SAM KHOUDARY VS. CITY OF NEW BRUNSWICKSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SAM KHOUDARY(L-0471-15 AND 50-2014, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED), A-0771-15T1/A-0835-15T1

Sam Khoudary faced longstanding municipal housing-ordinance violations at 377 Delevan Street; 44 summonses were issued between 1994 and 2011, and three Time Payment Orders (TPOs) aggregated $24,780.
Ownership transferred among LLCs sharing Khoudary's business address; Khoudary’s counsel previously said he would "take responsibility" as manager/shareholder in settlement talks.
On September 15, 2014, after settlement talks failed, the municipal court treated Khoudary as personally responsible, found him in contempt for nonpayment of the TPOs, and ordered immediate incarceration—three consecutive six-month terms (total 18 months) unless he paid.
Two days later defense counsel arranged payment of $51,023 to the City; Khoudary was released. He appealed the contempt/commitment order to the Law Division, which affirmed. Reconsideration was denied.
Separate appeal (A-0771-15) challenged a summary-judgment dismissal of Khoudary’s complaint against the City, but his appendix omitted the materials required for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether A-0771-15 is reviewable given appellant appendix omissions	Khoudary appealed summary judgment	City contended judgment proper	Dismissed for failure to include materials required by Rule 2:6-1(a)(1)
Whether municipal court could incarcerate Khoudary under N.J.S.A. 40:49-5 without contempt safeguards	Khoudary argued incarceration was improper, no finding of willfulness or proper contempt procedure	City argued court had discretion under N.J.S.A. 40:49-5 and procedures below were proper	Reversed: incarceration invalid because contempt/collection safeguards (notice, order to show cause or Rule 1:10-1 criteria, and a finding of willfulness/ability to pay) were not satisfied
Whether proceeding was true summary contempt or a collection action requiring ability-to-pay inquiry	Khoudary: proceeding was essentially coercive collection, required ability-to-pay hearing	City: characterized as contempt/authorized under municipal statute; settlement negotiations justified payment	Court held proceeding functioned as summary contempt/collection but lacked required procedures to determine willfulness or ability to pay
Whether Khoudary is entitled to return of $51,023 paid for release	Khoudary contended payment coerced and excessive	City said amount was agreed global settlement with defense counsel	Issue not decided on appeal because payment amount was not part of the sentence/order before the court

Murray v. Plainfield Rescue Squad, 210 N.J. 581 (standards for summary judgment review)
Society Hill Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Society Hill Associates, 347 N.J. Super. 163 (appellate dismissal for deficient appendix on summary-judgment review)
State v. Avena, 281 N.J. Super. 327 (de novo review on municipal appeals)
State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146 (principles for municipal appeals)
State v. Hannah, 448 N.J. Super. 78 (scope of appellate review of Law Division municipal appeals)
State v. Palma, 219 N.J. 584 (distinguishing review of municipal court action vs. Law Division action)
State v. Monaco, 444 N.J. Super. 539 (standard for reviewing Law Division municipal-appeal decisions)
State v. Barone, 147 N.J. 599 (appellate role in weighing evidence and credibility)
Amoresano v. Laufgas, 171 N.J. 532 (contempt law and procedural safeguards)
In re Yengo, 84 N.J. 111 (protections in contempt proceedings)
In re N.J.A.C. 5:96 & 5:97, 221 N.J. 1 (limits on punitive/coercive sanctions for inability to pay)
Schochet v. Schochet, 435 N.J. Super. 542 (purpose of Rule 1:10-3 hearings to determine excusable vs. willful noncompliance)