Jeffrey S. Feld, Esq. v. the City of Newark ( 2024 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3689-22
JEFFREY S. FELD, ESQ.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
THE FOUR FELDS, INC., d/b/a
L. EPSTEIN HARDWARE CO. and
REASONABLE LOCK & SAFE CO.,
INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE CITY OF NEWARK,
WEEQUAHIC PRESERVATION,
LLC, NEWARK MAYOR RAS J.
BARAKA, THE CITY OF NEWARK
CITY COUNCIL, NEWARK CITY
CLERK KENNETH LOUIS,
NEWARK CORPORATION COUNSEL
KENYATTA K. STEWART, ESQ.,
NEWARK BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATOR ERIC S.
PENNINGTON, ESQ., NEWARK
DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC AND
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT JOHN
PALMIERI, NEWARK DIRECTOR
OF FINANCE DANIELLE SMITH,
NEWARK DIVISION OF TAX
ABATEMENT AND SPECIAL
TAXES MANAGER JUANITA M.
JORDAN, CTC, NEWARK TAX
ASSESSOR AARON WILSON, ESQ.,
THE COUNTY OF ESSEX, ESSEX
COUNTY EXECUTIVE JOSEPH
N. DIVINCENZO, JR., ESSEX
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS,1 ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
MATTHEW J. PLATKIN, THE NEW
JERSEY HOUSING MORTGAGE
FINANCE AGENCY, THE NEW
JERSEY DIVISION OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT SERVICES, and
THE NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF
LOCAL PLANNING SERVICES,
Defendants-Respondents.
_______________________________
Argued September 11, 2024 – Decided October 29, 2024
Before Judges Mayer, DeAlmeida and Puglisi.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-2617-19.
Jeffrey S. Feld, appellant, argued the cause pro se.
John P. Profita argued the cause for respondents City of
Newark, Newark Mayor Ras J. Baraka, City of Newark
City Council, Newark City Clerk Kenneth Louis,
1
The Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders is now known as the Essex
County Board of County Commissioners.
A-3689-22
2
Newark Corporation Council Kenyatta K. Stewart,
Newark Business Administrator Eric S. Pennington,
Newark Director of Economic and Household
Development John Palmieri, Newark Director of
Finance Danielle Smith, Newark Division of Tax
Abatement and Special Taxes Manager Juanita M.
Jordan, CTC, and Newark Tax Assessor Aaron Wilson
(DeCotiis, Fitzpatrick, Cole & Giblin, LLP, attorneys;
John P. Profita, on the brief).
Grace Chun argued the cause for respondent
Weequahic Preservation, LLC (Pearlman & Miranda,
LLC, attorneys; Grace Chun, of counsel and on the
brief).
Thomas M. Bachman, Assistant County Counsel,
argued the cause for respondents County of Essex,
Essex County Executive Joseph N. DiVincenzo, Jr., and
Essex County Board of County Commissioners (Jerome
M. St. John, Essex County Counsel, attorney; Thomas
M. Bachman, on the brief).
Brian D. Ragunan, Deputy Attorney General, argued
the cause for respondents Attorney General of New
Jersey Matthew J. Platkin, New Jersey Housing and
Mortgage Finance Agency, New Jersey Division of
Local Government Services, and New Jersey Office of
Local Planning Services (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney
General, attorney; Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Brian D. Ragunan, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Jeffrey S. Feld, Esq. appeals from the following Law Division
orders: five orders entered April 27, 2023, each dismissing plaintiff's complaint
A-3689-22
3
against various defendants for lack of standing; an April 27, 2023 order denying
as moot his motion for an order declaring a conflict of interest and directing the
government defendants to retain substitute counsel; and a July 10, 2023 order
denying his motion for reconsideration.
Plaintiff's complaint in lieu of prerogative writs challenged a tax
abatement awarded by defendant City of Newark to defendant Weequahic
Preservation, LLC, pursuant to the Long Term Tax Exemption Law (LTTEL),
N.J.S.A. 40A:20-1 to -22. He sought injunctive, declaratory, equitable and
monetary relief. The trial court concluded plaintiff lacked standing to challenge
the municipal decision because he did not reside in Newark, did not pay taxes
in Newark, and did not own property in Newark. The court further found
plaintiff lacked standing under N.J.S.A. 2A:15-18 because he failed to obtain
court approval to institute an action under that statute. Because he lacked
standing to challenge the City's award of the tax abatement, the court denied as
moot his motion to declare a conflict of interest.
The court denied plaintiff's subsequent motion for reconsideration
because he failed to demonstrate the decision was based on a palpably incorrect
or irrational basis, or that the court failed to consider significant probative
A-3689-22
4
evidence, and did not produce any new evidence to support a finding he had
standing to proceed with the case.
On appeal, plaintiff argues he has constitutional, statutory and common
law third-party standing as an Essex County taxpayer to challenge the tax
exemption, and that the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint without
ruling on the merits of his claims. We disagree and affirm substantially for the
reasons articulated by the trial court. We add only the following comments.
"Whether a party has standing to pursue a claim is a question of law
subject to de novo review." Cherokee LCP Land, LLC v. City of Linden Plan.
Bd., 234 N.J. 403, 414 (2018) (citations omitted). In considering a Rule 4:6-
2(e) motion, we examine the motion "by the same standard applied by the trial
court; thus, considering and accepting as true the facts alleged in the complaint,
we determine whether they set forth a claim upon which relief can be granted."
Sickles v. Cabot Corp., 379 N.J. Super. 100, 106 (App. Div. 2005) (citing
Donato v. Moldow, 374 N.J. Super. 475, 483 (App. Div. 2005)).
"Standing 'refers to the plaintiff's ability or entitlement to maintain an
action before the court.'" In re Adoption of Baby T., 160 N.J. 332, 340 (1999)
(quoting N.J. Citizen Action v. Riviera Motel Corp., 296 N.J. Super. 402, 409
(App. Div. 1997)). Standing to sue "requires a sufficient stake and real
A-3689-22
5
adverseness with respect to the subject matter of the litigation." Ibid. (citing
Crescent Park Tenants Ass'n Equities Corp. of N.Y. v. Realty Equity Corp. of
N.Y., 58 N.J. 98, 107 (1971)). "A substantial likelihood of some harm visited
upon the plaintiff in the event of an unfavorable decision is needed for the
purposes of standing." Ibid. (citations omitted). Thus, when a plaintiff lacks
standing, it "precludes a court from entertaining any of the substantive issues
presented for determination." Ibid. (citing Watkins v. Resorts Int'l Hotel &
Casino Inc., 124 N.J. 398, 424 (1991)).
Our Supreme Court has "recognized a broad right in taxpayers and citizens
of a municipality to seek review of local legislative action without proof of
unique financial detriment to them." Kozesnik v. Twp. of Montgomery, 24 N.J.
154, 177 (1957). However, courts should not "entertain proceedings by
plaintiffs who are 'mere intermeddlers' or are merely interlopers or strangers to
the dispute." Crescent Park Tenants Ass'n Equities Corp. of N.Y., 58 N.J. at 107
(citations omitted). Thus, courts are to "confine[] litigation to those situations
where the litigant's concern with the subject matter evidence[s] a sufficient stake
and real adverseness." Ibid.
A-3689-22
6
As the trial court found, plaintiff does not have a legally cognizable stake
in the City's decision to award the tax abatement nor a substantial likelihood he
will experience some harm if the court returns an unfavorable decision. 2
Plaintiff also cannot establish standing pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:15-18
because he failed to first obtain judicial consent required by that statute. See
Demoura v. City of Newark, 74 N.J. Super. 49, 59 (App. Div. 1962). We also
reject plaintiff's claim that the enactment of L. 2021, c. 17, § 6, which eliminated
the Tax Court's jurisdiction to hear a third-party challenge to an assessment or
exemption under the LTTEL, created an automatic right for a plaintiff to bring
that cause of action in the Law Division. See N.J.S.A. 54:3-21(b). An aggrieved
party must demonstrate standing to file a cognizable claim in the Law Division,
which plaintiff could not do here.
Because the trial court's decision dismissing the complaint was sound, its
subsequent denial of plaintiff's motion for reconsideration did not constitute an
abuse of discretion. Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, 244 N.J. 567, 582 (2021).
2
To the extent plaintiff seeks to establish standing based on his contention the
LTTEL repealed N.J.S.A. 55:14K-37(b), this argument is unavailing because the
LTTEL does not contain a provision repealing that statute.
A-3689-22
7
To the extent we have not expressly addressed any issues raised by
plaintiff, it is because they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-3689-22
8