James J. Ferrelli
How Judge Ferrelli rules, drawn from 14 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Ferrelli
James J. Ferrelli is a judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey in the Burlington Vicinage. He joined the bench in January 2018 and serves in the Civil Part as the vicinage's designated Complex Business Litigation Program judge.
Judge Ferrelli's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Ferrelli's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026).
How Judge Ferrelli decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Atlantic Concrete Cutting's coverage dispute, Ferrelli considered Atlantic's sophistication and its substantial involvement in the project when evaluating its insurance claim.
“Atlantic is a sophisticated party that has performed sufficient work and involvement in the project.”
In Phillips v. Puglia Excavating, Ferrelli precluded claims against Arthur Puglia's estate because the Phillipses could have raised them in earlier proceedings.
“The Phillipses could have asserted the claims that are now being asserted against the Estate of Arthur Puglia in prior proceedings, but they chose not to do so, resulting in their preclusion.”
In K.W. v. S.W., Ferrelli found the plaintiff's compensation testimony incredible and concluded that he had kept his salary and bonus artificially low to gain an advantage in that support litigation.
“Indeed, [p]laintiff's testimony regarding his salary and bonuses was so incredible that it leads the [c]ourt to the conclusion that [p]laintiff has intentionally given himself [an] artificially low bonus and virtually no increase in his salary for purposes of obtaining an advantage over [d]efendant in this litigation.”
Procedural preferences
In 422 West Fourth Street v. Allstates Title Service, Ferrelli requested supplemental briefing on the New Jersey Tax Sale Law after the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. He then ruled on the title commitment dispute in light of that law.
“After the parties moved for summary judgment, the trial court requested supplemental briefing on the applicability of the New Jersey Tax Sale Law (TSL) and related precedent.”
In K.W. v. S.W., Ferrelli issued a sixty-three-page decision after the parties' support dispute; the appellate court affirmed substantially for the reasons he gave.
“we affirm the order substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge James J. Ferrelli in his comprehensive sixty-three-page decision.”
In Newland v. Newland, Ferrelli found exceptional circumstances under Rule 4:50-1(f) only as to specified equitable distribution issues and limited reformation of the agreement to those issues.
“the court finds that Wife satisfied her burden of proof in showing exceptional circumstances under Rule 4:50-1(f) limited to the referenced equitable distribution issues such that it is appropriate to reform the parties' Agreement solely as to those noted issues.”
Cautions
In K.W. v. S.W., Ferrelli awarded the defendant $102,911.28 in counsel fees after finding the plaintiff had pursued a motion in bad faith through prolonged litigation and a plenary hearing.
“plaintiff 'filed and relentlessly pursued the October 2014 [m]otion in bad faith throughout the proceedings leading up to and through the [p]lenary [h]earing in this matter' ... 'disingenuous conduct calculated to mislead the [c]ourt and prolong the litigation.'”
In 422 West Fourth Street v. Allstates Title Service, Ferrelli granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion after finding the buyer had failed to intervene in the pending tax foreclosure as New Jersey law required for a third party investor. That failure voided the purchase contract underlying its title claim.
“[P]laintiff had violated the [Tax Sale Law], specifically N.J.S.A. 54:5-89.1, by failing to intervene as a third-party investor in the underlying tax foreclosure action before attempting to buy the [property].”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The trial judge denied plaintiffs' and Travelers's motions, but granted Zurich's, AGLIC['s] ... motions for summary judgment in a May 26, 2023 order.”
“The trial judge denied plaintiffs' and Travelers's motions [for summary judgment] ... in a May 26, 2023 order.”
“[T]he judge granted Zurich's and AGLIC's motions for summary judgment in a May 26, 2023 order... 'Atlantic is a sophisticated party that has performed sufficient work and involvement in the project.'”
“After initially reserving decision, the judge granted Alliant's motion for summary judgment in a June 1, 2023 order... 'no facts of record from which a jury could find that Alliant affirmatively, or by its inaction, caused Atlantic to be [dis]enrolled from the CCIP.'”
“the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants and dismissed plaintiff's claims with prejudice ... [because] plaintiff had violated the [Tax Sale Law], specifically N.J.S.A. 54:5-89.1, by failing to intervene as a third-party investor in the underlying tax foreclosure action.”
“Reading the statute and the title commitment together, the trial court found that '[Chicago Title's] responsibility would have only attached,' had certain events taken place: first, court approval of the transaction pursuant to statute; and second, the parties to the purported sale had satisfied all the conditions precedent carefully spelled out in the commitment for title insurance.”
“We are satisfied, as was the trial court, that a review of the competent evidence ... demonstrated that a jury could reasonably conclude that DiMeglio was negligent by attempting an illegal U-turn from the left lane of the highway, without signaling, and stopping suddenly in the left lane... Summary judgment was properly denied.”
“DiMeglio argues the court erred in denying her in limine motion to redact a portion of Dr. Goldstein's de bene esse deposition memorialized in the March 8, 2023 order... we conclude DiMeglio has not met her burden of demonstrating an abuse of discretion.”
“The record supports the trial court's assessment that none of counsel's comments were inflammatory; rather, the remarks were within the bounds of appropriate advocacy based on the evidence presented.”
“The trial court rejected these arguments, finding the jury's credibility assessment was entitled to substantial deference, and concluding that ample evidence existed to find DiMeglio negligent.”
“In denying DiMeglio's motion to reduce the jury's award or for a new trial, the trial court found that: '[P]laintiff sustained serious, permanent injuries. The treatment was difficult and long. Eventually, [plaintiff] had to have surgery.'”
“Following the jury's verdict, the trial court granted plaintiff's application to apply the offer of judgment rule, imposing on DiMeglio monetary consequences of her non-acceptance of the offer under the rule, and awarding attorney's fees, eight percent pre-judgment interest ... and litigation expenses.”
“Judge Ferrelli concluded that the claims against the Estate of Arthur Puglia were also barred by the entire controversy doctrine. The judge stated, '[t]he Phillipses could have asserted the claims that are now being asserted against the Estate of Arthur Puglia in prior proceedings, but they chose not to do so, resulting in their preclusion.'”
“The judge denied plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to substitute RAP Farm Enterprises, LLC (RAP), for Arthur Phillips... Judge Ferrelli concluded that privity existed between the Phillipses and RAP, and the claims plaintiff sought to assert in the amended complaint were not sustainable as a matter of law.”
“Based upon the evidence, the judge ordered plaintiff to pay the top-of-the-guidelines amount of child support of $251 per week for both children plus an enhancement.”
“Judge Ferrelli found plaintiff 'filed and relentlessly pursued the October 2014 [m]otion in bad faith throughout the proceedings leading up to and through the [p]lenary [h]earing in this matter.'”
“On November 30, 2018, Judge Ferrelli enforced the JOD and compelled plaintiff to satisfy his alimony arrears. Further, the judge found defendant demonstrated 'a prima facie case of overreaching conduct' by plaintiff.”
“[T]he court finds that Wife satisfied her burden of proof in showing exceptional circumstances under Rule 4:50-1(f) limited to the referenced equitable distribution issues such that it is appropriate to reform the parties' Agreement solely as to those noted issues.”
“Judge Ferrelli denied without prejudice plaintiff's request to modify or terminate his alimony obligation and found: 'the facts presented to the court in this proceeding established that it would be inequitable at this time to terminate or modify Husband's alimony obligation, because his alimony is Wife's sole source of support and has been for over 20 years.'”
Draft for Judge Ferrelli with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Ferrelli, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Ferrelli's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace