South Brunswick Seeks Supreme Court Review of Wolfson's Rulings
Lawyers for South Brunswick Township are asking the New Jersey Supreme Court to bypass the Appellate Division take up its claim that rulings made by a now-retired judge in affordable housing cases should be overturned.
October 13, 2017 at 05:01 PM
11 minute read
Douglas Wolfson
Lawyers for South Brunswick Township are asking the New Jersey Supreme Court to bypass the Appellate Division and take up its claim that rulings made by a now-retired judge in affordable housing cases should be overturned because of the judge's personal and professional relationship with a developer.
In June, Mercer County Superior Court Judge Douglas Hurd refused to overturn the prior rulings by the retired judge, Douglas Wolfson, saying there was no appearance of impropriety since Wolfson never ruled on any matters involving South Brunswick, which is embroiled in lawsuits about how much affordable housing it should be required to provide under the series of Mount Laurel rulings.
South Brunswick sought to have Wolfson's rulings from July and October 2016 overturned because of an alleged appearance of conflict stemming from his relationship with developer Jack Morris—even though Morris is not seeking to build in South Brunswick, and Wolfson steered clear of Morris-involved cases while on the bench.
“It's clear the motion must be denied,” Hurd ruled from the bench in July. “Mr. Morris is not involved in South Brunswick in any capacity. He has nothing to do with the case.
“Simply because Judge Wolfson has a relationship with Mr. Morris does not preclude him from being involved in this litigation,” Hurd said, adding that the township is not accusing Wolfson of an actual conflict of interest or challenging the validity of his rulings' substance.
In papers dated Oct. 12, South Brunswick's attorneys, Jeffrey Surenian and Michael Jedziniak, said the court should take up the case on direct appeal.
“[I]mmediate review will prevent the potential enormous waste of taxpayer money,” Surenian, who heads a firm in Brielle, said in a statement.
In a brief to the court, Surenian pointed to what he called “jaw-dropping” facts.
“[A]t the very least, Wolfson did not conduct himself in a manner so as to maintain an appearance of impartiality,” Surenian said in a statement.
Having the case go through “years of litigation” will only result in waste, Surenian said.
A spokesman for Wolfson, David Rubin, who heads a firm in Metuchen, said only that Hurd's ruling “speaks for itself.”
Surenian was unavailable for further comment beyond the written statement.
While on the bench, Wolfson handled litigation involving the township, but not Morris' company, Edgewood Properties, according to documents. And Wolfson recused from cases that came before him involving Edgewood.
Nevertheless, Wolfson for years has had personal and professional ties to Edgewood, South Brunswick alleges, and claims Wolfson's decisions in other affordable housing cases could work in favor of Edgewood.
Surenian has said the average person could have an “objectively reasonable belief” that there was at least an appearance of impropriety.
Surenian said Wolfson and his wife—U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson of the District of New Jersey—were reimbursed by Edgewood for 13 vacations to Boca Raton and Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and to the Bahamas, between 2013 and 2015, as well as other vacations.
South Brunswick, in its efforts to establish an apparent conflict, had previously seized on the fact that Wolfson took up representation of Edgewood immediately after his Dec. 30, 2016, retirement from the bench, and represented the developer before becoming a judge decades ago. The township has more recently relied on financial disclosure documents Freda Wolfson made to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which documented the vacations.
Since retiring, Wolfson went to work for the Weingarten Law Firm in Parsippany. Morris' wife, Sheryl Weingarten, heads Weingarten Law Firm. Wolfson has represented Edgewood Properties in litigation involving municipalities other than South Brunswick.
The township also noted that Wolfson's son worked for the Weingarten firm while Wolfson was on the bench.
Hurd was not persuaded. In his July ruling, he said, “it is clear from the public documents and certifications presented that Judge Wolfson had a business and/or personal relationship with Mr. Morris and his companies before, during and after his tenure as a Superior Court judge.” But Morris and his businesses “have nothing to do with the case South Brunswick wants this court to vacate,” and “additional discovery on that issue would not lead to a different conclusion in denying this motion,” Hurd said, finding that none of Wolfson's conduct ran afoul of ethics or court rules, which do not “focus on broad, generalized interests.”
Hurd also took issue with the timing of the recusal motion, saying it should have been made at the time of the rulings, and said Wolfson's affordable housing decisions were “consistent with some other Mount Laurel judges.”
Wolfson originally was a trial judge from 1991 until 2002, when he left the bench to become the director of the Division of Law. He rejoined the bench in 2013 until his 2016 retirement. As a judge designated to hear affordable housing cases in recent years, Wolfson authored a number of groundbreaking decisions on towns' obligations under the Mount Laurel cases, which require local governments to maintain a level of affordable housing and prohibit them from enacting exclusionary zoning laws that would bar construction of such housing.
In one of his rulings, Wolfson ruled that a group of Middlesex County towns cannot have their affordable housing obligation capped at 1,000 units. He rejected the argument made by the group of eight towns that they should be allowed to avail themselves of the 1,000-unit cap since the now-defunct state Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) failed to issue any rules since 1999.
At issue in South Brunswick's case is how many units of affordable housing the township will ultimately be ordered to provide. South Brunswick could be required to provide 1,533 units of affordable housing in upcoming years, a figure the town argues is far too high. Using an expert, South Brunswick claims its obligation should instead be set at a maximum of 927 units. The township is a sprawling bedroom community some 40 miles south of New York City.
Douglas Wolfson
Lawyers for South Brunswick Township are asking the New Jersey Supreme Court to bypass the Appellate Division and take up its claim that rulings made by a now-retired judge in affordable housing cases should be overturned because of the judge's personal and professional relationship with a developer.
In June, Mercer County Superior Court Judge Douglas Hurd refused to overturn the prior rulings by the retired judge, Douglas Wolfson, saying there was no appearance of impropriety since Wolfson never ruled on any matters involving South Brunswick, which is embroiled in lawsuits about how much affordable housing it should be required to provide under the series of Mount Laurel rulings.
South Brunswick sought to have Wolfson's rulings from July and October 2016 overturned because of an alleged appearance of conflict stemming from his relationship with developer Jack Morris—even though Morris is not seeking to build in South Brunswick, and Wolfson steered clear of Morris-involved cases while on the bench.
“It's clear the motion must be denied,” Hurd ruled from the bench in July. “Mr. Morris is not involved in South Brunswick in any capacity. He has nothing to do with the case.
“Simply because Judge Wolfson has a relationship with Mr. Morris does not preclude him from being involved in this litigation,” Hurd said, adding that the township is not accusing Wolfson of an actual conflict of interest or challenging the validity of his rulings' substance.
In papers dated Oct. 12, South Brunswick's attorneys, Jeffrey Surenian and Michael Jedziniak, said the court should take up the case on direct appeal.
“[I]mmediate review will prevent the potential enormous waste of taxpayer money,” Surenian, who heads a firm in Brielle, said in a statement.
In a brief to the court, Surenian pointed to what he called “jaw-dropping” facts.
“[A]t the very least, Wolfson did not conduct himself in a manner so as to maintain an appearance of impartiality,” Surenian said in a statement.
Having the case go through “years of litigation” will only result in waste, Surenian said.
A spokesman for Wolfson, David Rubin, who heads a firm in Metuchen, said only that Hurd's ruling “speaks for itself.”
Surenian was unavailable for further comment beyond the written statement.
While on the bench, Wolfson handled litigation involving the township, but not Morris' company, Edgewood Properties, according to documents. And Wolfson recused from cases that came before him involving Edgewood.
Nevertheless, Wolfson for years has had personal and professional ties to Edgewood, South Brunswick alleges, and claims Wolfson's decisions in other affordable housing cases could work in favor of Edgewood.
Surenian has said the average person could have an “objectively reasonable belief” that there was at least an appearance of impropriety.
Surenian said Wolfson and his wife—U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson of the District of New Jersey—were reimbursed by Edgewood for 13 vacations to Boca Raton and Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and to the Bahamas, between 2013 and 2015, as well as other vacations.
South Brunswick, in its efforts to establish an apparent conflict, had previously seized on the fact that Wolfson took up representation of Edgewood immediately after his Dec. 30, 2016, retirement from the bench, and represented the developer before becoming a judge decades ago. The township has more recently relied on financial disclosure documents Freda Wolfson made to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which documented the vacations.
Since retiring, Wolfson went to work for the Weingarten Law Firm in Parsippany. Morris' wife, Sheryl Weingarten, heads Weingarten Law Firm. Wolfson has represented Edgewood Properties in litigation involving municipalities other than South Brunswick.
The township also noted that Wolfson's son worked for the Weingarten firm while Wolfson was on the bench.
Hurd was not persuaded. In his July ruling, he said, “it is clear from the public documents and certifications presented that Judge Wolfson had a business and/or personal relationship with Mr. Morris and his companies before, during and after his tenure as a Superior Court judge.” But Morris and his businesses “have nothing to do with the case South Brunswick wants this court to vacate,” and “additional discovery on that issue would not lead to a different conclusion in denying this motion,” Hurd said, finding that none of Wolfson's conduct ran afoul of ethics or court rules, which do not “focus on broad, generalized interests.”
Hurd also took issue with the timing of the recusal motion, saying it should have been made at the time of the rulings, and said Wolfson's affordable housing decisions were “consistent with some other Mount Laurel judges.”
Wolfson originally was a trial judge from 1991 until 2002, when he left the bench to become the director of the Division of Law. He rejoined the bench in 2013 until his 2016 retirement. As a judge designated to hear affordable housing cases in recent years, Wolfson authored a number of groundbreaking decisions on towns' obligations under the Mount Laurel cases, which require local governments to maintain a level of affordable housing and prohibit them from enacting exclusionary zoning laws that would bar construction of such housing.
In one of his rulings, Wolfson ruled that a group of Middlesex County towns cannot have their affordable housing obligation capped at 1,000 units. He rejected the argument made by the group of eight towns that they should be allowed to avail themselves of the 1,000-unit cap since the now-defunct state Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) failed to issue any rules since 1999.
At issue in South Brunswick's case is how many units of affordable housing the township will ultimately be ordered to provide. South Brunswick could be required to provide 1,533 units of affordable housing in upcoming years, a figure the town argues is far too high. Using an expert, South Brunswick claims its obligation should instead be set at a maximum of 927 units. The township is a sprawling bedroom community some 40 miles south of
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllConstruction Worker Hit By Falling Concrete Settles Claims for $2.3M
4 minute read$113K Sanction Award to Law Firm at Stake: NJ Supreme Court Will Consider 'Unsettled Law' Frivolous Litigation Question
4 minute readWhich Outside Law Firms Are Irreplaceable, and Which Should Have Gotten the Ax Years Ago?
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
- 2UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in US, Other Countries
- 3Clark Hill Acquires L&E Boutique in Mexico City, Adding 5 Lawyers
- 46th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
- 5On The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250