HARRY JAY LEVIN VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF OCEAN Â COUNTY BUSINESS ASSOCIATION(C-123-11, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3630-15T1

Harry J. Levin (and his firm Levin Cyphers) were expelled from the Ocean County Business Association (OCBA) after a grievance filed by a member (DeMey/Adam Safeguard) about unpaid investigative fees.
Levin had been sued by DeMey; the parties later settled and entered a mutual release.
Levin challenged his expulsion in court; the trial court ordered the grievance process reinstated because the initial procedure was fundamentally unfair.
The Appellate Division likewise found the original process unfair and remanded, directing a new grievance committee and that Levin be allowed to confront the grievant and be present at all stages.
A reconstituted grievance committee recommended non-reinstatement; the OCBA Board (which included some individuals earlier named as defendants in the litigation) unanimously adopted the recommendation.
The trial court granted OCBA’s summary judgment motion; Levin appealed, arguing the Board’s composition created conflicts and that the settlement with DeMey barred his participation in the grievance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Levin was denied a fair and impartial hearing because OCBA Board members previously named as defendants participated in the decision	Levin: Board members who had been named defendants in the lawsuit had conflicts and their participation deprived him of an impartial adjudication	OCBA: Plaintiffs waived objections; the Board (a party to the suit) would necessarily decide membership; no per se conflict requiring exclusion	Held: No reversible error — Levin knew those individuals were present, did not timely object, and the hearing complied with court orders, OCBA rules, and public policy
Whether the settlement with DeMey/Adam Safeguard barred DeMey from participating in the grievance (as witness/grievant)	Levin: The mutual release in the settlement prevented DeMey’s participation in the grievance process	OCBA: The settlement between Levin and DeMey did not bind OCBA or bar DeMey from testifying or participating	Held: Trial court properly denied enforcement of the settlement to bar DeMey; issue lacks merit and was not a basis to overturn the result
Whether summary judgment was appropriate	Levin: Sought immediate reinstatement and argued procedural infirmities persisted	OCBA: Argued plaintiffs lacked a legally cognizable interest or failed to preserve objections	Held: No material factual disputes on key procedural points; as a matter of law OCBA’s post-remand procedures were proper and summary judgment for OCBA was affirmed

Rowe v. Mazel Thirty, LLC, 209 N.J. 35 (N.J. 2012) (standard for reviewing summary judgment and viewing facts in favor of non-movant)
Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (N.J. 1995) (summary judgment principles)
Davis v. Devereux Found., 209 N.J. 269 (N.J. 2012) (de novo review of legal questions)
Cipriani Builders, Inc. v. Madden, 389 N.J. Super. 154 (App. Div. 2006) (private association membership review; requirements of notice and fair opportunity to respond)
Rutledge v. Gulian, 93 N.J. 113 (N.J. 1983) (judicial protection of membership interests in private associations)
Higgins v. Am. Soc'y of Clinical Pathologists, 51 N.J. 191 (N.J. 1968) (limits on private association discretion)
Falcone v. Middlesex Cty. Med. Soc'y, 34 N.J. 582 (N.J. 1961) (membership expulsion and public policy constraints)