. Rodriguez-Alejo, a Spanish-speaking man who could barely speak English, and who had only been in the United States for two years and had taken his driving test in Spanish, was pulled over and suspected of drunk driving.  At the police station, the officer attempted to read the standard instructions to the defendant, and the man stated that he did not understand.   Although he tried to follow along with the police officer anyway, who used a combination of words and gestures to provide instructions, the defendant was not able to provide a proper breath sample and was later convicted for refusing to comply with the breath sample requirements.

On appeal, the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division restated that a police officer must read the standard statement to any defendant who is arrested for DWI/DUI, and the defendant must CLEARLY agree to submit to a breathalyzer test. Therefore, the Court held that reading the standard statement to motorists in a language they do not speak is the same thing as not reading the statement at all.

In order to be “informed” of the warnings that are provided in Paragraph 36, the information must be given to the defendant in a language he or she speaks and understands. The same reasoning applies to any instructions that are given to a defendant about how to actually take a breathalyzer test. Based on this holding, the Court decided that the Spanish-speaking defendant could not be convicted for refusing to provide a breath sample.

State v. Shaymardanov

It is important to note, however, that a defendant only needs to understand the instructions being given to him – the instructions do not need to be given in the defendant’s best or native language.

Recently, in the case of State v. Shaymardanov, the Appellate Division revisited State v. Rodriguez-Alejo with regard to a Russian-speaking defendant who was pulled over and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. Although the Court determined that Rodriguez-Alejo was still good law, the Appellate Division upheld the conviction, finding that the driver always appeared to understand the police officer and the police officer had no trouble understanding the defendant.

Instructions Available in Other Languages

Since at least 2010, the State has arranged for certified translated versions of the standard statement to be prepared—in both written and audio form—in the nine foreign languages in which the MVC offers the written driver’s test – Arabic, Chinese (Mandarin), French, Japanese, Korean, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. If you or someone you care about is arrested on suspicion of drunk driving, it is likely that the police will be able to provide you with instructions in a language you can understand. While you should always contact an experienced New Jersey DWI / DUI lawyer / attorney if you are charged, an attorney may be able to help if you were never provided with instructions in a language you could understand.

New Jersey DUI/DWI Attorney Edward M. Janzekovich Will Fight to Make Sure Your Rights Were Protected

If you or someone you know is charged for any crime relating to driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, it is extremely important to contact an experienced DUI/DWI attorney who can explain what rights you have in your specific situation. If you go to court, an experienced lawyer can also make sure you get the best result possible. Having an experienced drunk driving lawyer can make all the difference. To speak with an experienced New Jersey DWI/DUI lawyer about your situation, call us at 732-257-1137 or contact us online today. We serve clients throughout the state of New Jersey.

Filed Under: Drunk Driving, DWI - DUI, DWI & DUI Checkpoints, Nre Jersey Drunk Driving Penalties Tagged With: , , ,

Your Right to an Independent Blood Alcohol Test

December 1, 2016 by

Drunk-Driving-Attorney

In New Jersey, if you are pulled over and the officer suspects you were driving drunk, he or she may use a breathalyzer test to measure your blood alcohol content (BAC), which can be used as evidence against you if you are later charged for DUI/DWI. Police stations across the state use a machine called the Alcotest 7110 MK-IIIC to measure your BAC and determine whether or not you are at or over the legal limit of .08%.

Importantly, many drivers do not know that if you submit to a breathalyzer test, you also have the right to an independent test of your urine, blood, or breath sample. If your BAC results are close to .08%, an independent test can show that the breathalyzer results were inaccurate and you were actually below the legal limit for drunk driving. Similarly, the law requires that you be informed of your right to an independent chemical test, and, if you can prove that the government failed to inform you of this right, you may be able to have the breathalyzer evidence thrown out.

As always, challenging the evidence against you in a DUI/DWI trial can be very complicated, and it is important to retain an experienced drunk driving lawyer if you or a loved one is charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, in order to ensure that the best defense is presented on your behalf.

Your Legal Right to an Independent Breath, Blood, or Urine Test

N.J.S.A. 39:4–50.2 establishes that drunk driving is a quasi-crime, and a driver who is suspected of drunk driving does not have a right to refuse to provide a breath sample (as discussed previously in this blog). At the same time, if a police officer decides a driver must provide a breath sample for the purposes of determining BAC, N.J.S.A. 39:4–50.2 also provides the same driver with the right to have a person or physician of the driver’s own choosing perform an independent breath, urine, and blood test. This protects the driver’s rights and helps to ensure that any BAC test performed by the police is accurate.

Learning About Your Right to an Independent Test

New Jersey law actually states that a defendant must be informed of his or her right to an independent test by the police officer who orders the breath test. Of course, this is limited to situations in which the individual is required to provide a breath sample, and there is no equivalent requirement in the event that BAC is calculated based on a blood sample.

In practice, police officers in most police stations will read a series of pre-printed paragraphs to any driver who is being asked to provide a breath sample. These paragraphs generally include a statement – referred to in many places as “paragraph 36” – that attempts to inform the driver of his or her right to obtain an independent test. The courts have considered this to be sufficient notice under the law.

If no notice is provided to a driver when he or she is asked to provide a breath sample, then an experienced attorney may be able to keep out any BAC evidence obtained by the police officers at the time of trial.

Having an Independent BAC Test Performed

The law does not require a police officer or a police station to have any established procedures to help a driver obtain an independent chemical test – however, the law is clear that police may not interfere with or thwart a suspect drunk driver’s attempt to exercise the right to independent examination.

Therefore, a driver is largely on his or her own with regard to obtain an independent chemical test. He or she may do this by contacting an attorney or family member who can help get an independent test done. In State v. Jalkiewicz, the court ruled that the police fulfilled its duty when it advised the defendant of his right to an independent test and then summoned a taxi cab for the driver.

At the same time, in State v. Bradley and State v. Nicastro, the court ruled that the government actively prevented suspected drunk drivers from exercising their rights to an independent BAC test when the police refused the drivers’ request to be taken to the hospital for an independent test and also refused the drivers’ request to call a taxi to take them to the hospital. In both of these cases, the court determined that the BAC test results taken by the police could not be used in court.

Finally, in State v. Greeley, the Supreme Court determined that if the police refuse a suspected drunk driver’s request for a taxi, there must be some means for the person to obtain an independent chemical test, such as being released into the custody of a family member or friend.

As in Bradley and Nicastro, it is extremely important that you contact an experienced attorney whenever you are charged or suspected of a DUI or DWI. An attorney can help provide the best defense in your case and ensure that your rights have not be violated.

New Jersey DUI/DWI Attorney Edward M. Janzekovich Will Fight for Your Rights

If you or someone you know is charged or suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, it is extremely important to contact an experienced DUI/DWI attorney who can explain what rights you have in your specific situation.  If you go to court, an experienced lawyer can also make sure you get the best result possible and can make all the difference.  To speak with an experienced New Jersey DWI/DUI lawyer bout your situation, call us at 732-257-1137 contact us online today. We serve clients throughout the state of New Jersey.

Filed Under: Drunk Driving, DWI - DUI, DWI & DUI Checkpoints, New Jersey Attorney Tagged With: , , ,

Drunk Driving Discovery

October 26, 2012 by

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE — DISCOVERY — DRUNK DRIVING

14-2-8052 State v. Carrero, App. Div. (Sabatino, J.A.D.) (28 pp.) We review discovery orders separately issued in these two DWI cases authorizing defense counsel and/or defense experts to inspect and photograph rooms within the police stations where their respective clients provided breath samples on the Alcotest device in order to verify that the tests were properly administered. In Carrero, such access was granted to help ascertain whether devices emitting radio frequency interference (RFI) had been located in the station within 100 feet of the testing area. In Baluski, such access was granted to help ascertain whether the interior layout of the station physically prevented defendant from being observed for the required 20 minutes before testing. We reverse the discovery orders because neither defendant has shown a reasonable justification to conduct the requested inspection. We conclude that Carrero’s request is insufficient in light of the Supreme Court’s binding legal and evidentiary determination in State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54, 89, cert. denied, 555 U.S. 825, 129 S.Ct. 158, 172 L.Ed.2d 41 (2008), that the Alcotest is designed in a manner that is “well shielded from the impact of any potential RFI,” and also in light of the state’s countervailing security interests disfavoring routine civilian access to the interior of a police station.

We conclude that Baluski’s request is likewise insufficient because he has presented no affirmative basis to believe that an officer failed to observe him for the 20 pretesting minutes required by Chun, 194 N.J. at 79, and also in light of the state’s countervailing security interests.

Source – NJSBA Daily Briefing

Filed Under: Criminal Law, Drunk Driving, DWI - DUI Tagged With: , , ,

AUTOMOBILES — DRUNK DRIVING — LICENSE SUSPENSION

October 25, 2012 by

05-2-8058 Foehner v. New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, App. Div. (per curiam) (5 pp.) Appellant Robert Foehner appeals from the Motor Vehicle Commission’s (MVC) denial of an administrative hearing before imposing a 3,650-day suspension of his driver’s license due to a fourth conviction for an alcohol-related offense. The MVC asserts that appellant was convicted of his first DUI on May 28, 1986, his second on November 2, 1990, his third on December 19, 1992, and the fourth on September 21, 2011. The first three offenses occurred in New Jersey; the fourth occurred in Arizona.

On appeal, appellant notes that the driving history provided with the notice of suspension contained only one prior alcohol-related motor vehicle offense dating back to December 19, 1992. He argues that, as a matter of procedural due process, he is entitled to an agency hearing to evaluate the legal and factual bases for the imposition of a 3,650-day suspension. The appellate panel disagrees and affirms the suspension. Appellant does not contest that he has been convicted of DUI on four occasions, nor does he raise any legal issues to be addressed by the MVC. Rather, appellant merely contends that the MVC did not provide him with proof of all four of his DUI convictions when it initially issued the suspension notice. Since no disputed issues of material fact existed, and no legal issues were raised, no evidentiary hearing was required before the mandatory suspension was imposed.

Source – NJSBA Daily Briefing

Filed Under: Criminal Law, Driver's License Suspension, Drunk Driving Tagged With: , , , , , ,

DRUNK DRIVING — SPEEDY TRIAL

September 21, 2012 by

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE — DRUNK DRIVING — SPEEDY TRIAL

14-2-7618 State v. Vanderkooy, App. Div. (18 pp.) Defendant challenges his convictions for driving while intoxicated, refusal to take a breathalyzer test, and speeding in the Law Division at a trial de novo based on the record developed in the municipal court.

The panel affirms, finding that:

  1. defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial where both parties are responsible for various delays, whether due to scheduling conflicts, discovery delays, or requesting a Frye hearing, the amount of time elapsed is mostly due to the Frye hearing, and defendant did not prove prejudice sufficient to warrant a speedy trial violation;
  2. defendant was not denied the requested discovery regarding the radar gun or the State’s radar gun expert;
  3. the State presented sufficient evidence of the scientific reliability of the Stalker Dual SL radar device used by police;
  4. there was sufficient evidence in the record of the operator’s training and testing of the radar device to admit the radar reading into evidence;
  5. defendant cannot establish that the municipal court judge or trial judge erred in finding the police officer’s testimony credible; and
  6. based on the officer’s observations and defendant’s conduct, it is clear that probable cause to arrest existed and the State established beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of DWI.

Source – NJSBA Daily Briefing

Filed Under: Criminal Law, DWI - DUI Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Disclaimer : The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.

Law Office of Edward M. Janzekovich
540 Old Bridge Turnpike
South River, NJ 08882
Phone: 732-257-1137 Fax: 732-791-1437
E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2015 Law Office of Edward M. Janzekovich.
All Rights Reserved.