Town may petition top court to overturn Lion Gate decision

BLOOMFIELD, NJ — The attorney representing four Bloomfield residents who successfully blocked the acquisition of open space land has been notified that the township will petition the NJ Supreme Court to reverse a lower court decision.
Mark Maryanski, attorney for Bloomfield residents Russell Mollica, James Wollner, Chris Stanziale and former Mayor Raymond McCarthy, said he was not surprised by the Nov. 10 notification which was also received by the clerk of the Supreme Court.

“I don’t see that they have a lot to lose,” Maryanski said in a telephone interview earlier this week. “The worst that could happen is that the Supreme Court won’t hear it. I don’t know what their basis is. There has to be some public policy reason.”

On Oct. 27, the township asked the Appellate Division to reconsider its Oct. 17 decision that Bloomfield Councilman Nicholas Joanow had a conflict of interest when he participated in the vote for $10.5 million bonding ordinance to purchase 12 acres of land on Lion Gate Drive. Joanow’s residence is contiguous to the property. On Oct. 28, the Appellate Division denied a reconsideration.

The Appellate Division decision had reversed a Law Division ruling that Joanow did not have a conflict of interest, as initially claimed by the four residents.
Maryanski said he had not expected the Appellate Division judges to reconsider a decision they had made just a short time before. Although the Supreme Court rejects most petitions for a hearing, Maryanski said he has never argued there.

“They also do it on paper,” he said of the Supreme Court considering an appeal.
The township has 30 days, from the time it first notifies the Supreme Court, to submit is reasons why the lower court decision should be appealed, Maryanski said. It takes another 30 days for all the attorney’s paperwork to be exchanged and submitted to the court.

“If the Supreme Court says no, the appellate decision stands,” he said.
According to Maryanski, that decision says the bonding ordinance the township approved was void.

“That would mean the purchase is void,” he said. “I’m sure it would be a lot easier if they were to win on appeal in the Supreme Court. It’s an easier route. The bonds weren’t valid. They would need new bonds and another deed. They have to go back and do everything over again.”

Maryanski said petitioning the Supreme Court was worth the shot.
Mayor Michael Venezia, when contacted on Monday, Nov. 21, directed all questions regarding the petition to the township attorney, Michael Parlavecchio.
Parlavecchio said a petition would only occur in the event a second bonding ordinance did not pass. If the ordinance did pass any petition would be withdrawn.

“The first reading of the ordinance is tonight, the second reading is in December,” Venezia said.

Parlavecchio could not be reached for this story. The attorney who represented the township in the Law and Appellate divisions, Kevin McManimon, would not comment.