Commercial Litigation Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law Litigation - Environmental Litigation - Real Estate
William D. Grand
Recognized in Best Lawyers since 2009 Awarded Practice Areas
Biography
Mr. Grand concentrates his practice in all phases of complex commercial litigation, including trials. He has litigated a broad range of commercial disputes. His experience encompasses legal malpractice defense, suits alleging the theft of trade secrets and violations of non-competition clauses, eminent domain proceedings, and cases involving environmental contamination and the breach of real estate and other contracts. Mr. Grand has successfully litigated cases in the Chancery and Law Divisions of the state courts, as well as in the federal courts of both New Jersey and New York.
Mr. Grand also has over three decades of experience in the area of attorney ethics, loss prevention and legal malpractice defense. He has defended attorneys in legal malpractice cases and in attorney ethics proceedings. He counsels attorneys on how to avoid legal malpractice claims, and is available to serve as an expert witness in both ethics and commercial litigation.
Overview
- University of Michigan, J.D., graduated 1972
- University of Rochester, A.B. with honors, graduated 1969
- New York, NY - 1978
- New Jersey, NJ - 1972
- American Bar Association - Member, Section of Litigation
- ohn J. Gibbons Inn of Court for Federal Trial Practice and Intellectual Property - Former Master
- New Jersey - Intermediate Appellate Courts
- New York, NY - 1978
- New Jersey, NJ - 1972
- American Bar Association - Member, Section of Litigation
- ohn J. Gibbons Inn of Court for Federal Trial Practice and Intellectual Property - Former Master
- University of Michigan, J.D., graduated 1972
- University of Rochester, A.B. with honors, graduated 1969
- New Jersey - Intermediate Appellate Courts
Client Testimonials
Awards & Focus
Named "Lawyer of the Year" by Best Lawyers® for:
- Litigation - Real Estate, Woodbridge (2022)
- Litigation - Real Estate, Woodbridge (2018)
- Litigation - Environmental, Woodbridge (2017)
- Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law, Woodbridge (2013)
Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® 2026 for work in:
- Commercial Litigation
- Eminent Domain and Condemnation Law
- Litigation - Environmental
- Litigation - Real Estate
Additional Areas of Practice:
- Ethics and Professional Responsibility Law
- Legal Malpractice Law - Defendants
- Legal Malpractice Law - Plaintiffs
- Professional Malpractice Law
- Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants
- Professional Malpractice Law - Plaintiffs
Special Focus:
- Litigation
News & Media
Case History
Cases
- Harrington, et al. v. State of New Jersey, Divisions of Taxation and Lottery
Harrington, et al. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, et al., Docket No. 009529-2011, 000622-2011, 007022-2011, 007023-2011, 007024-2011, 007025-2011, 007027-2011, 007052-2011 (Consolidated), Tax Ct. (Hon. Patrick DeAlmeida, P.J.T.C.)
The firm represented the plaintiff taxpayers in the above consolidated lawsuits. On November 3, 2017, a Judgment was entered whereby the Court approved a settlement that ended the lawsuit. The Plaintiffs recovered a total of $13,000,410. as a result of the lawsuit and the settlement.
In March 2009, the plaintiffs shared the prize in a Mega Millions lottery contest. At the date of the contest, the New Jersey Gross Income Tax law specifically exempted lottery winnings from New Jersey taxes. However, in June 2009, the New Jersey Legislature amended the Gross Income Tax law and, for the first time, imposed the New Jersey tax upon lottery winnings in excess of $10,000. The Legislature declared that the new tax would be applied retroactively to January 1, which brought Plaintiffs’ winnings under the umbrella of the new tax.
Plaintiffs filed tax returns for the tax year 2009 and, to avoid potential penalties and interest, paid the gross income tax. Plaintiffs then filed amended tax returns, excluding the lottery winnings from income, and they sought a refund of the taxes already paid. The Division of Taxation denied the refund requests.
The Plaintiffs then filed the lawsuit, seeking a refund, arguing that the retroactive application of the tax law to their lottery winnings violated due process, the manifest injustice doctrine, the square corners doctrine and was a breach of their contract with the Division of Lottery. The court granted partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs based upon the square corners doctrine, ruling that the Plaintiffs were entitled to a refund of the taxes paid on their lottery winnings, with interest.
Prior to a trial on Plaintiffs’ manifest injustice claim, the parties settled the lawsuit, whereby the parties agreed that the Plaintiffs were entitled to the full refund with interest, totaling $13,000,410. The lawsuit was litigated by William D. Grand, a partner at the firm, and Steven Gladis, an associate.
The firm represented the plaintiff taxpayers in the above consolidated lawsuits. On November 3, 2017, a Judgment was entered whereby the Court approved a settlement that ended the lawsuit. The Plaintiffs recovered a total of $13,000,410. as a result of the lawsuit and the settlement.
In March 2009, the plaintiffs shared the prize in a Mega Millions lottery contest. At the date of the contest, the New Jersey Gross Income Tax law specifically exempted lottery winnings from New Jersey taxes. However, in June 2009, the New Jersey Legislature amended the Gross Income Tax law and, for the first time, imposed the New Jersey tax upon lottery winnings in excess of $10,000. The Legislature declared that the new tax would be applied retroactively to January 1, which brought Plaintiffs’ winnings under the umbrella of the new tax.
Plaintiffs filed tax returns for the tax year 2009 and, to avoid potential penalties and interest, paid the gross income tax. Plaintiffs then filed amended tax returns, excluding the lottery winnings from income, and they sought a refund of the taxes already paid. The Division of Taxation denied the refund requests.
The Plaintiffs then filed the lawsuit, seeking a refund, arguing that the retroactive application of the tax law to their lottery winnings violated due process, the manifest injustice doctrine, the square corners doctrine and was a breach of their contract with the Division of Lottery. The court granted partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs based upon the square corners doctrine, ruling that the Plaintiffs were entitled to a refund of the taxes paid on their lottery winnings, with interest.
Prior to a trial on Plaintiffs’ manifest injustice claim, the parties settled the lawsuit, whereby the parties agreed that the Plaintiffs were entitled to the full refund with interest, totaling $13,000,410. The lawsuit was litigated by William D. Grand, a partner at the firm, and Steven Gladis, an associate.
- The Geon Company v. Cary Compounds
Multi-national corporation brought an action against a New Jersey company for damages for alleged misappropriation of its formulas and trade secrets. Grand obtained a no cause judgment after six weeks of trial.
- G & W Laboratories v. Able Laboratories
Pharmaceutical manufacturer sued another pharmaceutical company for alleged theft of formulas and trade secrets. Grand defended the Complaint and plaintiff dropped its case after five weeks of trial.
- Middlesex County Utilities Authority v. Edgeboro Landfill
Grand defended landfill owner in eminent domain action. After approximately 40 days of hearings, a settlement was reached that resulted in a payment of $40 million to Grand’s client. The Authority’s good faith settlement offer prior to the hearings was $3.5 million.
- Sgro v. Getty Petroleum Corp.
In this case, reported at 854 F. Supp. 1164 (D.N.J. 1994), the owner of a gas station property sued Getty alleging that Getty was obligated to remove underground storage tanks from his property. Grand successfully defended the action, resulting in a judgment for the defendant.
Your browser is not fully compatible with our automatic printer friendly formatting.
Please use the print button to print this profile page.