employed part-time by Cabana and other companies to obtain the necessary building and zoning permits. The applications filed by defendant Stearns were replete with misstatements. As a result, plaintiffs were ultimately compelled to remove the pool at their own expense, since its existence on their property eventuated a violation of the zoning ordinance. At trial the judge granted defendant Stearns’ motion for judgment, holding that he did not owe any duty to plaintiffs and that the representations made by him in applications for the building and zoning permits were not relied upon by plaintiffs. 135 N. J. Super, at 376. The Appellate Division, citing Wyt 13 Cal. 3d 177, 118 Cal. Rptr. 129, 529 P. 2d 553 (Sup. Ct. 1974); 17 Cal. 3d 425, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14, 551 P. 2d 334 (Sup. Ct. 1976) (<HOLDING>). In support of his position, defendant cites
holding that a defendant had no intent to communicate his threats to a victim where he made them for the purpose of obtaining a diagnosis and treatment from mental health professionals holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction holding that threats made in the presence of a law enforcement officer were sufficient evidence to indicate an intent to communicate because the victim had a protective order against the defendant and the defendant had just violated that order holding psychotherapist liable for negligent failure to warn potential victim or her parents that the violenceprone patient undergoing psychiatric treatment by defendant had made threats against the victim whom he subsequently murdered holding that the victim impact and victim vulnerability aggravators were not overbroad and explaining that though the concepts of victim impact and victim vulnerability may well be relevant in every case evidence of victim vulnerability and victim impact in a particular case is inherently individualized