Alan S. Pralgever

Alan S. Pralgever: Attorney with Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP AV stamp icon
Attorney Awards

Biography

Partner, Litigation Department.

Mr. Pralgever concentrates his practice in business and commercial litigation, with a special focus in corporate, partnership and LLC split-ups and dissolutions, condominium matters and representation of associations, estate litigation, employment issues, real estate and intellectual property disputes. He has handled a wide variety of complex commercial and corporate litigation in state and federal courts, as well as arbitrations in both New Jersey and New York. He is certified by the New Jersey Superior Court as a civil mediator.

Mr. Pralgever’s experience includes the representation of clients in a variety of areas. These include: corporate and partnership disputes and buy-outs; oppressed shareholder litigation; matrimonial matters, especially those involving the valuation of business assets; restrictive covenant and intellectual property matters; doctors and medical practice litigation; consumer fraud actions; defense of class actions; real estate, lease, ground lease and condominium advice and litigation; employment discrimination matters; wills and estate litigation; and corporate lending and warranty disputes. Mr. Pralgever has also long represented owners, general contractors, developers, and public institutions such as school boards.

Other:- Certified Civil Mediator, New Jersey Superior Court- Martindale-Hubbell® Peer Review Rated AV® Preeminent (a trademark of Internet Brands, Inc.) (1996 – present); based on this AV rating, listed in "New Jersey's Top Rated Lawyers" in the areas of Alternative Dispute Resolution, Construction Law and Labor & Employment (2013, 2014) (and advertising supplement published in Inside New Jersey in the Star-Ledger and New Jersey Law Journal); based on this AV rating, listed in "New York Area's Top Rated Lawyers" (an advertising supplement published in New York Magazine).

Areas of Practice (24)

  • Business Valuation
  • Business Law
  • Civil Litigation
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Business Litigation
  • Construction
  • Employment Law
  • Health Care
  • Complex Litigation
  • Federal Civil Litigation
  • Federal Litigation
  • Business Arbitration
  • Business Estate Planning
  • Business Planning
  • Buy-Sell Agreements
  • Buying and Selling of Businesses
  • Closely Held Business Estate Planning
  • Closely Held Business Law
  • Complex Business Litigation
  • Entrepreneurial Business Law
  • Family Business Law
  • Family Business Mediation
  • Family Business Successions
  • Litigation

Education & Credentials

Contact Information:
973-577-1818  Phone
973-577-1819  Fax
www.greenbaumlaw.com/attorneys-Alan-Pralgever.html
University Attended:
Lafayette College, B.A., cum laude, 1973; Columbia University, M.A., 1974
Law School Attended:
Antioch School of Law, J.D., 1979
Year of First Admission:
1980
Admission:
1986, U.S. District Court, Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third and Fourth Circuits; 1986, New York; 1980, New Jersey; 1980, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey; 2012, U.S. Supreme Court
Memberships:
- Member, New Jersey State Bar Association
- Member, Association of the Federal Bar of New Jersey
- Member, Marie L. Garibaldi Inn of Court for Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Member, Association for Corporate Growth New Jersey
- Member, American Bar Association
- Member, New York State Bar Association.
Languages:
French and Hebrew
Birth Information:
Newark, New Jersey, June 9, 1952
Reported Cases:

- Stilianessis v. Dionne, DMD (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division 2018), Mr. Pralgever represented the plaintiff in this dental malpractice case, securing a victory on appeal after an appellate panel considered what constitutes a net opinion in expert reports.

- Parker v. Parker 2016 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2720 (Ch. Div. 2016), Mr. Pralgever represented the plaintiff in a litigation involving New Jersey’s Oppressed Shareholder Statute. The matter was successfully tried before the Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division. The case involved two brothers splitting up two corporations in which both were 50% shareholders. The two businesses operated jointly on a single piece of property, which was controlled by a limited partnership also owned jointly and equally by the brothers, however the brothers operated their respective companies independently. Certain overhead expenses and the handling of other responsibilities were intertwined. There was no functional operating agreement in this scenario. The plaintiff suffered the consequences of his brother’s business losses, which amounted to as much as $500,000 per year, and filed suit. His claims relied on the New Jersey Oppressed Shareholder Statute. The Court ruled that the defendant had “oppressed” the plaintiff, breached his fiduciary duty and acted in bad faith. The case appears to be precedential on the issue of losing money as an indicia of shareholder oppression.

- Balsamides v. Perle 160 N.J. 352 (1999), a notable and nationally recognized 1999 New Jersey Supreme Court case in which Mr. Pralgever won a unanimous decision regarding the use of a "marketability discount" in the forced sale of a close corporation. This is the leading valuation case for partnership or corporate dissolutions in New Jersey, also used as a valuation case in divorce proceedings in the state

- Reilley v. Ceridian 664 F.3d 38 (3d Cir 2011). This Third Circuit putative Class Action concerning Identity Theft Protection clarified the issue of standing in data breach cases. The case involves the “increased risk of identity theft resulting from a security breach of unencrypted material from a laptop computer.” The court held standing must be established by “actual injury,” not the mere threat of future injury. However, this took place prior to the recent Equifax case.

- Conchita Smith v. Medpointe Healthcare, Inc., et al. A 2007 N.J. District Court and Third Circuit case in which Mr. Pralgever represented Medpointe, a pharmaceutical company, against a plaintiff alleging discrimination under the Family and Medical Leave Act, age, sex, and COBRA laws. The employee was terminated for missing eleven months of work in an eighteen month period in violation of the Medpointe’s published attendance policy. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to show any evidence of “retaliation” or that the employer’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination was a “pretext for discrimination.”

- Palisadium Management Corp. v. Carlyle Towers Condominium, Inc., (Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County 2014). Mr. Pralgever won a precedent setting breach of contract action for Carlyle Towers, a large condominium association in Cliffside Park, NJ. The Carlyle had a 75 year contract with a health club, the Palisadium, which claimed the Carlyle owed $2.5 million in fees. The contract with the Palisadium, a health club and separate entity, had been established by the developer when he built Carlyle Towers. In granting the Carlyle’s motion for summary judgment, the Superior Court dismissed plaintiff’s case in its entirety because the judge determined the 75 year contract was “unconscionable and illegal” pursuant to certain sections of the Condominium Law, N.J.S.A. 46:8B-32 because the contracting condominium board was not comprised of more than 50% of condominium owners, as oppose to the developer. Therefore, the court declared the agreement void ab initio (void from the outset) regardless of the ensuing course of conduct of the parties.

- GF Princeton v. The Herring Land Group. This precedent setting “Ground Lease” case involved the total denial of ground rent due under a 60 year Ground Lease due during a five (5) year rent renewal process due to the lessor’s refusal to abide by the contractual appraisal process. The case was tried in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and affirmed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 2013.

- Metem Corporation v. Stephen Chen, a three and a half month 2003 trial 2003 in New Jersey Superior Court which concerned the client's right to repurchase a 60% interest in a subsidiary/sister corporation. Mr. Pralgever relied on the New Jersey Oppressed Minority Shareholder Statute to successful demonstrate oppression of the minority shareholders, with the client winning the right to buy back the company, together with the technology sold by the parent to the subsidiary, despite the fact that the parent corporation's owners only controlled 40% of the subsidiary.

- Other New Jersey Supreme Court cases include Barry v. Arrow Pontiac, a consumer fraud case concerning false advertising practices by automobile dealers involving commercial speech, and Friedman v. Friedman, a case involving conflicts of interest.

- A. Pflugh, Inc. v. Aspar Construction Company, argued by Mr. Pralgever in the Third Circuit and United States District Court of New Jersey, which concerned the necessity to secure a supersedeas bond in a construction litigation matter involving the United States government.

- Appearing before the Court of Appeals in New York, Mr. Pralgever represented Turner Construction Company in a contract dispute over the New York corporate headquarters of Goldman Sachs and confirmation of an arbitration award.

ISLN:
904328651

Peer Reviews

5.0/5.0
A Martindale-Hubbell Peer Rating reflects a combination of achieving a Very High General Ethical Standards rating and a Legal Ability numerical rating.

*Peer Reviews provided before April 15, 2008 are not displayed.

Documents (2)

Documents by this lawyer on Martindale.com

Roseland, New Jersey

Contact Alan S. Pralgever

Required Fields

Required Fields


By clicking on the "Submit" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Martindale and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.