Late last week, the Supreme Court granted certification in Goldfarb v. Solimine. The opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at 460 N.J. Super. 22 (App. Div. 2019), was discussed here. The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Among other issues, is plaintiff’s promissory estoppel claim barred because there was no written contract to provide services as an investment adviser?” The Appellate Division upheld a jury verdict for plaintiff as to liability but remanded for a new trial on damages, before a different judge, due to what the Appellate Division held was “judge-shopping.” Now the Supreme Court will address the matter.
The Supreme Court Takes Up Goldfarb v. Solimine
