AG Had No Authority to Take Control of Paterson PD, Appellate Division Says
Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin said in a statement that since the decision does not take effect immediately, his office will be asking the New Jersey Supreme Court for emergency relief.
December 18, 2024 at 05:56 PM
4 minute read
Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin said he is “deeply disappointed” and will immediately appeal an Appellate Division decision, released Wednesday, that said his takeover of the Paterson Police Department was an overreach.
In a published decision, an appeals court panel found that Platkin had no authority to supersede a police department’s operations without the municipality's permission. The Appellate Division decision, written by Judge Morris G. Smith, said after a review of the Criminal Justice Act and other statutes that Platkin did not have the right to take over the department. Additionally, the court reversed the attorney general’s order that superseded the authority of the Paterson police, directed him to send the former police chief back to Paterson, and ordered the return of operational control of the department to the plaintiffs.
Smith, who was joined by Judges Mark K. Chase and Christine M. Vanek, said those orders are to be completed within 21 days. However, Smith stayed the order for three days, anticipating either party seeking emergent relief.
Platkin said in a statement that since the decision does not take effect immediately, his office will be asking the state Supreme Court for emergency relief. He added that, since his office stepped in, crime has plummeted in Paterson and officer morale has improved.
Christopher J. Gramiccioni, co-founder of Kingston Coventry Law in Sea Girt, said the Appellate Division decision clearly states that Platkin overstepped his authority.
“We learn about the concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances within the branches of the government in elementary school,” Gramiccioni said. “The AG disregarded these fundamental principles in his illegal supersession, and thankfully, the court upheld these principles with its decision today.”
Platkin took over the Paterson Police Department in March 2023 in the wake of an officer-involved shooting. The attorney general removed the acting police chief, Engelbert Ribeiro, assigned him to the Police Training Commission, and appointed a New Jersey State Police officer to manage the department.
Those moves were challenged in two lawsuits, consolidated before the Appellate Division. Both alleged that the attorney general’s actions exceeded his authority. The first complaint was filed in October 2023 by Paterson Public Safety Director Mirza Bulur and Ribeiro in Bulur v. The New Jersey Office of the Attorney General. The second was filed in November 2023 by Paterson Mayor André Sayegh and Ribeiro against the attorney general and the officer he placed in charge of the department in Sayegh v. Abbassi.
Smith cited numerous Appellate Division cases that “clearly distinguish the AG’s supervisory authority from its supersession authority,” including Constantine v. Twp. of Bass River, State v. Ward, and Kershenblatt v. Kozmor. Also, the judge acknowledged a New Jersey Supreme Court case, State v. Winne, which held that county prosecutors are statutorily responsible for ensuring laws are being enforced by themselves, staff, or local law enforcement.
“The facts of this case are distinguishable from Winne,” Smith said. “The set of questions before us involve the extent of the supersession authority vested directly in the AG, not county prosecutors.”
Smith concluded that Winne does not give county prosecutors the implied authority to supersede municipal police departments; therefore, this decision does not conflict.
“We are deeply disappointed with today’s ruling—which comes nearly two years after the state took over the Paterson Police Department, having now spent millions of dollars to improve conditions in the city—and will be appealing immediately to the New Jersey Supreme Court,” Platkin said in a statement. “For decades, supersession has allowed both Attorneys General and County Prosecutors to directly manage law enforcement agencies when the circumstances call for it—as they did in Paterson when our office stepped in following a fundamental breakdown of community trust.”
By Wednesday afternoon, the office filed an emergent application, officially starting the appeals process to the Supreme Court.
Gramiccioni represented Bulur and Ribeiro. Edward J. Florio of Florio Kenny Raval represented Sayegh. Deputy Solicitor General Michael Zuckerman represented the Office of the Attorney General. Florio and the Attorney General’s Office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
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 All'Sad That We Have to Do This': Senate Judiciary Passes Bill Temporarily Addressing Public Notice Crisis
3 minute readLawyers Plead With Lawmakers for Solution to Looming Public Notice Crisis
5 minute readWilmer's Bharara to Lead Probe Into Alleged State Police Traffic Enforcement 'Slowdown'
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1‘BiT Global Lost’: Federal Judge Won’t Stop Coinbase From Delisting wBTC Token
- 2Some Elite Universities Favor Wealthy Students in Admissions Decisions, Lawsuit Alleges
- 3Judge Asks: Should Tom Girardi Serve Sentence in a Medical Facility or Behind Bars?
- 4EPA grants California authority to ban sales of new gas cars by 2035. Action faces reversal by Trump
- 5US to pay nearly $116M to settle lawsuits over rampant sexual abuse at California women's prison
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