ACADEMY HILL, INC. VS. CITY OF LAMBERTVILLE (L-0273-18, HUNTERDON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4674-18
ACADEMY HILL, INC.
and MERRICK WILSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CITY OF LAMBERTVILLE,
CITY COUNCIL 1 OF THE
CITY OF LAMBERTVILLE,
PLANNING BOARD OF THE
CITY OF LAMBERTVILLE,
and DAVID DELVECCHIO,
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF
LAMBERTVILLE,
Defendants-Respondents.
_____________________________
Submitted September 21, 2020 – Decided April 20, 2021
Before Judges Gooden Brown and DeAlmeida.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Hunterdon County, Docket No. L-0273-18.
1
Improperly pled as Counsel.
Carter, Van Rensselaer and Caldwell, attorneys for
appellants (William J. Caldwell, on the brief)
Sheak & Korzun, PC, attorneys for respondents
(Timothy J. Korzun, Deborah I. Hollander, and Eugene
Y. Song, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiffs Academy Hill Inc. (Academy Hill), a commercial real estate
developer, and Merrick Wilson, its owner and principal, appeal from the May
22, 2019 Law Division order granting summary judgment dismissal of their
prerogative writ (PW) complaint against defendants City of Lambertville (City),
City Council of Lambertville (City Council), Planning Board of the City of
Lambertville (Planning Board), and David DelVecchio, in his official capacity
as the former mayor of the City.
The parties have a history of contentious interactions and litigation
spanning two decades pertaining to a tract of land plaintiffs owned in
Lambertville. At every turn, plaintiffs sought to invalidate any action taken by
defendants during that period that adversely affected their ability to develop the
property on the ground that DelVecchio had a vitiating conflict of interest that
disqualified him from serving on the Planning Board or as Mayor based on his
employment with a real estate developer. However, the PW action at issue in
this appeal specifically challenges the 2018 designation of plaintiffs' property
A-4674-18
2
as an area in need of redevelopment (AINR). For the reasons that follow, we
affirm.
I.
We recite the facts from evidence submitted by the parties in support of,
and in opposition to, the summary judgment motion, "giv[ing] the benefit of all
favorable inferences to plaintiffs." Angland v. Mountain Creek Resort, Inc., 213
N.J. 573, 577 (2013) (citing Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 142 N.J. 520, 523
(1995)). Academy Hill "and a prior affiliated corporation" acquired
approximately twenty acres of land in Lambertville (the subject tract) "between
. . . 1986 and 1992" to "develop[] . . . residential housing." Initially, the tract
consisted entirely of undeveloped land, except for the Lambertville High School,
a structure that had been in use since 1858. After the school "was vacated in
1959," the "building was used periodically for limited manufacturing . . . until
1992 when a fire caused significant damage." A period of disuse led to the
building's ultimate demolition "in October 2012." However, "the demolition did
not remove the former [h]igh [s]chool in its entirety" as "the former foundations
remain[ed] on the property."
When Academy Hill first acquired the subject tract, the area was zoned
"R-3 Planned Residential Development, which permitted numerous usages
A-4674-18
3
including higher density housing." In 1998, Academy Hill "submitted a
subdivision application" to the Planning Board "seeking approval" to build
"[s]ixty-[s]ix . . . housing units" on the tract. While the application was pending,
in consultation with the Planning Board, the City Council adopted Ordinance
No. 98-18, which "eliminated the R-3 Planning Residential District, and
significantly decreased the housing density permitted within the [s]ubject
[t]ract."
In response, on December 3, 1998, Academy Hill filed an action in lieu of
prerogative writ against defendants (the 1998 PW action), seeking to invalidate
Ordinance No. 98-18. Other aggrieved parties also challenged the newly
adopted zoning ordinance in a separate action. Following protracted litigation,
the parties entered into a settlement agreement sometime in 2001 (the 2001
settlement agreement). The 2001 settlement agreement provided that the City
would adopt an ordinance creating "a new zoning district, Residential Option 2
Overlay District, . . . exclusively" for the subject tract, "which included a
minimum tract size of [t]wenty . . . acres, and a maximum density of 2.26 units
per gross acre, . . . allow[ing] for [forty-six] housing units." Pursuant to the
agreement, the new zoning district would "permit the development of the
[subject tract] in a manner consistent with the City's land use objectives and
A-4674-18
4
policies and the intentions of . . . [p]laintiffs . . . for the development of the
[tract,]" and would "provide [p]laintiffs . . . with a reasonable development
opportunity for the [tract], so as to amicably resolve the zoning dispute between
the [p]arties."
Notwithstanding the terms of the settlement agreement, in his certification
opposing summary judgment, Wilson asserted that DelVecchio and his minions
thwarted all of plaintiffs' efforts to develop the subject tract because of
DelVecchio's employment with Joseph Jingoli & Sons (JJS), "a direct business
competitor of [Academy Hill]." Wilson stated that DelVecchio "disguis[ed] his
relationship" on his financial disclosure forms "by referring to his employer as
'JJS' instead of its legal name," and that "[a]n internet search of 'JJS' does not
return a link to Joseph Jingoli & Sons, but rather mostly sandwich shops."
According to Wilson, DelVecchio's employment with JJS created a "potential
conflict of interest" that has "unreasonably impaired and precluded [plaintiffs']
development . . . of the [s]ubject [t]ract."
To support his assertion, Wilson recited a series of events beginning with
an encounter with DelVecchio after the 2001 settlement agreement was reached
during which DelVecchio "personally approached . . . Wilson . . . and threatened
that he would do everything he could to see that . . . Academy Hill . . . would
A-4674-18
5
never develop the . . . [s]ubject [t]ract." Disregarding the threat, Wilson
"submitted a subdivision application for the . . . [s]ubject [t]ract in 2003."
However, according to Wilson, before the application could be processed,
DelVecchio "unreasonably" imposed a requirement that the former Lambertville
High School "be renovated and retained in accordance with the City's 'historic
buildings requirements'" despite the City's "[c]onstruction [o]fficer . . .
declar[ing the building] an imminent hazard in need of demolition ten . . . years
earlier."
Wilson certified that to avoid "additional protracted litigation," he decided
"to forego building on the [s]ubject [t]ract . . . and instead . . . sell it subject to
subdivision approval." However, those efforts were also stymied by DelVecchio
"arguably in furtherance of his conflict of interest." To that end, Wilson asserted
that in 2011, when he submitted various subdivision applications as required
under contingent sales agreements to sell the subject tract to "nationally
recognized" real estate developers, DelVecchio "unlawfully directed the
[c]onstruction [o]fficial[] to issue summons/complaints [against Wilson]
regarding the condition of the former . . . [h]igh [s]chool, solely in a further on-
going effort to impede the subdivision application."
A-4674-18
6
Additionally, according to Wilson, when the Planning Board, "of which
DelVecchio [was] a statutory member, . . . reviewed the subdivision application
for completeness," the application "was rejected on numerous [arbitrary]
grounds," as "another potential manifestation of DelVecchio's conflict of
interest." Specifically, Wilson disputed the Planning Board's determination that
the application was "incomplete" because plaintiffs failed to "prove[] that the
[s]ubject [t]ract [met] the [t]wenty . . . acre minimum tract requirement for [the]
Residential Option 2 Overlay District" adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-15
pursuant to the 2001 settlement agreement.
In response, in May 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion in aid of litigants' rights
under the 1998 PW action docket number, seeking to enforce the 2001
settlement agreement. On June 20, 2013, the trial court denied plaintiffs'
motion, finding that "[n]one of the[] deficiencies" cited by the Planning Board
"that rendered [plaintiffs' subdivision] application incomplete" "relate[d] to
[d]efendants' requirements pursuant to the [2001 settlement a]greement."
Instead, the court found that "[d]efendants ha[d] complied with the terms of the
[settlement a]greement" because the settlement agreement "specifie[d] that the
Planning Board [was] not required to approve [p]laintiffs' application, and that
a denial w[ould] not be deemed a breach." Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
A-4674-18
7
from the June 20, 2013 order, which was administratively dismissed for failure
to prosecute.
On August 28, 2013, plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendants in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging violations
of federal and state laws based on the purported breach of the 2001 settlement
agreement, and seeking to enforce the agreement as had been attempted
unsuccessfully in state court (the 2013 federal action). On November 3, 2015,
the 2013 federal action was "administratively terminated pending the parties'
settlement discussions" and subject to "re-opening[] . . . if settlement discussions
fail[ed]."
The order terminating the 2013 federal action was predicated on the
parties' representations to the court that the City Council had "directed by
resolution" that the "Planning Board conduct a preliminary investigation as to
whether the area known as the '[f]ormer Lambertville High School,'" which
"encompass[ed] the [subject tract]," was "in need of redevelopment based on the
criteria set forth in [N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 to -49] (the 'Local Redevelopment and
Housing Law' [LRHL])."2 As a result of the ensuing preliminary investigation,
2
"Under the LRHL, a municipality is authorized to designate a 'redevelopment
area,' also referred to as an '[AINR],' if the area meets certain conditions and
certain procedures are followed." Borough of Glassboro v. Grossman, 457 N.J.
A-4674-18
8
in October 2015, upon the Planning Board's recommendation, the City Council
had "adopted two resolutions" designating "the [s]ite as 'an [AINR]'" and
directing "that a Redevelopment Plan . . . be prepared for the [s]ite." Next, the
parties anticipated "the creation of the Redevelopment Plan for the [s]ite," and
ultimate adoption of an enabling "ordinance" by the governing body. There is
no indication in the record that the 2013 federal action was ever reopened
following its dismissal.
Notwithstanding the disposition of the 2013 federal action, Wilson
asserted that DelVecchio "unlawfully prevent[ed Academy Hill] from
proceeding in its subdivision [application]." According to Wilson, despite
DelVecchio "knowing that the 2001 settlement agreement contemplated and
required connection to the municipal sewer system," sometime in 2015,
DelVecchio "caused the tract to be removed from Lambertville's Sewer Service
Area" while "leaving every other adjoining property within the Sewer Service
Area." "Plaintiff[s were] compelled . . . to contest the removal which took over
two years and cost in excess of [$10,000] to remedy."
Super. 416, 423-24 (App. Div. 2019) (quoting N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5 to -6).
"Once an area is designated a 'redevelopment area,' a municipality must adopt a
'redevelopment plan' before going forward." Id. at 424 (quoting N.J.S.A.
40A:12A-7).
A-4674-18
9
Wilson continued that "[t]he most recent manifestation of DelVecchio's
ongoing conflict of interest involve[d] the proposal by Lambertville for a
Redevelopment Designation Area with the Power of Condemnation"
encompassing the subject tract. To that end, on May 2, 2018, in Resolution No.
78-2018, the City Council ordered the Planning Board "to conduct a preliminary
investigation" to determine whether parcels encompassing the subject tract (the
study area)3 were "an [AINR] according to the criterion set forth in N.J.S.A.
40A:12A-5" of the LRHL. When the resolution was read into the record at the
May 2 public meeting, DelVecchio explained that the difference between this
resolution and the one adopted in 2015 in connection with the 2013 federal
action pertained to the inclusion of one lot and the omission of another.
Following the completion of a preliminary investigation that was
memorialized in a twenty-seven-page report dated June 8, 2018, and after
conducting a public hearing, the Planning Board recommended by resolution
that the study area be designated an AINR with "the power of eminent domain
3
The study area consisted of Block 1073, lots 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 32, 33,
and 33.01; Block 1090, lots 4 and 5; and Block 1091, lots 1 and 1.01. Plaintiffs
owned Block 1073, lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 33 and 33.01; Block 1090, lots 4 and 5;
and Block 1091, lots 1 and 1.01.
A-4674-18
10
('Condemnation Redevelopment Area') . . . in accordance with the [LRHL]." 4
On June 19, 2018, during a regularly scheduled session, the City Council
"accepted the Planning Board's recommendation" and the AINR designation was
adopted by Resolution No. 100-2018.5 Subsequently, the City Council adopted
the redevelopment plan proposed by the Planning Board to effectuate the AINR
designation in Ordinance No. 22-2018.
During the June 19 public session, DelVecchio informed the attendees that
the redevelopment designation was required for the municipality to comply with
its obligations under the Supreme Court's Mount Laurel decisions.6 Previously,
4
"[O]nce a redevelopment plan is adopted, the municipality is empowered,
among other things, to . . . '[a]cquire, by condemnation, any land or building
which is necessary for the redevelopment project, pursuant to . . . a
Condemnation Redevelopment Area.'" Grossman, 457 N.J. Super. at 424
(quoting N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-8(c)).
5
In his certification, Wilson stated that on February 22, 2017 and April 6, 2018,
plaintiffs purchased three additional lots, totaling 6.43 acres, which lots were
"included in Lambertville's 'Redevelopment District'" as of "June 16, 2018" and
thereby "subject to condemnation." Because "[t]hese lots were never previously
included in any designated [AINR]" and "[t]he designation only occurred after
the lots were acquired," Wilson asserted that "such designation [was] a farce"
that was "fatally inflected by DelVecchio's conflict of interest" and "intended
only to unlawfully preclude [p]laintiffs from developing their properties for
low/moderate income housing."
6
In S. Burlington Cnty. NAACP v. Twp. of Mount Laurel (Mount Laurel I), 67
N.J. 151 (1975) and S. Burlington Cnty. NAACP v. Twp. of Mount Laurel
(Mount Laurel II), 92 N.J. 158 (1983), the New Jersey Supreme Court
A-4674-18
11
the City had filed a Mount Laurel declaratory judgment action in the Law
Division and had reached a settlement with the Fair Share Housing Center
(FSHC) that was pending a fairness hearing to "approve its plan for the provision
of low- and moderate-income housing in the City." In addition to memorializing
the AINR designation area to meet the City's Mount Laurel obligations,
Resolution No. 100-2018 provided that "notice of th[e] designation [would] be
served upon[] each owner of property within the redevelopment area" so that
"affected property owners shall have [forty-five] days . . . to challenge the
redevelopment designation" or be "preclude[d] . . . [from] later raising such
challenge."
On July 31, 2018, within the forty-five-day deadline, plaintiffs filed the
PW action that is the subject of this appeal (the 2018 PW action), seeking a
declaratory judgment and injunctive relief in connection with the City Council's
AINR designation embodied in Resolution No. 100-2018. Specifically, the PW
complaint sought to (1) declare the FSHC settlement agreement and the 2018
determined that municipalities must provide a variety of housing choices,
including low-and moderate-income housing. In re Declaratory Judgment
Actions Filed by Various Muns., 446 N.J. Super. 259, 268-69 (2016). N.J.S.A.
52:27D-325 authorizes municipalities to "acquire . . . through the exercise of
eminent domain, real property . . . which the municipal governing body
determines necessary . . . for the construction . . . of low and moderate income
housing . . . ."
A-4674-18
12
AINR designation "null and void due to conflict of interest and failure to adhere
to the standards of [the LRHL]," (2) "permanently restrain[] and enjoin[]
DelVecchio from participating in or taking any official action in respect to any
aspect of [p]laintiffs' interactions with the City . . . or the . . . Planning Board,"
(4) stay the fairness hearing for the FSHC settlement agreement then scheduled
for September 2018 "pending the outcome" of the 2018 PW action, and (5)
"compel[] DelVecchio to disgorge and return to the City . . . any and all
compensation of any means whatsoever received due to conflict of interest."
In his supporting certification, Wilson stated that the City's redevelopment
plan for the AINR "will not lead to a realistic opportunity for the provision of
low[-] and moderate[-]income housing in Lambertville as Lambertville lack[ed]
the financial ability to raise the funds necessary to pay for a condemnation let
alone the subsequent costs of developing low and moderate income housing."
Wilson further stated that DelVecchio "has and continues to financially benefit
personally and professionally from [his] employment which provided incentives
to him not available to the general public." Wilson asserted that "an average
person[, when] presented with the facts set forth in [his] certification[, would]
reasonably believe that DelVecchio's employment continuously created a
conflict of interest[,] especially as DelVecchio . . . also received compensation
A-4674-18
13
from the City . . . for the faithful execution of his duties as Mayor." Wilson
urged that "[a]ny and all municipal action tainted by the conflict of interest of
DelVecchio, in violation of N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.5,[7] must be declared to be void
ab initio." Defendants filed a contesting answer to the 2018 PW action on
September 5, 2018.
The following day, September 6, 2018, plaintiffs filed an order to show
cause (OTSC) to intervene in the City's Mount Laurel litigation that was
awaiting a fairness hearing on the FSHC settlement agreement. In their OTSC,
plaintiffs sought an order granting them intervenor status, adjourning the
fairness hearing, and enforcing a Mount Laurel settlement agreement allegedly
reached with the City in December 2017 that purportedly allowed plaintiffs to
develop affordable and market-rate housing on the subject tract. Plaintiffs
alleged that the City reneged on the December 2017 settlement agreement and
subsequently adopted Resolution No. 100-2018, designating the subject tract an
AINR subject to condemnation with the City presumably selecting a developer
other than Academy Hill.
7
N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.5 is a code of ethics adopted by the Legislature that
"prohibits local government officers and employees from engaging in seven
specific forms of conduct." Mondsini v. Local Fin. Bd., 458 N.J. Super. 290,
299 (App. Div. 2019).
A-4674-18
14
Plaintiffs' requests to be granted intervenor status and to adjourn the
fairness hearing were denied.8 The fairness hearing proceeded on September
13, 2018, with the court approving the FSHC settlement agreement as fair and
reasonable on the ground that "the interests of [the region's] low[-] and
moderate[-]income households will be advanced by its terms." 9 Subsequently,
the court also denied plaintiffs' request "to enforce [the] alleged . . . settlement
agreement" with the City, finding that although a mediation session was held
between the parties on December 13, 2017,10 there was "no writing . . .
memorializing the alleged settlement," "no meeting of the minds," no
"agreement . . . reached, tentative or otherwise," and no "ratifi[cation] by the
[m]unicipality's [g]overning [b]ody."
8
The trial court noted that plaintiffs' application to intervene was made well
past the February 10, 2016 deadline for intervention in any Mount Laurel matter
in the vicinage. However, the court "permitted [plaintiffs] to participate in the
hearing as 'interested parties.'"
9
The court's approval of the FSHC settlement agreement was contingent on the
City's fulfillment of certain conditions. The court "retain[ed] jurisdiction . . . to
ascertain and gauge the City's progress" in complying with the specified
conditions.
10
The court noted that the fact that additional mediation sessions were held on
February 28 and April 19, 2018, further "belied" plaintiffs' claim that an
agreement was reached on December 13, 2017.
A-4674-18
15
Five days after the fairness hearing, on September 18, 2018, Judge
Michael F. O'Neill scheduled a case management conference (CMC) in the 2018
PW action for November 16, 2018, to discuss the scope of discovery and
establish deadlines. However, prior to the CMC, on October 2, 2018, plaintiffs
subpoenaed documents and noticed depositions for Joseph J. Jingoli, Jr. and
Michael D. Jingoli, officers of JJS and DelVecchio's employer, contrary to Rule
4:69-4 providing that the scope of discovery in PW actions shall be determined
by the court at the CMC. In response, over plaintiffs' objection, defendants
moved to quash the subpoenas.
On December 18, 2018, Judge O'Neill granted defendants' motion to
quash, "without prejudice to plaintiff[s'] right to seek discovery . . . at a later
date." The judge found that plaintiffs did not comply with Rule 4:69-4, which
also required them to certify that the official transcripts of all relevant
proceedings had been ordered. Further, based on the judge's "review of the
record and of proceedings in the related Mount Laurel litigation," the judge
determined that "the scope of any discovery to be permitted . . . remain[ed] . . .
uncertain" and "should be deferred to a later date."
Shortly thereafter, on December 31, 2018, DelVecchio's term as Mayor of
Lambertville ended. DelVecchio continued his employment with JJS as
A-4674-18
16
Director of Development. However, other than owning his personal residence
in Lambertville, neither DelVecchio nor JJS owns any property in Lambertville
or have any agreements to develop property in Lambertville.
While the 2018 PW action was pending, on January 11, 2019, plaintiffs
filed a nearly identical declaratory judgment complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey (the 2019 federal action), seeking,
among other things, a declaration that Ordinance No. 22-2018 and "all actions
in which DelVecchio participated" were "null and void" due to DelVecchio's
"conflict of interest" in violation of N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.5 and the City's failure
to adhere to the standards of the LRHL. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
"for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction." However, the record does not
reveal the status of the 2019 federal action.
On April 12, 2019, defendants moved for summary judgment in the 2018
PW action. Plaintiffs opposed defendants' motion and, on April 30, 2019, cross-
moved for reconsideration of the December 18, 2018 order granting defendants'
motion to quash plaintiffs' subpoena. On May 22, 2019, Judge O'Neill denied
plaintiffs' cross-motion and granted summary judgment in favor of defendants,
dismissing plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice.
A-4674-18
17
In an oral decision, after recounting the extensive procedural history of
the case, Judge O'Neill addressed threshold matters, including defendants'
argument that res judicata barred most of plaintiffs' claims as well as plaintiffs'
non-compliance with Rule 4:69-4's requirement to provide the record of all
relevant proceedings. Judge O'Neill found that because several issues had been
"litigated" or "abandoned," the "doctrine[] of res judicata appl[ied] to preclude
many of the [allegations] . . . plaintiff[s] advance[d] in [the] complaint." See
Innes v. Carrascosa, 391 N.J. Super. 453, 489 (App. Div. 2007) ("[Res judicata]
provides that 'a cause of action between parties that has been finally determined
on the merits by a tribunal having jurisdiction cannot be relitigated by those
parties . . . in a new proceeding.'" (quoting Velasquez v. Franz, 123 N.J. 498,
505 (1991))). Additionally, because "transcripts were not produced" in
compliance with Rule 4:69-4, Judge O'Neill determined that dismissal of
"plaintiff[s'] complaint on that basis alone" would be justified. See R. 4:69-4
(providing that "[t]he filing of [a PW] complaint shall be accompanied by a
certification that all necessary transcripts of local agency proceedings in the
cause have been ordered"). Nonetheless, the judge proceeded to address
plaintiffs' claims substantively.
A-4674-18
18
Turning to the merits, Judge O'Neill posited that "the issue [was] whether
or not there [was] . . . any evidence that would lead a person of ordinary standing
to perceive that . . . DelVecchio in his position [as Mayor had] . . . a conflict or
a potential conflict [of interest]" to justify invalidating "all of the decisions that
. . . DelVecchio was involved in." In that regard, the judge observed that under
Kane Properties, LLC v. City of Hoboken, 214 N.J. 199 (2013), the appearance
of impropriety standard was "[t]he applicable standard in determining the
existence of a conflict of interest among municipal officials" such as
DelVecchio. In Kane, the Supreme Court held "that 'it is not necessary to prove
actual prejudice . . .' to establish an appearance of impropriety; an 'objectively
reasonable' belief that the proceedings were unfair is sufficient." Id. at 222
(quoting DeNike v. Cupo, 196 N.J. 502, 517 (2008)). However, an appearance
of impropriety "must be 'something more than a fanciful possibility' and 'must
have some reasonable basis.'" Ibid. (quoting Higgins v. Advisory Comm. on
Prof. Ethics of Supreme Court, 73 N.J. 123, 129 (1977)).
Judge O'Neill also examined the four provisions of "the local . . .
government ethics law [LGEL]" plaintiffs asserted DelVecchio violated to
support their conflict-of-interest claim. Specifically, under N.J.S.A. 40A:9-
22.5, local government officers shall comply with the following provisions:
A-4674-18
19
a. No local government officer . . . shall have an interest
in a business organization or engage in any business,
transaction, or professional activity, which is in
substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his
duties in the public interest;
....
c. No local government officer . . . shall use or attempt
to use his official position to secure unwarranted
privileges or advantages for himself or others;
d. No local government officer . . . shall act in his
official capacity in any matter where he . . . or a
business organization in which he has an interest, has a
direct or indirect financial or personal involvement that
might reasonably be expected to impair his objectivity
or independence of judgment;
e. No local government officer . . . shall undertake any
employment or service, whether compensated or not,
which might reasonably be expected to prejudice his
independence of judgment in the exercise of his official
duties[.]
[N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.5(a), (c), (d), (e).]
In rejecting plaintiffs' contention that DelVecchio violated subsection (a),
the judge found "no evidence that . . . DelVecchio ha[d] an interest in an
organization . . . which [was] in . . . substantial conflict" with the proper
discharge of his official duties. Moreover, the judge stated it was "speculative,
at best, to suggest that JJS may be engaged in something that would give rise to
A-4674-18
20
an allegation of a substantial conflict in the future." Regarding subsection (c),
Judge O'Neill found
no evidence . . . that . . . DelVecchio was in a position
to use his position to secure [unwarranted] privileges or
advantages for himself or others. He doesn't have any
ownership interest in JJS. And . . . there are a lot of
things that have got to happen before . . . there would
even be the possibility that JJS would be the beneficiary
of some of these decisions that were made by the
governing bod[y] in Lambertville. [11]
Turning to subsections (d) and (e), the judge noted that both subsections
"use the present tense . . . in talking about an organization in which he has an
interest or has a direct or indirect financial or personal involvement" which
might reasonably be expected to impair his objectivity or independence of
judgment. However, "there [was] no evidence of a violation of [those
subsections] by . . . DelVecchio, or even a hint of it." Judge O'Neill
acknowledged plaintiffs' concessions that DelVecchio was "no longer in office"
and JJS "ha[d] no present financial interest in either the land, which was the
subject of the AINR designation, nor in any contracts actually to be awarded."
The judge also observed that because "[t]he eminent domain process cannot
11
In that regard, as suggested by defendants, the judge pointed out that "this
designation of the [AINR] and the subsequent adoption of the redevelopment
plan [were] just two small steps . . . in a multi-step process that could take years
to complete," long past DelVecchio's tenure as Mayor.
A-4674-18
21
begin until after the formal redevelopment plan is adopted and approved, and
. . . there [were] other prerequisites that . . . ha[d] yet to occur[,]" there was
"nothing in this process which occurred while [DelVecchio] was mayor and on
the Planning Board [that] could even remotely benefit the ex-mayor or his
employer, JJS."
For the same reasons, the judge determined there was no evidence of a
violation of the Municipal Land Use Law's prohibition against planning board
members like DelVecchio "act[ing] in any matter in which he has, either directly
or indirectly, any personal or financial interest." See N.J.S.A. 40:55D-69. The
judge noted "[i]t [was] not disputed that [DelVecchio] would have had to recuse
himself from any resolution awarding a contract to [JJS], but that [did] not mean
that [DelVecchio] had to recuse himself from any land use ordinance simply
because he worked for a construction company." 12
After analyzing the governing principles, Judge O'Neill concluded:
I . . . don't find that there [are] any competent facts in
the record, nor do I think there is likely to be any
developed through deposition discovery, that's going to
suggest that . . . a reasonable person . . . would likely
find that . . . DelVecchio, performing these activities
while . . . he was the Mayor [and] on the Planning Board
somehow was in a conflict or a potential conflict
12
Defendants pointed out without contradiction "that there have been no formal
ethics charges that have ever been filed against . . . DelVecchio."
A-4674-18
22
situation. . . . [T]here [are] no facts . . . to support it.
There is no evidence to suggest that [JJS] had . . . [or]
is ever going to have a say in the redevelopment.
It's . . . just too many dots to be connected. And it's too
remote, it's too speculative.
And . . . it would be a pure fishing expedition to
permit . . . plaintiff[s] to engage in discovery in an
attempt to develop something that has been
suspected . . . for years, and even alleged to be the case
for years, and yet . . . there [are] no real facts to support
it at the moment.
And . . . so many things have got to take place
before [JJS] would ever be the potential beneficiary of
these actions that . . . I just can't find that it would be
appropriate to allow . . . plaintiff[s] to engage in what I
would have to describe as a fishing expedition in an
effort to develop some facts that might support a later
claim.
....
[A]t the time [DelVecchio] made these decisions
and participated in these decisions he wasn't in a
situation where he had contradictory desires tugging at
him. It might be . . . years before there is even going to
be a redevelopment of this property. And there is no
reason to assume that [JJS] is going to be the [company
that] is going to end up being the redeveloper.
The judge also rejected plaintiffs' reliance on DelVecchio's use of the JJS
"abbreviation" on "his annual financial disclosure form," as well as the fact that
JJS "is in the same business" as plaintiffs to support his allegations that a
potential conflict-of-interest existed. The judge explained that "[e]ven . . .
A-4674-18
23
accept[ing] both of those allegations as true, . . . [as] required . . . on a motion
for summary judgment, . . . they don't give rise to a material disputed issue of
fact that would create a fact issue or call for there to be discovery . . . on these
allegations of potential conflict of interest" because it is "far too speculative."
The judge entered memorializing orders and this appeal followed.13
On appeal, plaintiffs raise the following two points for our consideration:
POINT I
THE QUASHING OF PLAINTIFF[S'] DEPOSITION
SUBPOENAS PRECLUDED PLAINTIFF[S] FROM
INVESTIGATING FURTHER DETAILS
REGARDING DEFENDANT DELVECCHIO'S
CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
POINT II
THE COURT BELOW ERRED BY FAILING TO
CONSTRUE THE FACTS MOST FAVORABLY TO
THE PLAINTIFF[S] WHICH SHOULD HAVE
PRECLUDED THE COURT BELOW FROM
GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
II.
We review a grant of summary judgment applying the same standard used
by the trial court. Steinberg v. Sahara Sam's Oasis, LLC, 226 N.J. 344, 366
(2016). That standard is well-settled.
13
On December 30, 2019, we denied plaintiffs' motion to supplement the record.
A-4674-18
24
[I]f the evidence of record—the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and affidavits—"together
with all legitimate inferences therefrom favoring the
non-moving party, would require submission of the
issue to the trier of fact," then the trial court must deny
the motion. On the other hand, when no genuine issue
of material fact is at issue and the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, summary
judgment must be granted.
[Ibid. (citations omitted) (quoting R. 4:46-2(c)).]
If there is no genuine issue of material fact, we must "decide whether the
trial court correctly interpreted the law." DepoLink Court Reporting & Litig.
Support Servs. v. Rochman, 430 N.J. Super. 325, 333 (App. Div. 2013) (quoting
Massachi v. AHL Servs., Inc., 396 N.J. Super. 486, 494 (App. Div. 2007)). We
review issues of law de novo and accord no deference to the trial judge's legal
conclusions. Nicholas v. Mynster, 213 N.J. 463, 478 (2013).
Turning to the substantive principles of law pertinent to this appeal,
"because of their peculiar knowledge of local conditions," "the law presumes
that boards of adjustment and municipal governing bodies will act fairly and
with proper motives and for valid reasons" in making determinations in these
types of cases. Kramer v. Bd. of Adjustment, Sea Girt, 45 N.J. 268, 296 (1965).
Accordingly, "[r]edevelopment designations, like all municipal actions, are
vested with a presumption of validity" and "the burden is on the objector to
A-4674-18
25
overcome the presumption of validity by demonstrating that the redevelopment
designation is not supported by substantial evidence, but rather is the result of
arbitrary or capricious conduct on the part of the municipal authorities."
Concerned Citizens of Princeton, Inc. v. Mayor & Council of Borough of
Princeton, 370 N.J. Super. 429, 452-53 (App. Div. 2004). "Absent such a
demonstration on the part of the objector, sufficient to raise a material factual
dispute, summary judgment must be granted in favor of defendants." Id. at 453.
So long as the redevelopment designation pursuant to the LRHL "falls
within the broad terms of the definition laid down by the Legislature, the courts
will not interfere in the absence of palpable abuse of discretion or bad faith. "
Levin v. Twp. Comm. of Bridgewater, 57 N.J. 506, 539 (1971). Under the
LRHL, "[a] delineated area may be determined to be in need of redevelopment
if, after investigation, notice and hearing . . . , the governing body of the
municipality by resolution concludes that within the delineated area any of
[eight enumerated] conditions is found[. . . .]" N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5.
Here, the City Council's adoption of Ordinance No. 22-2018, effectuating
the AINR designation, was informed by the Planning Board's preliminary
investigation and comprehensive June 8, 2018 report, as well as public hearings
culminating in the determination that the study area encompassing the subject
A-4674-18
26
tract met the criteria in N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5. Specifically, the report concluded
that the study area satisfied the criteria in N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5(a) to (f)14 "due
to persistent site conditions that exhibit[ed] obsolescence and dilapidation that
[were] detrimental to the public's safety and welfare."
Despite characterizing the study's findings as "bogus" and "false,"
plaintiffs assert that "[t]he issue is not the myriad of . . . paperwork generated
as the result of Lambertville's pursuit of designating [p]laintiff[s'] properties as
an [AINR] with the power of condemnation," but that the "studies, proposals
and adopted actions have been irrevocably tainted by DelVecchio's potential
conflict of interest." We disagree and affirm for the reasons articulated in Judge
O'Neill's well-reasoned oral decision granting summary judgment to defendants
on the ground that plaintiffs failed to provide any competent proof of a potential
conflict of interest on the part of DelVecchio. 15 We add the following comments
for elucidation.
14
Generally, subsections (a) to (f) permit a municipality to find that the physical
condition of the properties at issue has reached a level of deterioration, disuse,
and disrepair that is detrimental to public health, safety and welfare, threatens
to degrade surrounding areas or the community in general, and is unlikely to be
remedied by private investment. N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5(a) to (f).
15
We also agree with the judge that plaintiffs' failure to adhere to Rule 4:69-4,
requiring PW complaints to "be accompanied by a certification that all necessary
transcripts of local agency proceedings in the cause have been ordered ,"
A-4674-18
27
Common law principles dictate that "[a] public official is disqualified
from participating in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings in which the official
has a conflicting interest that may interfere with the impartial performance of
his duties as a member of the public body." Grabowsky v. Twp. of Montclair,
221 N.J. 536, 551-52 (2015) (alteration in original) (quoting Wyzykowski v.
Rizas, 132 N.J. 509, 523 (1993)). A challenge to a public official acting in his
official capacity "on conflict-of-interest grounds [also] implicates the provisions
of two statutes that codified [these] common law principles," the Municipal
Land Use Law, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 to -163 (MLUL), that provides, among other
things, "that no member of a municipal planning board may 'act on any matter
in which he has, either directly or indirectly, any personal or financial interest ,'"
and the LGEL, N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.1 to -22.25, which created a statutory code of
ethics for local government officials. Id. at 552-53 (quoting N.J.S.A. 40:55D-
23(b)); see also Mondsini, 458 N.J. Super. at 299 ("This code of ethics prohibits
local government officers . . . from engaging in seven specific forms of conduct."
(citing N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.5(a) and -22.5 (c) to (h))).
constituted a proper basis to dismiss the complaint on procedural grounds.
Plaintiffs neither provided the requisite certification nor included a copy of the
Planning Board's report embodying the preliminary investigation in the exhibits.
A-4674-18
28
"A court's determination 'whether a particular interest is sufficient to
disqualify is necessarily a factual one and depends upon the circumstances of
the particular case.'" Grabowsky, 221 N.J. at 554 (quoting Van Itallie v.
Borough of Franklin Lakes, 28 N.J. 258, 268 (1958)). Indeed, in Grabowsky,
our Supreme Court explained
[i]t is essential that municipal offices be filled by
individuals who are thoroughly familiar with local
communities and concerns. It is also imperative that
local officials comply with the Legislature's direction
and refrain from participating in a determination that
raises a conflict. Thus, the nature of an official's
interest must be carefully evaluated based on the
circumstances of the specific case.
[221 N.J. at 554 (citing Van Itallie, 28 N.J. at 268).]
"To determine whether there is a disqualifying interest, a court need not
ascertain whether a public official has acted dishonestly or has sought to further
a personal or financial interest; the decisive factor is 'whether there is a potential
for conflict.'" Ibid. (quoting Wyzykowski, 132 N.J. at 524). However, "[t]he
ethics rules must be applied with caution, as '[l]ocal governments would be
seriously handicapped if every possible interest, no matter how remote and
speculative, would serve as a disqualification of an official." Ibid. (quoting
Wyzykowski, 132 N.J. at 523). Thus, "[t]he question will always be whether
the circumstances could reasonably be interpreted to show that they had the
A-4674-18
29
likely capacity to tempt the official to depart from his sworn public duty." Van
Itallie, 28 N.J. at 268. However, not every personal interest has that capacity
because "[t]here cannot be a conflict of interest where there do not exist,
realistically, contradictory desires tugging the official in opposite directions."
Wyzykowski, 132 N.J. at 524 (alteration in original) (quoting LaRue v. Twp of
E. Brunswick, 68 N.J. Super. 435, 448 (App. Div. 1961)).
In Kane, the Court further clarified the manner in which a conflict-of-
interest claim should be evaluated in relation "to municipal officials acting in a
quasi-judicial capacity," as here. 214 N.J. at 220. The Court "made clear that
'it is not necessary to prove actual prejudice . . . .'" Id. at 222. Instead, all that
is required is "an appearance of impropriety" and "an 'objectively reasonable'
belief that the proceedings were unfair is sufficient" to invalidate the municipal
action. Ibid. (quoting DeNike, 196 N.J. at 517). However, because "the
touchstone is the objectively reasonable belief, . . . it remains true that an
appearance of impropriety must be 'something more than a fanciful possibility'
and 'must have some reasonable basis[. . . .]'" Ibid. (quoting Higgins, 73 N.J. at
129).
Applying these standards, we agree with Judge O'Neill that "an
objectively reasonable, fully informed member of the public" would not
A-4674-18
30
perceive that DelVecchio's participation called into question the integrity of the
proceedings. Id. at 223. On the contrary, plaintiffs' claim that DelVecchio's
mere employment with JJS disqualified him from every action he took as Mayor
and member of the Planning Board in relation to the AINR designation is
speculative and nothing "more than a fanciful possibility" with no "reasonable
basis." Id. at 222 (quoting Higgins, 73 N.J. at 129). Indeed,
[l]ocal governments would be seriously handicapped if
every possible interest, no matter how remote and
speculative, would serve as a disqualification of an
official. If this were so, it would discourage capable
men and women from holding public office. Of course,
courts should scrutinize the circumstances with great
care and should condemn anything which indicates the
likelihood of corruption or favoritism. But in doing so
they must also be mindful that to abrogate a municipal
action at the suggestion that some remote and nebulous
interest is present, would be to unjustifiably deprive a
municipality in many important instances of the
services of its duly elected or appointed officials.
[Van Itallie, 28 N.J. at 269.]
Further, plaintiffs' attempt to invalidate every action taken by DelVecchio
for two decades that adversely affected the subject tract is time-barred by the
forty-five-day time limit for PW actions prescribed in Rule 4:69-6(a).
Moreover, the interest of justice does not warrant an enlargement of time. See
R. 4:69-6(c); see also Casser v. Twp. of Knowlton, 441 N.J. Super. 353, 367
A-4674-18
31
(App. Div. 2015) ("Allowing [a plaintiff to challenge land use approvals three
years later] . . . would defeat 'the important policy of repose expressed in the
forty-five day' time limit set by Rule 4:69-6(a)." (quoting Rocky Hill Citizens
for Responsible Growth v. Planning Bd. of Rocky Hill, 406 N.J. Super. 384, 398
(App. Div. 2009))); Tri-State Ship Repair & Dry Dock Co. v. City of Perth
Amboy, 349 N.J. Super. 418, 423 (App. Div. 2002) ("Because of the importance
of stability and finality to public actions, courts do not routinely grant an
enlargement of time to file an action in lieu of prerogative writs.").
Equally unavailing is plaintiffs' contention that by granting summary
judgment in favor of defendants, Judge O'Neill "ignored the twenty[-]year
history of the interactions between [p]laintiff[s] and the City . . . which provided
context to [p]laintiff[s'] claim of conflict of interest." On the contrary, the judge
acknowledged the "long litany of prior failed litigation between . . . plaintiff[s]
and the City and its officers" going "all the way back to . . . 1998," but
determined that "this presumed conflict [was] based on plaintiff[s'] speculative
beliefs" and "suspicion that [DelVecchio] was engaged in . . . this untoward
behavior in an effort to . . . deny [plaintiffs] the opportunity to develop" the
subject tract. According to the judge, plaintiffs' allegations "don't have any . . .
factual substance to them."
A-4674-18
32
Essentially, plaintiffs argue that their allegations alone are sufficient to
defeat summary judgment, but they are not. "To defeat a motion for summary
judgment, the opponent must 'come forward with evidence' that creates a
genuine issue of material fact." Cortez v. Gindhart, 435 N.J. Super. 589, 605
(App. Div. 2014) (quoting Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of N.J. v. State, 425
N.J. Super. 1, 32 (App. Div. 2012)). "Bare conclusory assertions, without
factual support in the record, will not defeat a meritorious application for
summary judgment." Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield, 425 N.J. Super. at 32
(citing Brae Asset Fund, L.P. v. Newman, 327 N.J. Super. 129, 134 (App. Div.
1999)); accord Puder v. Buechel, 183 N.J. 428, 440-41 (2005) ("[C]onclusory
and self-serving assertions by one of the parties are insufficient to overcome the
[summary judgment] motion."); Oakley v. Wianecki, 345 N.J. Super. 194, 201
(App. Div. 2001) ("unsubstantiated inferences and feelings" are insufficient to
defeat a motion for summary judgment).
Turning to the denial of plaintiffs' cross-motion for reconsideration,
plaintiffs contend that the trial court "did not consider the relevant legal standard
when considering the motion to quash" and argue that "[w]ithout the ability to
search for the truth through depositions [p]laintiff[s] [were] improperly denied
A-4674-18
33
the ability to establish additional facts in support" of their conflict-of-interest
allegations. We disagree.
Rule 4:49-2 provides that "a motion for . . . reconsideration seeking to
alter or amend a judgment or order shall be served not later than [twenty] days
after service of the judgment or order upon all parties by the party obtaining it."
Reconsideration is not appropriate when a party is merely "dissatisfied with [the
court's] decision," or "wishes to reargue a motion[.]" Palombi v. Palombi, 414
N.J. Super. 274, 288 (App. Div. 2010). Reconsideration is only appropriate
when "the [c]ourt has expressed its decision based upon a palpably incorrect or
irrational basis," or "it is obvious that the [c]ourt either did not consider, or failed
to appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence." Capital Fin.
Co. of Del. Valley, Inc. v. Asterbadi, 398 N.J. Super. 299, 310 (App. Div. 2008)
(quoting D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401 (Ch. Div. 1990)).
"[T]he decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration rests within
the sound discretion of the trial court." Pitney Bowes Bank, Inc. v. ABC Caging
Fulfillment, 440 N.J. Super. 378, 382 (App. Div. 2015). As a result, "a trial
court's reconsideration decision will be left undisturbed unless it represents a
clear abuse of discretion[,]" which only occurs "when a decision is 'made
without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies,
A-4674-18
34
or rested on an impermissible basis.'" Ibid. (quoting Flagg v. Essex Cnty.
Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561, 571 (2002)).
Here, preliminarily, we agree with defendants that plaintiffs' motion was
filed "late" and showed "[n]o good cause" for the untimely filing. Plaintiffs did
not file their cross-motion for reconsideration until April 30, 2019. Because the
order granting defendants' motion to quash the subpoenas was entered on
December 18, 2018, plaintiffs' reconsideration motion was filed approximately
three months after the twenty-day filing deadline.
In any event, we discern no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion.
Once Judge O'Neill granted defendants' summary judgment motion, he denied
plaintiffs' reconsideration motion "by necessity" as the disposition of the
summary judgment motion and attendant dismissal of plaintiffs' PW complaint
with prejudice rendered plaintiffs' reconsideration motion moot . "While we
agree that ordinarily summary judgment dismissing the complaint should not be
granted until the plaintiff has had a reasonable opportunity for discovery, . . .
plaintiff has an obligation to demonstrate with some degree of particularity the
likelihood that further discovery will supply the missing elements . . . ." Auster
v. Kinoian, 153 N.J. Super. 52, 56 (App. Div. 1977).
A-4674-18
35
Here, plaintiffs failed to specify the nature of the information they still
hoped to elicit and failed to elicit over two decades. Moreover, Judge O'Neill's
reasoning that permitting plaintiffs to engage in discovery after years of
unfounded suspicions would constitute an improper "fishing expedition" was a
rational basis for denying the motion.
To the extent any argument raised by plaintiffs has not been explicitly
addressed in this opinion, it is because the argument lacks sufficient merit to
warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-4674-18
36