NJ Civil Settlements

Dover pays $75,000 to settle suit for negligence in police chase that resulted in death of 23-year-old motorcyclist

2013-04-20T14:12:00.004-04:00

On March 2, 2012, the Town of Dover (Morris County) agreed to pay $75,000 to the mother of a twenty-three year old man who was killed in a motor vehicle collision when he was allegedly fleeting police.

In her suit, Kara Seitz, mother of the late Alan J. Seitz, said that on August 14, 2007, her son, who was operating a motorcycle, was leading police from various municipalities on a high speed chase. She claims that Dover Police Officer Michael Pier, after hearing about the chase on his radio, disregarded a stop sign and "drove his motor vehicle directly in front of [Seitz's] motorcycle causing the death of [Seitz]."

Also named in the suit was Dover Police Chief Harold Valentine.

The case is captioned Seitz v. Dover Police Officer Michael Pier et al, New Jersey Superior Court, Docket No. MRS-L-2441-09 and Seitz's attorney was George T. Daggett of Sparta. Case documents are on-line here.

None of Seitz's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $75,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Dover or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Dover or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Seitz $75,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.

Dover pays $185,000 to settle police false arrest/excessive force suit

2013-04-20T13:17:00.004-04:00

On September 28, 2011, the Town of Dover (Morris County) agreed to pay $185,000 to a man who sued members of the Dover Police Department for allegedly beating him and arresting him without probable cause.

In his suit, Steven Echevarria said that on April 11, 2008 he was arrested without probable cause by Officers Joe Camacho and Paul Wilkes. He claimed that after his arrest, Office Camacho removed him from his cell "took him to a back area within the police department where he unlawfully and physically assaulted" Echevarria "inflicting serious personal injuries upon him."

The case is captioned Echevarria v. Camacho, New Jersey Superior Court, Morris County, Docket No. MRS-L-1806-09 and Echevarria's attorney was Joel I. Rachmiel of Springfield. Case documents are on-line here.

None of Echevarria's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $185,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Dover or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Dover or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Echevarria $185,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.

Irvington pays $15,000 to settle police warrantless entry suit

2013-04-09T22:32:00.001-04:00

On January 13, 2010, the Township of Irvingon (Essex County) agreed to pay $15,000 to a Clinton Avenue couple who sued the Irvingon Police Department because an officer entered the wife's bedroom without a warrant while she was "undressing and in a state of nakedness."

In their suit, Sandra Holmes-Stuckey and her husband Hazel Stuckey, Jr. said that on July 10, 2009, Officer Rashaan D. Sampson (also spelled "Samson") illegally entered her bedroon and observed her in a state of undress. Sandra sued for a violation of her constitutional rights and Hazel sued because he was "deprived of his wife's services and consortium."

The case is captioned Holmes-Stuckey v. Irvingon, Federal Case No. 2:11-cv-00018 and Holmes-Stuckey's attorney was Otto J. Scerbo of Jersey City. Case documents are on-line here.

The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.

None of Holmes-Stuckey's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $15,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Irvingon or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Irvingon or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Holmes-Stuckey and her husband $15,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.

Jackson pays $95,000 to settle police excessive force suit

2013-04-01T19:14:00.006-04:00

On March 8, 2013, the Township of Jackson (Ocean County) agreed to pay $95,000 to a local man who sued members of the Jackson Police Department for allegedly assaulting and using excessive force against him.

In his suit, Anthony Ball said that on January 27, 2010 he pulled into a WaWa gas station because his car was critically low on fuel. While moving the traffic cones that blocked his way to the pump, Officer Jeremy Felder ordered him to drive a different path that did not require him to move the traffic cones. Ball allegedly "explained that his car would run out of gas if he had to drive to the other store entrance."

Upon hearing this, Felder, along with Officers Arthur Salisbury and Kevin Chesney allegedly pushed Ball "onto the concrete parking lot and assaulted him without justification and with excessive force." Ball also claimed that the officers misrepresented the facts in order to bring false criminal charges against him.

Also named in the suit was Jackson Police Chief Matthew D. Kunz.

The case is captioned Ball v. Jackson, Federal Case No. 3:10-cv-04254 and Ball's attorney was Thomas J. Mallon of Freehold. Case documents are on-line here.

None of Ball's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $95,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Jackson or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Jackson or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Ball $95,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.

Paterson pays $25,000 to settle police excessive force suit filed by take-out restaurant owner and son.

2013-03-31T18:08:00.003-04:00

On February 13, 2013, the City of Paterson (Passaic County) agreed to pay $25,000 to the owner of a take-out chicken restaurant and son who had claimed Paterson Police used excessive force against them.

In their suit, Ajab Gul, who owns New York Fried Chicken on Rosa Parks Boulevard in Patersonm and his son Sikander Hawa complain about their July 25, 2010 interaction with Paterson Police Officers Wilson Lazu and Robert Hintzen.

According to the plaintiffs, the police had previously ticketed Gul repeatedly for "maintaining a nuisance" because people would congregate outside his restaurant. According to Gul and Hawa, Lazu and Hintzen ordered customers out of the restaurant on July 25, 2010 and were set to issue Gul another "maintaining a nuisance" ticket. Gul claims that instead of issuing the summons, the two officers assaulted him "using excessive and unnecessary force." Gul claims that the officers took his wallet and left the store with it.

The officers then allegedly assaulted Hawa, who Gul had called for assistance. Hawa had allegedly questioned the officers on why they kept issuing his father "maintaining a nuisance" tickets. Hawa claimed that he was "handcuffed roughly" and pushed inside a patrol car. He was charged with Disorderly Conduct and Obstructing a Governmental Function. Hawa said that the charges were later dismissed.

According to Hawa, Lazu and Hintzen, while driving him to the police station, spoke disparagingly about his national origin, stating "What are you doing here? You shouldn't be in this country."

Also named in the suit was Paterson Police Chief James Wittig.

The case is captioned Hawa and Gul v. Paterson, Federal Case No. 2:12-cv-04494 and Hawa's and Gul's attorney was Thomas J. Mallon of Freehold. Case documents are on-line here.

None of Hawa's or Gul's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Paterson or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Paterson or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided to pay Hawa and Gul $25,000 rather than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.

Seaside Heights pays $75,000 to settle police excessive force suit

2013-03-08T09:16:00.004-05:00

On December 20, 2012, the Borough of Seaside Heights (Ocean County) agreed to pay $75,000 to a Somerset County man who sued members of the Seaside Heights Police Department for allegedly beating him.

In his suit, Michael B. Lavelle of Branchburg said that May 16, 2009, he was walking back to a Seaside Heights house that he had rented for prom weekend. He said that he mistakenly tried to enter another house, apparently believing that it was the one he had rented. He alleged that Seaside Police Officers Shawn Heckler, Daniel Bloomquist, Kathleen Erdman, Lance DiFabio and Michael McCurdy "utilized excessive force in arresting [him] . . . causing a facial fracture, lacerations and abrasions." At the time the suit was filed, trespass, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest charges were pending against Lavelle.

Also named in the suit were Seaside Heights Police Chief Thomas Boyd, Detective Stephen Korman and Sergeants James Hans and Terrence Farley.

The case is captioned Lavelle v. Seaside Heights, Federal Case No. 3:09-cv-03016 and Lavelle's attorney was Thomas J. Mallon of Freehold. Case documents are on-line here.

The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.

None of Lavelle's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $75,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Seaside Heights or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Seaside Heights or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Lavelle $75,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.

New Jersey pays $162,500 to settle Public Defender's malpractice claim

2013-02-27T18:12:00.002-05:00

On January 25, 2013, the State of New Jersey agreed to pay $162,500 to a man who sued the Cape May County Office of Public Defender for legal malpractice.

In his petition to file a late Tort Claim notice, John Rogers he was wrongfully convicted in 1999 for drug trafficking and spent 6 years in state prison. In 2007, the Appellate Division held that the public defender who represented him court provided him with ineffective legal counsel. In his petition, Rogers claimed that Erica Smith, Esq. was the attorney who ineffectively represented him at his trial. After the Appellate Division reversed his conviction and remanded the matter for a new trial, Rogers claimed that the trial court dismissed all charges against him.

The Appellate Division's October 23, 2007 decision, which details the ineffective lawyering that Rogers received, is on-line here.

The case is captioned Rogers v. Cape May County Office of the Public Defender, et al, Docket No. CPM-L-480-09 and Rogers' attorney was Joseph C. Grassi of Wildwood. Case documents are on-line here.

None of Rogers's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The $162,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by New Jersey, Erica Smith or any other official. All that is known for sure is that New Jersey, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Rogers $162,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.

Lawrence pays $25,250.61 to settle police officer's New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) suit

2013-02-23T20:17:00.003-05:00

On May 23, 2012, the Township of Lawrence (Mercer County) agreed to pay $25,250.61 to former Township police officer who claimed that the police department refused to promote him to police sergeant due to him being African-American.

In his suit, John Glenn, who has served as a Lawrence Township office for 17 years, alleged that had he been promoted, he would have been the first African-American or other minority to attain the rank of sergeant or above. According to Glenn's complaint, Lawrence Township's police force of 67 had, as of 2005, only 7 African-American officers.

As part of the settlement, the Township also agreed to help Glenn obtain a disability pension and retiree medical benefits from the Police and Firemen's Retirement System (PFRS).

The case is captioned Glenn v. Lawrence Township Police Department, Federal Case No. 3:10-cv-03121 and Glenn's attorney was Daniel S. Sweetser of Lawrenceville. Case documents are on-line here.

The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.

None of Glenn's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $25,250.61 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Lawrence or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Lawrence or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Glenn $25,250.61 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.

Pohatcong pays $15,000 to settle New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) suit

2013-02-12T21:12:00.001-05:00

On November 26, 2012, the Township of Pohatcong (Warren County) agreed to pay $15,000 to a former Pohatcong Municipal Court employee who said he was harassed because he was diagnosed with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD").

In his suit, Christopher Pugliese said that his boss, Court Administrator Cyndi Lehr, despite knowing of his ADHD diagnosis, "undertook a program of harassment against" him. According to the complaint, Lehr, in May or June 2010, "began to become snippy, short and condescending against" Pugliese.

He claims that Lehr "would make a habit of 'chatting' and performing other non-work related activities" near his work station which, due to his ADHD, "proved a significant distraction" to him. When Pugliese complained, Lehr allegedly "laugh[ed] at [him] in a condescending way and simply continue the conduct."

According to the complaint, Lehr, in August 2010, told Pugliese "I hope you don't start using this ADHD bullshit as some kind of excuse. If I would have known it was going to be this big a deal, 1 never would have hired you." Thereafter, according to the complaint, Lehr began to refer to Pugliese as her "dumbass deputy."

Ultimately, Pugliese said that the Township Council, as Lehr's "cat's paw," refused to renew his contract thus ending his employment on or about July 19, 2011.

The case is captioned Pugliese v. Pohatcong, Warren County Superior Court Docket No. WRN-L-386-11 and Pugliese's attorney was Kevin M. Costello of Mount Laurel. Case documents are on-line here.

The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.

None of Pugliese's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $15,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Pohatcong or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Pohatcong or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Pugliese $15,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.

Pohatcong Township, two weeks prior to OPRA lawsuit hearing, discloses its 2010 settlement agreement with former Police Sergeant.

2013-02-10T20:26:00.001-05:00

On February 1, 2013, the Township of Pohatcong (Warren County) publicly released, for the first time, a copy of a December 2, 2010 settlement agreement the Township entered into with former Township Police Sergeant Francesco "Frank" Pagano.

The settlement was one of the subjects of an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) lawsuit that Somerset County resident Blanca Carroll filed against the Township in 2012 (Carroll v. Pohatcong, Docket No. WRN-L-412-12). Carroll's case is scheduled to be heard before Superior Court Judge Amy O'Connor in Belvidere on Friday, February 15, 2013.

The settlement agreement, which is on-line here, reveals that Pagano was paid a total of $255,000--with $215,000 representing back pay and the remaining $40,000 "representing settlement of threatened litigation." In exchange, Pagano tendered a letter of resignation, which the Township agreed was a resignation "in good standing."

In addition, the settlement agreement required the Township Police to "withdraw and dismiss all charges set forth in the Notice of Charges dated July 30, 2008 and November 8, 2010" as well as "any uncharged allegations of violations of rules and regulations presently under investigation or contemplated."

Finally, and importantly, the settlement agreement specifically allowed Pagano to pursue additional financial claims against the Township "for attorney's fees related to his defense of the criminal indictment." Indeed, Pagano has pursued those attorney fees by way of a 2011 civil suit (Docket No. WRN-L-63-11) that was covered by a January 24, 2013 Express-Times article entitled "Testimony against ex-cop denied. Trial Over Legal Fees resumes for Frank Pagano, former Pohatcong Township police sergeant," by Andrew George.

According to earlier Express-Times articles, Pagano was tried to a jury in September 2010 on charges of official misconduct, perjury and falsifying public records. The prosecution contended that Pagano lied about the circumstances surrounding his search of a vehicle during a January 2007 traffic stop. Pagano's criminal defense attorney, Jeff Garrigan, was reported to have said that the decision to prosecute Pagano was "a conspiracy by high-ranking Pohatcong Township police officers was the reason his client made inaccurate statements under oath." (Express-Times, September 16, 2010, "Report, video at odds in stop Defense Alleges Conspiracy against Pohatcong Twp. police Sgt. Frank Pagano as trial opens." by Sarah M. Wojcik.)

The "conspiracy" appears to be connected to Pagano's sworn statements that he had received reports from two officers that Pohatcong Lieutenant Dean McBride had "sexually touched" them at police headquarters. He claimed that the retaliation began after he submitted those reports to Pohatcong Police Chief Paul Hager. See a separate story on this matter here.

After a five day trial, the jury cleared Pagano of all charges on September 28, 2010.

The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality provision. According to ¶ 10 the agreement, had Pagano breached confidentiality, he could be forced to repay $255,000 to the Township. Under ¶ 8, however, Pagano is apparently able to now "comment on the contents of [the] agreement]" since it has, by virtue of Carroll's suit, "become part of the public domain through a lawful request for its production."

Did Pohatcong Police retaliate against Sergeant Francesco "Frank" Pagano because Pagano reported Police Lieutenant Dean McBride for sexually assaulting two police officers?

2013-02-10T20:22:00.002-05:00

From reading trial transcripts, on-line here, it is clear that former Pohatcong Township [Warren County] Police Sergeant Francesco "Frank" Pagano accused Lieutenant Dean McBride of "sexually touch[ing" two officers at headquarters. See the following excerpt from the March 13, 2012 trial transcripts in Pagano v. Township of Pohatcong, Docket No. WRN-L-63-11, pp. 143, 146 and 147.

Attorney: Who do you believe was retaliating against you?

Pagano: Lieutenant [Dean] McBride.

Attorney: Why?

Pagano: In the beginning of 2007, I was approached by two officers from my shift. They stated to me that while at headquarters they were sexually touched by Lieutenant McBride. I filed a report with the chief which he was away at the time down --

(Objection made and overruled)

Pagano: I wanted to report it right away to Chief [Paul] Hager but he was away. So I waited until he came back. Since I wasn't -- I had to report it and the next level would be Lieutenant McBride. Above him was the chief. So I waited for the chief to come back from his class. In the meantime, a whole bunch of investigations started against me from that day on.

And, it is also clear from those transcripts that Pagano believes that the reason for the alleged retaliation, which Pagano claims culminated in criminal charges being brought against him--of which he was ultimately exonerated--was his complaint against McBride.

Questions remain. Among them:

1. Are Pagano's allegations against McBride true?
2. If so, why is McBride still employed by the Pohatcong Police?
3. If not, why wasn't Pagano charged with perjury (or at least sued civilly) for lying under oath about McBride?

See, also, a related story here about the recently disclosed settlement agreement in which Pagano received $255,000 from Pohatcong Township.

North Plainfield pays $5,000 in a no-injury, police violation case.

2013-01-10T16:01:00.001-05:00

I recently read a July 19, 2011 decision by United State District Court Judge Freda L. Wolfson in Maria Broadnax's civil lawsuit against the Borough of South Plainfield and patrol officer Ryan Mote. At issue was the legality of Mote sticking his fingers in the pocket of Broadnax's jeans during a December 11, 2008 traffic stop for driving a car with tinted windows on Route 22. Broadnax had claimed that Mote violated her Fourth Amendment rights by momentarily sticking his fingers, up to his knuckles, in the pocket of her tight bluejeans before she withdrew from the officer causing his fingers to slip back out. In October 2011, a few months after North Plainfield lost its motion for summary judgment, it settled the case by paying Broadnax and her lawyer $5,000. The opinion and settlement are on-line here.

In deciding the summary judgment motion, the court drew a distinction between an officer patting down the exterior of someone's clothing and actually sticking his hand in the person's pocket. Exterior pat-downs, which are less intrusive, are sometimes needed to ensure that the officer is not confronting an armed person. But, as Judge Wolfson observed, "it is unlikely that an officer could reasonably suspect that a weapon was hidden in a pocket in a pair of tight jeans." Thus, Mote's failure to first ascertain, either visually or by way of an exterior pat-down, a bulge or protrusion in Broadnax's pocket that suggested the presence of a weapon, transformed the entry of his fingers into Broadnax's pocket to a Fourth Amendment violation.

I suspect that North Plainfield settled not because it was worried that Broadnax would be able to prove extensive damages--all she apparently suffered was the indignity of having her Fourth Amendment rights violated. My suspicion is that North Plainfield made a business decision to settle in order to avoid the high legal costs that a trial of this matter would have incurred.

If Ms. Broadnax's constitutional rights were violated, I can't blame her for seeking vindication from the courts. After all, that's exactly what courts are supposed to do. The problem, both in this case and more generally, is that the costs of litigation almost always force police departments to settle lawsuits regardless of the legal merits of the plaintiffs' claims or the seriousness of injuries suffered.

This signals to some attorneys that they don't really need to "win" cases in order to make money. Rather, they need only to have enough contested facts in the record to survive the police department's summary judgment or dismissal motion. Thereafter, the high cost of trial pretty much always drives the case to settlement which results in both the plaintiffs and the lawyers receiving a sum, perhaps a small one, from the police.

As undesirable as this is, the alternatives (e.g. "losers pay" statutes, restricting access to the courts, etc.) would be worse. Yet, there ought to be better and more efficient ways to adjudicate the claims of citizens who claim that the police violated their rights.

Union City pays $106,500 to settle police beatdown suit

2013-01-10T15:00:00.001-05:00

On February 24, 2012, the City of Union City (Hudson County) agreed to pay $106,500 to a local man who sued members of the Union City Police Department for allegedly beating him.

In his suit, Jean Peguero said that on May 23, 2009, he was walking his dog when approached by Union City Police Officers Alex Ruperto, Jose Castillo and Damien DiFazio and Sergeants Dominick DePinto and John Dowling. According to the complaint, the officers had fifteen minutes earlier told a friend that they were looking for Peguero and "were going to punch [him] in the face when they saw [him]."

After surrounding Peguero, the officers reportedly told him to tie his dog to a fence and then assaulted him. According to the lawsuit, Ruperto punched Peguero in the mouth, "knocking his head back where it struck a concrete column." DePinto and DiFazio then reportedly continued the beating Peguero while he was on the ground.

Also named in the suit were Union City Police Chief Charles Everett and Sergeant M. Mico.

The case is captioned Peguero v. Union City, Federal Case No. 2:10-cv-01768 and Peguero's attorney was Thomas J. Mallon of Freehold. Case documents are on-line here. The police officers' incident reports are on-line here.

The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms or even the fact that the settlement exists. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.

None of Peguero's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $106,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Union City or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Union City or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Peguero $106,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.

Seaside Heights pays $10,000 to settle police excessive force suit

2012-12-27T11:45:00.002-05:00

On December 17, 2012, the Borough of Seaside Heights (Ocean County) agreed to pay $10,000 to a Brick Township man who sued members of the Seaside Heights Police Department for allegedly beating him.

In his suit, Jason Billingham said that on March 20, 2010, he was waiting for his girlfriend outside of Club Karma when he was "without justification . . . punched, maced and beaten with police batons by" Seaside Police Officers Christopher Linnell, Joseph Fastige, Edward Pasieka and Christopher Diaz.

Also named in the suit were Seaside Heights Police Chief Thomas Boyd, Sergeant James Hans and Detective Stephen Korman.

The case is captioned Billingham v. Seaside Heights, Federal Case No. 3:11-cv-00920 and Billingham's attorney was Thomas J. Mallon of Freehold. Case documents are on-line here.

The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.

None of Billingham's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $10,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Seaside Heights or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Seaside Heights or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Billingham $10,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.

Neptune pays $15,000 to settle police excessive force suit

2012-12-23T15:50:00.004-05:00

On August 20, 2012, the Township of Neptune (Monmouth County) agreed to pay $15,000 to a local man who sued members of the Neptune Police Department for allegedly applying excessive force against him.

In his suit, John Williams said that on May 9, 2011, he was home recuperating from a broken leg when Neptune police officers Marques Jamar Alston and Kristopher Daly knocked at his door. According to the lawsuit, Alston told Williams twice to "get up" and threw Williams' walker against a wall, breaking it. Alston allegedly pulled Williams out of his chair, threw him to the floor and arrested him. Alston reportedly stepped on Williams' laptop computer, breaking it, and also broke Williams' eyeglasses.

According to the complaint, the impetus for the officers' visit to Williams' home was some harassing phone calls that Williams allegedly made to Jersey Shore Medical Center. Daly was named in the suit only because he failed to intervene when Alston allegedly assaulted Williams. Also named in the suit was Neptune Police Chief Robert H. Adams.

The case is captioned Williams v. Neptune, Federal Case No. 3:11-cv-07405 and Williams's attorney was Thomas J. Mallon of Freehold. Case documents are on-line here.

The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.

None of Williams' allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $15,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Neptune or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Neptune or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Williams $15,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.

Long Branch pays $80,000 to settle police excessive force suit

2012-11-24T15:03:00.000-05:00

On September 14, 2012, the City of Long Branch (Monmouth County) agreed to pay $80,000 to two local residents who sued members of the Long Branch Police Department for allegedly beating them.

In their suit, Michael Ribot and Cindy Tomaini said that on September 9, 2007, while they were at home, Long Branch Police Officers Ramon L. Camacho, Sam Yoo, Marshall Brown and Joseph Kennedy "knocked [them] to the ground, kicked, punched, beaten, and spayed [them] with mace." No further details are provided in the complaint.

The case is captioned Ribot and Tomaini v. Camaco, et al, Monmouth County Superior Court, Docket No. MON-L-4356-09 and Ribot's and Tomaini's attorney was Frank S. Gaudio of Red Bank. Case documents are on-line here.

The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.

None of Ribot's and Tomaini's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $80,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Long Branch or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Long Branch or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Ribot and Tomaini $80,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.

Essex County pays $45,000 of $280,000 to settle New Year's party-goers' police beat-down suit.

2012-11-15T20:48:00.000-05:00

On September 4, 2012, the County of Essex agreed to pay $45,000 to a Germantown, Maryland couple who sued a Sheriff officer and a Newark Police officer for allegedly beating them and arresting them without probable cause.

In their suit, Morgann Schultz and Lya Barbosa, who are husband and wife, said that they attended a New Year's Eve party at the Robert Treat Hotel at 50 Park Place in Newark on December 31, 2008. They claimed that they had booked a room at the hotel so that "they could celebrate the coming of the New Year responsibly and safely."

The couple claimed that at about 3:30 a.m., they were in a hotel elevator with several friends "singing and chanting in Portuguese, dancing and blowing noise makers," when Ronald Rumsby and Bazeek Burgess (also referred to as Bazyt Bergus), who were employed, respectively, as an Essex County Sheriff's officer and a Newark Police officer, and who also worked as hotel security, entered the elevator. According to the complaint, both Rumsby and Burgess were wearing civilian clothes that bore no indication of their status as hotel security or law enforcement officers.

As the elevator began to move, Burgess asked the crowd in the elevator to quiet down. In response, Schultz "responded by tooting a noise maker that he obtained from the hotel party. Schultz admits that his response was "a juvenile act and a bit obnoxious." The couple alleged that Rumsby said "Give me that f***ing thing," as he tried to forcible take the noise maker from Schultz. In response, Schultz demanded to see a "f***ing badge."

At this point, the complaint alleges, Burgess and Rumsby "began to assault" Schultz and, when Barbosa stepped in to help, Rumsby "grabbed [her] forcefully about the arms and threw her out of the elevator." Rumsby then allegedly "pulled out a gun [and] pistol whipped Plaintiff Morgann Schultz about the head and face." The two officers allegedly pushed Schultz back into the elevator and struck him "with their fists, knees and feet."

Schultz claimed to receive "six facial bone fractures, including two nasal bone fractures and various right eye orbital fracture." He also claims to have suffered a concussion, breathing difficulties and blurred vision in his right eye." Barbosa claimed to receive bruises on her head, arms and body.

The couple alleged that Rumsby and Burgess filed "false criminal complaints" against them, which were later dismissed, but which required Schultz to spend 4 days in jail.

The case is captioned Schultz and Barbosa v. Ronald Rumsby et al, Federal Case No. 2:10-cv-6570 and Schultz's and Barbosa's attorney was Raoul Bustillo of Jersey City. Case documents are on-line here.

In addition to the $45,000 paid by Essex County, the other defendants (e.g. the Robert Treat Hotel) paid the couple $235,000.

The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.

None of Schultz's and Barbosa's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Essex County, the hotel, or any of their officials and employees. All that is known for sure is that Essex County or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Schultz and Barbosa than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.

Pleasantville pays $20,146.77 to settle retaliation suit brought former police officer.

2012-11-10T12:59:00.000-05:00

On September 14, 2012, the City of Pleasantville (Atlantic County) agreed to pay $20,146.77 to a former city police officer who sued members of the Pleasantville Police Department for allegedly retaliating against him with false disciplinary charges for not supporting a mayoral candidate.

In his suit, Charles Oglesby said Police Chief Duane Comeaux, Captain Jose Ruiz, Sergeant Danny Adcock, Mayor Ralph Peterson, City Council President Jesse Tweedle and City Administrator Marvin Hopkins brought false disciplinary charges against him because he refused Ruiz's demand to get the Masons and the local PBA, with which Oglesby was affiliated, to give their "support . . . for the Mayoral Candidate Len Green."

Yet, according to an April 27, 2010 article in the Press of Atlantic City, Oglesby pleaded guilty to stealing money from a suspect and falsifying police reports to cover up the crime.

The case is captioned Oglesby v. Pleasantville, Atlantic County Superior Court Docket No. ATL-L-1015-10 and Oglesby's attorney was David R. Castellani of Northfield. Case documents are on-line here.

The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.

None of Oglesby's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $20,146.77 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Pleasantville or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Pleasantville or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Oglesby $20,146.77 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.

Willingboro pays $25,000 to settle police false arrest/excessive force suit

2012-11-06T20:43:00.001-05:00

On September 12, 2012, the Township of Willingboro (Burlington County) agreed to pay $25,000 to a local man who sued a Willingboro police officer for allegedly beating him and arresting him without probable cause.

In his suit, Jullian D. Booker (also referred to as Jullian F. Booker) said that on April 2, 2009 he was riding in a car driven by Sylvester Williams when it was pulled over by Willingboro Police Officer Sean Malone. He said that Malone, accompanied by a police dog, pointed a gun at Booker's head and screamed "Get the f**k out of the car."

After pulling Booker out of the car, Malone allegedly threw Booker onto the concrete pavement, punched him several times in the head and screamed "if you f**king move I'll have my f**king dog bite your f**king face off." He claims that Malone's punches caused his lip, which was between the concrete and his teeth, to receive a massive gash. He claims that he was charged with resisting arrest and eluding an officer but that both charges were later dismissed.

The case is captioned Booker v. Willingboro, Federal Case No. 1:10-cv-04886 and Booker's attorney was Robert H. Bembry, III of Philadelphia. Case documents are on-line here.

None of Booker's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $25,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Willingboro or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Willingboro or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Booker $25,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.

Greenwich pays $123,000 to settle minor's sexual assault claim against fire chief

2012-11-06T16:29:00.007-05:00

On October 8, 2012, the Township of Greenwich (Cumberland County) and the Greenwich Township Fire Department agreed to pay $123,000 to a local couple and daughter who claimed that the daughter was sexually assaulted and otherwise mistreated by officials of the local volunteer fire department and that neither the fire department nor the Township took corrective action.

In their two lawsuits, John and Patricia Newton, parents of Jordan Newton, said that in September 2007, when Jordan was nearly sixteen years old, Fire Chief Wade MacFarland asked them whether Jordan would be interested in becoming a volunteer firefighter. According to the lawsuit, MacFarland said that Jordan was needed to complete and file various fire reports with the State and that he and other officials at the department would be her guardians. Jordan, who had been home schooled and "had not been exposed . . . to many social settings involving a number of adults," reported to the department and started completing the reports under MacFarland's direction. Jordan claimed that she began meeting with MacFarland on a number of occasions when she and MacFarland were the only ones present.

After her seventeenth birthday, Jordan became certified as an EMT and started responding to fire calls under the command of EMS Unit Captain Laurie Larue MacFarland, who was then Wade MacFarland's wife. According to the lawsuits, at about the same time, Wade MacFarland called Jordan to the firehouse and subjected her to "flirting and increased attention . . . including, among other things, back rubs being administered . . . when others were not present." Chief MacFarland, who was in his early to mid thirties, allegedly also promised Jordan that he would marry her and "she would be groomed by him to become the first and youngest female fire chief in the State of New Jersey." Wade MacFarland allegedly "soon engaged himself in a sexual relationship with [Jordan] while she was a minor and while he served in a direct supervisory capacity to her as the Chief of the Defendant Greenwich Fire Department."

Jordan's parents learned about the alleged relationship in November 2010 and immediately demanded that the fire department investigate. Fire Captain Matthew Elwell, who knew about the alleged relationship, reportly encouraged other fire officers to "look the other way." After not getting anywhere with the fire department, Jordan's parents sought help from the Greenwich Township Committee but were allegedly "rebuffed in their request."

Also named in the suits were Mayor Theodore Keifer; William Reinhart, who served on the Township Committee as well as president of the fire department; Charles Reinhart and Misty Reinhart who, respectively, served as deputy chief and as an active member in the fire department.

The settled cases are captioned Newton v. Greenwich Township, Federal Case No. 1:12-cv-00238 and Newton v. MacFarland, Federal Case No. 1:12-cv-00237. In addition to the $123,000 pay out, the settlement agreement also requires the fire department to amend its bylaws to require a) that a junior firefighter must be at least 18 years old and b) prevent departmental disciplinary matters from being decided by relatives of the accused. Further, the agreement requires the department to adopt a sexual harassment policy and confirms that both Wade MacFarland and Charles Reinhart, by unanimous votes, were dismissed from the fire department on June 30, 2011. Finally, the settlement agreement prevents MacFarland from ever holding a position with the Township or the fire department and prevents Reinhart from holding such a position unless "the full record of this matter" as well as "the findings of Hearing Officer, J. Fred Coldren, in the matter of City of Bridgeton v. Charles Reinhart" are taken into consideration.

A third lawsuit, filed by Jordan Newton against Charles Reinhart and bearing Superior Court Docket No. CUM-L-1060-11, is not being dismissed as part of the settlement. According to a December 1, 2011 article in the News of Cumberland County, this lawsuit alleged that Charles Reinhart “forced [Jordan], against her will, to engage in sexual intercourse with him and forced her to perform fellatio upon him.” In her suit, Jordan claimed that this incident took place at Reinhart's home where Jordan “had been house sitting and dog sitting for Defendant Charles Reinhart and his wife when they would take trips.” According to the article, Reinhart encouraged Jordan to take a nap in the master bedroom and then sexually assaulted her approximately one hour after she fell asleep fully clothed. She further alleged that Reinhart later asked her to meet him at the parking lot of the Bridgeton Hospital but that Reinhart attempted to sexually assault her again after she entered his vehicle.

Newton's attorney was John P. Morris of Bridgeton. Case documents are on-line here.

The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.

None of Newton family's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $123,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Greenwich or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Greenwich or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay the Newton family $123,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.

Belmar pays $7,500 to settle police excessive force suit

2012-10-16T19:28:00.006-04:00

On October 10, 2012, the Borough of Belmar (Monmouth County) agreed to pay $7,500 to a Bradley Beach man who sued members of the Belmar Police Department for allegedly beating and choking him.

In his suit, Jason Bernardinello said that on July 25, 2009, when he was 19 years old, he and some friends were riding their bicycles on Ocean Avenue at about 10 p.m. He said that Special Officer whose name was stated in the lawsuit as "Sean Bowers" (but who is presumably Shawn Bowens or perhaps Sean Bowens) grabbed one of his friends' bicycles, tackled the friend from behind, "slammed [him] violently" and handcuffed him. Thereafter, while Bernardinello was allegedly having a "civil discussion" with another office, Bowens reportedly screamed "Get the f**k out of here" to him.

Bernardinello claimed that when he tried to "respectfully and calmly respond," Bowens grabbed his throat and started choking him and shoved his head into a light pole. He claims that four other officers jumped on him and "pummeled him while he lay, defenseless on the ground, punching him in the face and the groin while bystanders pleaded with the special cops to stop the beating."

Bernardinello further claims that he was detained at police headquarters for two hours and the officer on desk duty, who "was highly intoxicated," refused to let his parents see him.

The case is captioned Bernardinello v. Belmar, Federal Case No. 3:11-cv-0413 and Bernardinello's attorney was Dan A. Druz of Belmar. Case documents are on-line here.

The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause, which prevents the parties to the suit from publicly disclosing the settlement terms. Fortunately, however, these confidentiality clauses do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.

None of Bernardinello's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $7,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Belmar or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Belmar or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Bernardinello $7,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.

Winslow Board of Education pays $32,400 to settle IDEA attorney fee claim.

2012-10-16T14:38:00.004-04:00

On September 12, 2012, the Winslow Township (Camden County) Board of Education agreed to pay $32,400 to a not-for-profit law firm that successfully represented a 12-year0old disabled student in an action under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

In his suit, the twelve year old Sicklerville student, identified only by his initials "P.B.," who had been diagnosed with "Autism Spectrum Disorder with features closely aligned to Asperger's Syndrome" wanted to continue to attend Yale Academy, in Cherry Hill, while the school district wanted him to attend its own in-district class for disabled students.

After several hearings before the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law, including a due process trial that spanned six days, Administrative Law Judge Patricia M. Kerins concluded "that Winslow has failed to provide P.B. with a free appropriate public education . . . [and the school board's] program is not individualized to P.B.'s unique needs and is not designed to provide him with meaningful educational benefit."

Thereafter, the law firm representing P.B. sued the Winslow school board for $31,935 it said that it earned in attorney fees for representing P.B. in the litigation. Specifically, the firm claimed $150 per hour for 212.9 hours spent on the case.

After further litigation, the law firms fees rose to $36,000, but the firm agreed, in order to settle the case, to take 90% of that amount, which is $32,400.

The case is captioned P.B. v. Winslow Township Board of Education, Federal Case No. 1:12-cv-01225 and P.B.'s attorneys were Sean M. Benoit and W. Emmett Dwyer of Disability Rights New Jersey of Trenton. Case documents are on-line here.

None of P.B.'s allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $32,400 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Winslow or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Winslow or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay P.B. $32,400 than take the matter to trial.

Wayne pays $220,000 to settle zoning and discrimination lawsuit

2012-10-10T15:43:00.001-04:00

On August 23, 2012, the Township of Wayne (Passaic County) agreed to pay $220,000 to a local car wash/quick lube center and its owner. In its lawsuit, the car wash, Wayne Auto Spa, which advertises itself as being "environmentally responsible" claimed that the Township "unlawfully targeted [its] efforts to install a wind powered electric system on its premises. The Auto Spa's owner, Robert Burke of Morristown, alleged that Wayne officials subjected him to "invidious discrimination" because of "his outspoken advocacy for the wind energy system."

Burke alleged that he was the campaign manager for William Brennan, who challenged Council incumbent and Planning Board member Paul Margiotta in an election. He claimed that his support of Brennan resulted in the Council and Planning Board taking action to "impede, frustrate and prohibit the Wayne Auto Spa application for approval of a proposed wind energy system."

Burke claimed that Joseph Connolly of Wayne, who is a retired Bergen County Sheriff's Officer, opposed his wind energy proposal and threatened him. Specifically, Burke claimed that Connolly e-mailed him that "I will come back and see you about this. I expect you to get the point this time around."

Burke also claimed that Connolly came to the Auto Spa, flashed his Sheriff's badge and told him "I will kick your ass" unless he stopped pursuing his wind energy application. The threats, he claimed, were not investigated by the Wayne Police Department or the Passaic County Prosecutors's Office despite his repeated requests.

Burke further claimed that the Wayne Police Department "began stopping patrons of Wayne Auto Spa who were making or attempting to make left turns," which Burke said are legal, into his business. This, according to Burke, was the police department's attempt to intimidate and harass his customers.

During an October 20, 2011, "sealed settlement conference" before U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson, Burke and Wayne Auto Spa agreed to a) accept $220,000 as a settlement amount, b) not disclose the amount of the settlement to anyone, c) not disparage Wayne or its officials and d) to not file any more Open Public Records Act (OPRA) requests regarding any matters relating to his lawsuit. The settlement was made contingent upon the failure of a legal challenge to Burke's application to the Planning Board for permission to install his wind turbine system. The transcript from the October 20, 2011 conference, together with a transcript of another conference held on October 24, 2011, are on-line here.

Fortunately, however, confidentiality provisions, such as the one agreed to in this case, do not trump the public's right to obtain copies of settlement agreements that arise out of lawsuits in which a government agency or official is a defendant.

The case is captioned Burke v. Wayne, Federal Case No. 11-cv-1066 and Burke's attorney was, at least initially, R. William Potter of Princeton. The lawsuit is on-line here and the settlement agreement is here. The resolution under which the Township Council accepted the settlement is on-line here.

None of Burke's or Wayne Auto Spa's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $220,000 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Wayne or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Wayne or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Burke and Wayne Auto Spa $220,000 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.

Hackensack pays $67,500 to settle police officer's retaliation lawsuit

2012-10-09T19:18:00.005-04:00

On May 15, 2012, the City of Hackensack (Bergen County) agreed to pay $67,500 to a Hackensack police officer, who also served in the New Jersey National Guard, who claimed that he was retaliated against for not supporting candidates favored by Police Chief C. Kenneth Zisa and for claiming benefits under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).

In his suit, Alexander Lopez-Arenas accused Chief Zisa of "using his office of Chief of Police . . . to extort monies from police officers to support his candidacies" as well as the candidacies of others, favored by Zisa, who ran for public office or for positions within the local Policemen's Benevolent Association. He claimed that police officers "who did not financially support Zisa's [preferred] candidates . . . were retaliated against."

Lopez-Arenas said that from the time he was hired in 2003, Sergeant Anthony Trezza told him "that if he wanted things to work out for him on the job that it was in his best interest to contribute to Chief Zisa's electoral campaigns. In effect if he wanted to proceed up the ranks he needed to contribute." He also claims that while on duty, he and other officers were "compelled to travel around the City . . . removing campaign signs of Zisa opponents and replacing them with those supportive of Defendant Zisa."

He claimed that in 2004 and again in 2008, he was called up to serve in active duty in Cuba and Iraq. Yet, when he returned and tried to claim his benefits he was due under the USERRA, he was allegedly demoted to "a walking post." When he complained to Lieutenant John Heinemann, he was allegedly told that he shouldn't "push the issue."

He also claimed that he used to date a female Hackensack police officer and that this officer, after a breakup, started dating Deputy Chief Frank Zisa, who is Chief Zisa's brother. Lopez-Arenas said that Frank Zisa ordered him to stay away from his girlfriend and that Lopez-Arenas "understood that even the slightest breach of this order would result in retaliation in the workplace."

Also named in the suit were Trezza, Heinemann and Frank Zisa.

The case is captioned Lopez-Arenas v. Hackensack, Federal Case No. 2:10-cv-02668 and Lopez-Arenas's attorney was Robert B. Woodruff of Morristown. Case documents are on-line here.

None of Lopez-Arenas's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $67,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Hackensack or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that Hackensack or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Lopez-Arenas $67,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.

NJDEP pays $22,500 to settle employment discrimination suit

2012-10-02T11:58:00.004-04:00

On August 22, 2012, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) agreed to pay $22,500 to a Lambertville woman who claimed that NJDEP officials discriminated against her based on her gender and displayed hostility toward her.

In her suit, Martha Goodwin said NJDEP Bureau Chief, Robert Soboleski, and Section Chief, Donald Kakas, created a hostile work environment for her from 2006 through 2009. She alleged "a general pattern of adverse actions and undermining female employees." She claimed that employee Thomas Gryzmski, who allegedly "had a reputation of causing havoc wherever he worked in the NJDEP" did not like have a female supervisor and would begin "loud soliloquies" and "loud tirades" in front of others but that Soboleski and Kakas "never told him to stop."

The alleged hostility culminated on February 24, 2009 when Soboleski allegedly told a co-worker about Goodwin that "that f***ing c**t is dead meat. Her days are numbered." She alleged that the conduct to which she was subject caused her to suffer depression and that her attempts to be reassigned to another bureau were not honored.

The case is captioned Goodwin v. NJDEP, Federal Case No. 11-cv-4236 and Goodwin represented herself in the lawsuit. Case documents are on-line here.

None of Goodwin's allegations have been proven or disproven in court. The settlement agreement resolution expressly states that the $22,500 payment does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by NJDEP or any of its officials. All that is known for sure is that NJDEP or its insurer, for whatever reason, decided that it would rather pay Goodwin $22,500 than take the matter to trial. Perhaps the defendants' decision to settle was done to save further legal expense and the costs of trying what were in fact exaggerated or meritless claims. Or, perhaps the claims were true and the defendants wanted to avoid being embarrassed at trial. This is the problem when cases settle before trial--it is impossible to know the truth of what really happened.