Weehawken Defeats in court over the last 10 years
Taken from NJ.com Nov. 17 2015
WEEHAWKEN -- It may not rank up there with his win in Super Bowl XLII, but New York Giants great Amani Toomer can now count a victory in New Jersey Tax Court among his triumphs.
Toomer, a Weehawken property owner who retired 2009 as the Giants' all-time leader in touchdown receptions and receiving yardage, was among four named plaintiffs in a successful suit to force the township to conduct a revaluation.
The plaintiffs contend that the township's failure to update assessments on older properties while assessing new ones at market value has created an unfair burden on waterfront property owners at the Bronwstones at Port Imperial, Henley on Hudson, Riva Point and Avenues waterfront developments.
In July, a state tax court judge ruled in favor of Toomer and the other plaintiffs, directing that the township commence the revaluation process "immediately," and complete it by 2017. The ruling was first reported by the Hudson Reporter.
"We are extremely pleased with the judge's ruling," read a statement from the Concerned Citizens of Weehawken, a group of 175 property owners that includes the plaintiffs
What he meant was that the value of waterfront property has been rising rapidly, and although the plaintiffs may believe their assessments are unfairly high relative to those in other neighborhoods, the difference could be even more pronounced following a revaluation.
"What they may not realize is that we have got a lot of rent-controlled apartments in town," Turner said, adding that the assessed values on those properties may fall because of the limit on what landlords' can charge in rent.
The four plaintiffs are Amit Gupta, Thomas Fayad, Minalkuma Patel and Toomer, who is identified fully as a "trustee for Amani Toomer Revocable Inter-vivos Trust."
In her July 17 order, Tax Court Judge Mary Sihbhan Brennan directed that the township shall "immediately commence a municipal-wide revaluation." A subsequent order dated Sept. 17 directed that the revaluation "be undertaken for the tax year 2017."
Turner said the township had "factual issues" with the 2017 deadline for the revaluation and was negotiating to push back the revaluation date to 2019. He said redrawing the tax maps, including visiting each property in town, would be a lengthy process that could take longer than what the judge had allowed.
However, the residents group was not ready to give the township more time.
"We did not anticipate that, after such a strongly worded order, that the town would say, well, we can't get it done," the group stated.
Weehawken had Hudson County's highest average property tax bill in 2014, a fact that Turner has attributed to the township's waterfront. There is no statutory timeline for conducting revaluations in New Jersey, but the law requires that assessments reflect the true value of properties.
The lawsuit asserts that Weehawken has fallen below the state's metrics for acceptable assessments.
Weehawken's assessed values averaged just 44.39 percent of actual sale prices in 2014, well below the 85 percent minimum ratio recommended by the state, according to data released by the state Department of Community Affairs.
Because it's been so long since Weehawken's last revaluation, the plaintiffs say the assessment on new properties like theirs, and on properties that have recently changed hands and therefore have been assessed more recently, are assessed at a level much closer to their real market value than older properties in town.
The township also had a high general coefficient, a measurement that shows variation in assessment to sales ratios for all properties. That figture, 17.37 percent, was higher than the 15 percent variation that can signal the need for a revaluation, according to state law.
Weehawken isn't alone in Hudson County when it comes to lagging assessments. Hudson's only municipalities with assessment-sales ratios higher than 85 percent in 2014 were Hoboken and Guttenberg, according to state data. End of Story.
Taken from NJ.COM May 14 2014
By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
Weehawken has agreed to pay its former tax collector at least $120,000 to settle a whistleblower lawsuit claiming Mayor Richard Turner illegally ordered high assessments of luxury properties to fill township coffers.
John Fredericks, the tax collector, will receive the funds, which include terminal leave pay for nearly 154 days and a $15,000 pay raise, in exchange for stepping down on May 14. The settlement agreement stipulates that the township has not admitted any wrongdoing.
Fredericks had been seeking about $1 million in punitive damages from Turner and about $250,000 in back pay.
Full filing below
https://www.schorrlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Fredericks-Complaint.pdf
Taken from NJ.COM Dec. 3 2015
Weehawken Police Lt. Richard DeCosmis, seen here in 2008, will receive $747,000 under a settlement of a federal lawsuit alleging he was harassed for trying to expose local corruption.
(Jersey Journal file photo)
WEEHAWKEN -- Although the township attorney said he was unhappy about it, Weehawken has agreed to settle a protracted harassment suit by a police lieutenant asserting Mayor Richard Turner used "mob-like" tactics to silence him and other critics.
Under a settlement finalized on Tuesday, Weehawken Police Lt. Richard DeCosmis will receive $747,000 to drop the suit he filed in 2007 charging he was harassed in retaliation for his attempt to expose corruption under Turner, who has tightly controlled the township as mayor for 25 years.
The township attorney, Richard Venino, said he and other local officials wanted to let the case go to trial in U.S. District Court in Newark to disprove the allegations, which he said had "no credibility." But, Venino added, the township's insurance company decided to settle, preferring not to risk of a large jury award or responsibility for both sides' legal fees.
"They made the decision based on the risk of having to pay legal bills," Venino said, adding that much of the settlement payment would go to the lieutenant's lawyer. "We're not happy about it at all."
Venino could not immediately name the insurance company that had decided to settle the case, nor could he say whether the township's premiums might go up as a result of the company's decision to make the payment.
Weehawken mayor uses 'mob' tactics to intimidate cop, attorney says
DeCosmis' lawyer, Lou Zayas, said he believed the settlement was "fair," but declined to comment further.
In the most recent development in the 8-year-old case, Zayas filed a motion in November 2014, asserting that the township tried to fire the lieutenant from the force as "leverage to negotiate a favorable settlement," of the lawsuit or to drain him of his finances as court proceedings drag on, according to court papers.
The motion sought to bar the township from firing DeCosmis and from disciplining witnesses who planned to testify in his trial. Zayas alleged that Turner and his "circle of political cronies" were trying to quash his client's corruption allegations by taking bogus disciplinary actions against him and potential witnesses.
DeCosmis first sued the city in 2007, alleging corrupt practices in varous departments, and has amended his suit more than once since then to allege retaliation against him.
In his 22 years on the force prior to 2007, DeCosmis hadn't faced any major discipline, Zayas said. But since he became involved in litigation against the township, he's faced three major disciplinary charges, the most recent of which claims he took excessive sick leave in 2012.
Full filing below
https://hudsoncountyview.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/DeCosmis-settlement.pdf
From NJ Courts June 30, 2023
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff UBS Financial Services, Inc. (UBS) has rented property at 1000
Harbor Boulevard (1000 Harbor) in defendant Township of Weehawken
(Weehawken) from 1986 to the present. By the terms of its lease, UBS is
responsible for the corresponding property taxes for 1000 Harbor owed to
Weehawken. Until recently, the property was owned by Hartz Mountain
Industries, Inc. (Hartz), who initially leased the property to UBS in the 1980s.
In 2018, UBS and Weehawken became embroiled in a dispute over the
1000 Harbor's proper tax valuation. UBS originally brought suit seeking a
reassessment of the property's value, which at that time had been assessed at
approximately $210,000,000. After three years of negotiations, on January 21,
2021, the parties settled and reduced UBS's tax assessment to approximately
$145,478,000. This discrepancy was retroactive, and as such, Weehawken was
obligated to issue a tax refund in the amount of $2,500,000 to UBS,
representing the overpaid taxes for the years 2018-2020.1
In accordance with this agreement, Weehawken was required to issue the
refund by May 21, 2021. In the case of late payment, statutory interest was to
1 The parties also entered into a separate tax settlement agreement which
applied prospectively for 2021 to 2023.
be imposed. N.J.S.A. 54:3-27.2. Weehawken issued a refund check of $2.5
million to UBS on July 9, 2021, forty-five days overdue. This amount did not
include statutory interest. The fact the payment was late is not disputed.
Less than a year after the settlement, on November 29, 2021, Hartz sold
the property for $219 million. Upon learning of the sale, Weehawken filed
suit in the Tax Court against UBS on January 20, 2022, to vacate the
settlement judgments on a theory of fraud. R. 4:50-1(c). Weehawken asserted
UBS's failure to disclose this imminent sale—with a valuation in line with the
amount assessed initially—amounted to a material misrepresentation. The
complaint did not explain why UBS, as a tenant, should have information
pertaining to Hartz, the former owner, but sought further discovery.
In response, UBS moved under Rule 1:10-3 for pre-judgment interest as
well as attorney's fees and costs, based on Weehawken's late payment of the
$2.5 million tax refund. UBS previously sent two letters to Weehawken, on
May 21 and May 27, 2021, indicating the need to pay statutory interest.
Tax Court Judge Mary S. Brennan, confronted with these facts, ruled in
favor of UBS. We review her decision to deny Weehawken equitable remedies
under an abuse of discretion standard. Sears Mortg. Corp. v. Rose, 134 N.J.
326, 354 (1993). Additionally, we typically uphold an award of attorney's fees
3 A-2186-21as provided for by statute, court rule, or contract. Litton Indus., Inc. v. IMO
Indus., Inc., 200 N.J. 372, 386 (2009). Such awards are subject to reversal
"only on the rarest of occasions, and then only because of a clear abuse of
discretion." Ibid. (quoting Packard-Bamberger & Co. v. Collier, 167 N.J. 427,
444 (2001)).
After reviewing the record, we affirm. Upon hearing Weehawken's
motion, the judge declined to vacate the previous settlement, noting she was
"at a loss as to how a November 29, 2021 sale would have any relevance to the
market value of the subject property as of [the date of the tax assessment in]
2017, 2018, or 2019." She also observed Weehawken failed "to offer any
evidence" that UBS had withheld relevant information during settlement
negotiations. "By law, [Weehawken] has the right to seek information on
investment properties by virtue of N.J.S.A. 54:4-34 . . . and the court can
assume that the assessor and revaluation appraiser were given access to that
information and applied it accordingly."
Turning to UBS's counterclaim for statutory interest, the court found
N.J.S.A. 54:3-27.2 applied, which provides for 5.5% interest, compounded
annually, to prevailing taxpayers in assessment disputes. "Since the court
Here, this amounted to $148,116.44.
entered the [consent] judgment on January 21, 2021, [Weehawken] would be
required to refund [UBS] by May 21, 2021." Since the payment was made on
July 9, outside of those dates, UBS's claim was proper.
Finally, the judge also awarded attorneys' fees and court costs to UBS
because "the interest was not voluntarily paid by Weehawken, and instead,
UBS was forced to file a motion to enforce the payment."
On appeal, Weehawken first asserts UBS's cross-motion to compel
payment of the pre-judgment interest, while permissible on its own, amounts to
an "opportunistic strategy" because it was filed in response to the township's
motion to vacate the consent agreement. Weehawken does not contend
plaintiff was barred from bringing such a motion in the first instance, only that
doing so in a cross-motion was improper.
Weehawken's argument is unpersuasive. Rule 1:6-3(b) provides "[a]
cross-motion may be filed and served by the responding party . . . if it relates
to the subject matter of the original motion . . . ." There was nothing improper
filed by UBS.
Weehawken further argues UBS waived its right to collect the interest
because it accepted a check for the $2.5 million refund without raising the
issue of the missing interest payment. This is belied by the record.
When a taxpayer is successful in his local property tax appeal, the
municipality is obligated to issue a refund plus interest. N.J.S.A. 54:3-27.2.
Refunds must be paid "within [sixty] days of the final judgment." Ibid.
Moreover, settlements before the Tax Court are considered binding contracts.
See Petrie Retail, Inc. v. Town of Secaucus, 363 N.J. Super. 74, 78-79 (App.
Div. 2003); see also Nolan v. Lee Ho, 120 N.J. 465, 472 (1990) ("A settlement
agreement between parties to a lawsuit is a contract."). We uphold the terms
of a settlement agreement between parties "absent a demonstration of 'fraud or
other compelling circumstances.'" Pascarella v. Bruck, 190 N.J. Super. 118,
125 (App. Div. 1983) (quoting Honeywell v. Bubb, 130 N.J. Super. 130, 136
(App. Div. 1974)). We discern no such circumstances here.
One claiming implied waiver must show—by clear and unequivocal
evidence—the other party has intentionally given up a known legal right.
Scibek v. Longette, 339 N.J. Super. 72, 82 (App. Div. 2001). UBS sent two
letters informing Weehawken of the accumulation of statutory interest, and of
the need to pay this now significant amount. When Weehawken failed to
produce that sum, the correct action was to file a motion to recover that
amount, which is the precise action taken by UBS. There is no indication UBS
"gave up" anything.
Additionally, we note N.J.S.A. 54:3-27.2 contains no time bar to raise a
claim for nonpayment. Nor is it at all clear UBS had abandoned the claim.
The parties were clearly communicating, and UBS informed Weehawken of
the need to pay the interest. Less than a year later, the amount remained
unpaid, and UBS sought enforcement of the settlement, after Weehawken
sought to vacate the agreement in its entirety.
Finally, Weehawken argues the judge abused her discretion in awarding
attorney's fees and costs "because Weehawken had clean hands in filing a
meritorious motion and the court had no other statutory basis to sanction
relief." We are unpersuaded.
Rule 1:10-3 provides for a mechanism for relief when a litigant's
preexisting court-ordered rights have been violated. N. Jersey Media Grp. Inc.
v. State, Office of Governor, 451 N.J. Super. 282, 296 (App. Div. 2017). It
allows "[t]he court in its discretion [to] make an allowance for counsel fees to
be paid by any party to the action to a party accorded relief under this rule."
R. 1:10-3. "Relief . . . is not for the purpose of punishment, but [is] a coercive
measure to facilitate the enforcement of the court order." Ridley v. Dennison,
298 N.J. Super. 373, 381 (App. Div. 1997). "The particular manner in which
compliance may be sought is left to the court's sound discretion." N. Jersey
Media, 451 N.J. Super. at 296 (quoting Bd. of Educ. of Middletown v.
Middletown Twp. Educ. Ass'n, 352 N.J. Super. 501, 509 (Ch. Div. 2001)).
The decision to award attorney fees was proper, limited to the issue of
the interest payment, and neither "made without a rational explanation, [nor]
inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible
basis." U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449, 467 (2012) (quoting
Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 191 N.J. 88, 123 (2007)). As Judge Brennan
carefully detailed in her May 31, 2022 amplified statement of reasons,
Rule 4:42-9(a)(7) verifies R[ule] 1:1[0]-3's departure
from the American Rule.[] Additionally, R[ule] 4:42-
9(b) requires the submission of an affidavit of
services. The court finds that the affidavit of services
submitted by UBS's attorney is satisfactory. However,
the court rejects portions of the claimed counsel fees,
as they were not related to the motion to enforce the
settlement's prejudgment interest provision.
The court analyzed each line-item provided in
the schedule of requested fees.
. . . .
After multiplying each line-item by its
percentage and rounding the numbers, the court found
that $2,291 in attorney's fees would be a fair and just
amount.