STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. STEVEN PEZZINO (18-025, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2248-19

Background

Defendant Steven Pezzino received three 2015 summonses from East Hanover Township for: installing a six-foot front-yard fence without a permit, storing more than three motor vehicles on his property, and parking vehicles in the front yard (not on an approved surface).
Township enforcement followed prior complaints and a January 2015 Notice of Abatement; defendant did not cure violations and summonses issued in June 2015.
Municipal court found defendant guilty and imposed over $16,000 in fines; defendant appealed to the Law Division for a de novo review.
Key factual disputes: whether defendant had a completed fence permit/application (the 2014 application lacked the required survey; a later survey showed the six-foot fence already existed), whether defendant stored more than three cars (he admitted he did), whether he enlarged/used a gravel area as additional driveway space without permit, and whether the home is a corner lot with two front yards (Township said yes; defendant presented no record of having successfully challenged that determination).
The Law Division conducted a de novo review, credited the municipal judge’s credibility findings, found defendant guilty on all counts, but reduced fines to $549 and gave defendant time to cure violations by a set deadline (citing confusion caused by an informal exemption allegedly granted by a former mayor).
On appeal to the Appellate Division, defendant argued due-process violation for being absent at the de novo hearing, insufficiency of the guilty findings, and ineffective assistance of counsel; the court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Law Division proceeding in defendant's absence (due process)	Proceeding de novo on the municipal record is proper; counsel may waive defendant’s presence	Defendant was deprived of due process because trial proceeded without him	No due-process violation: counsel waived presence, judge inquired into absence and proceeded on the record; defendant showed no prejudice
Validity and sufficiency of evidence for ordinance violations (fence, excess vehicles, front-yard parking, driveway enlargement)	Ordinances are clear; evidence and admissions support convictions; fence built without permit; >3 vehicles stored; gravel area used as unpermitted driveway; property designated as having two front yards	Defendant said he applied for a fence permit and was informally authorized; mayor gave an informal exemption on vehicles; he challenged characterization of lot	Guilty on all counts: application incomplete (no survey), fence existed before permit, defendant admitted >3 vehicles, driveway work/parking required permit, and defendant produced no record overturning lot designation
Selective enforcement / municipal waiver / informal exemption	Enforcement proper; any informal mayoral statement lacked legal authority	Mayor’s alleged private exemption excused violations or created estoppel/confusion	Rejected selective-enforcement claim; judge credited testimony that mayoral private exemption lacked authority, but recognized it caused confusion and reduced fines accordingly
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel represented defendant; Law Division reduced fines and extended cure period	Counsel was incompetent and failed to make arguments	Rejected: no deficient performance shown and no prejudice demonstrated given favorable reduction in fines and additional cure time

Key Cases Cited

State v. Golin, 363 N.J. Super. 474 (App. Div. 2003) (de novo review in Law Division gives due regard to municipal judge’s credibility findings)
State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146 (1964) (principles on appellate de novo review and credibility)
State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463 (1999) (standard for reviewing whether findings could reasonably be reached on sufficient credible evidence)
State v. Taimanglo, 403 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2008) (defendant may elect not to attend de novo municipal appeal; waiver principles)
State v. Luna, 193 N.J. 202 (2007) (trial court has latitude in conducting waiver inquiries)
State v. Davis, 281 N.J. Super. 410 (App. Div. 1995) (trial judge should inquire into defendant’s absence and make factual findings)
State v. Hannah, 448 N.J. Super. 78 (App. Div. 2016) (appellate review of Law Division focuses on Law Division’s action, not municipal court)
State v. Palma, 219 N.J. 584 (2014) (procedural principles governing appeals from municipal court to Law Division)