STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ESTRELLA PIEMONTESEÂ (5095, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4556-14T3

Defendant Estrella Piemontese owned a vacant three‑family residence in Paterson; a city housing inspector found overgrown vegetation on October 29, 2013 and again on November 15, 2013 and issued a notice under Paterson Ordinance §271‑26A to "cut high weeds and grass."
A municipal court complaint alleged failure to "clean or remove rubbish or garbage" in violation of §271‑26A; defendant was convicted in municipal court and fined $500.
Defendant appealed and the Law Division held a de novo hearing, found weeds four to five feet high in photographs, and convicted under §271‑26A (Sanitation) and §271‑26C (Noxious weeds).
The trial court reasoned the overgrowth created health and fire hazards and could harbor pests, relying in part on Pope v. Houston and prior appellate discussion in State v. Piemontese.
On appeal to the Appellate Division, the court reviewed whether the evidence supported convictions under §271‑26A and §271‑26C and whether the trial court correctly interpreted the ordinance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported conviction under §271‑26A (Sanitation: free from rubbish/garbage)	City: overgrowth and notice to remove rubbish/garbage justified conviction under §271‑26A	Piemontese: no rubbish/garbage existed; procedural and notice defects	Reversed: no evidence of rubbish or garbage in the record; conviction under §271‑26A unsupported
Whether evidence supported conviction under §271‑26C (Noxious weeds: species injurious to public health)	City: overgrowth created health/fire hazards and harbored pests, so §271‑26C violated	Piemontese: ordinance not applicable; no proof species were "noxious" or detrimental	Reversed: trial court misinterpreted §271‑26C (focuses on harmful species), and record lacked evidence that weeds were noxious or posed health hazards
Proper statutory/ordinance interpretation standard	City: broad public‑health reading of ordinance justified	Piemontese: ordinance vague/overbroad as applied; lacked proof	Court: apply plain‑meaning analysis de novo; cannot extend ordinance beyond its text to cure evidentiary gaps
Whether further procedural issues (service, de novo hearing, owner status) required relief	City: convictions valid	Piemontese: raised multiple procedural defects	Court: no need to decide because convictions reversed on evidentiary and interpretive grounds

Pope v. Houston, 559 S.W.2d 905 (Tex. Civ. App. 1977) (upheld enforcement against overgrowth as health hazard in that jurisdiction)
State v. Piemontese, 282 N.J. Super. 307 (App. Div. 1995) (prior appellate decision involving defendant and ordinance issues)
State v. Kuropchak, 221 N.J. 368 (2015) (standard for sufficiency review: convictions must be supported by sufficient credible evidence)
State v. L.S., 444 N.J. Super. 241 (App. Div. 2016) (explaining application of sufficiency standard and quoting Kuropchak)
City Council v. Brown, 249 N.J. Super. 185 (App. Div. 1991) (ordinance construction begins with plain meaning to determine legislative intent)
In re Liquidation of Integrity Ins. Co., 193 N.J. 86 (2007) (interpretation of statutes and ordinances reviewed de novo)