Richard Grabowsky v. Twp. of Montclair (073142)
115 A.3d 815
N.J.2015Background
- Church Street Lot (0.8 acre) in Montclair proposed for an 88‑unit assisted‑living facility; adjacent property (67 Church St.) owned by the Unitarian Universalist Congregation Church.
- Fountain Square Development sought three amendments to the township redevelopment plan; Council (including Mayor Jerry Fried and Councilman Nick Lewis) introduced Ordinance O‑12‑28 adopting the amendments.
- At public meetings Fried allegedly said the facility "might benefit him because he could admit his mother"; Lewis proposed a height reduction amendment; the amended ordinance passed 4–3.
- Grabowsky sued in lieu of prerogative writs, alleging (1) Fried had a direct personal interest and (2) Fried and Lewis had indirect personal interests via their membership/leadership in the Unitarian Church.
- Trial court sua sponte granted summary disposition dismissing the complaint; Appellate Division deemed that procedure improper but affirmed on the merits. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification, reversed the Appellate Division, and remanded for limited discovery and merits consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court could sua sponte grant summary disposition on preliminary injunction application | Grabowsky: summary dismissal was improper; discovery needed on conflicts | Township/others: record supported summary disposition; plaintiff relied on record | Court: sua sponte summary disposition was improper under R.4:67‑1; reinstated claims and remanded for limited discovery |
| Whether Fried's alleged comment about his mother created a disqualifying direct personal interest | Grabowsky: comment shows a direct personal interest that required disqualification | Defendants: comment was speculative and shared with public; not distinct from ordinary citizens' interests | Court: on limited record, remark appears too remote to disqualify but ordered limited discovery or stipulation to develop facts |
| Whether membership/leadership in adjacent church gave rise to disqualifying indirect personal interest | Grabowsky: Fried and Lewis, as church leaders, shared church's interest (proximity and potential membership/financial benefit) | Defendants: church was neither applicant nor objector; speculation about benefits is insufficient | Court: organization owning property within 200 feet is deemed to have an interest; that interest is imputed to officials who hold or will imminently assume substantive leadership positions — remand for proof of leadership roles |
| Scope of imputation of organization’s interest to members | Grabowsky: impute interest to officials who are church leaders | Defendants: automatic imputation to all members would be impractical and overbroad | Court: declines bright‑line rule for all members; imputes interest to those in substantive leadership or about to assume such roles; case‑specific inquiry required |
Key Cases Cited
- Wyzykowski v. Rizas, 132 N.J. 509 (1993) (articulates categories of disqualifying interests and the impartial‑tribunal principle)
- Van Itallie v. Borough of Franklin Lakes, 28 N.J. 258 (1958) (conflict inquiry is fact‑specific; remote/speculative interests generally insufficient)
- Barrett v. Union Twp. Committee, 230 N.J. Super. 195 (App. Div. 1989) (official’s mother resided in adjacent facility—court found direct personal interest)
- McNamara v. Borough of Saddle River, 64 N.J. Super. 426 (App. Div. 1961) (official’s intense adversary interest created disqualification despite absence of financial stake)
- McVoy v. Bd. of Adjustment of Montclair Twp., 213 N.J. Super. 109 (App. Div. 1986) (organization’s direct participation in land‑use matter can disqualify affiliated board members)
- Marlboro Manor, Inc. v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 187 N.J. Super. 359 (App. Div. 1982) (imputation of organization’s interest to municipal officials who were members when organization actively opposed an action)