City moves to block support for MTOTSA case ... again Homeowners' attorney: City harasses beachfront residents BY CHRISTINE VARNO Staff Writer LONG BRANCH - The city is attempting to block the state public advocate from filing a brief in support of residents fighting to save their home from being taken by eminent domain. Attorneys for Long Branch filed a motion in state Superior Court Appellate Division Jan. 25. The legal maneuver aims to strike Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen's amicus brief from being used to support an appeal by Louis and Lillian Anzalone of Ocean Terrace. The appeal seeks to overturn a lower court ruling that upheld the city's right to take their oceanfront home for a private redevelopment project. According to the city's brief, Chen "improperly expanded" on issues not on record during the Superior Court hearing to determine the city's right to proceed with eminent domain to acquire the property of the Anzalones and their neighbors. The Anzalones and a group of residents in the small beachfront neighborhood known as MTOTSA are currently appealing the court ruling that gave the city the go-ahead to take their homes for the redevelopment project. The city's brief was prepared by Lawrence H. Shapiro, who is with Long Branch City Attorney James Aaron's firm, Ansell Zaro Grimm and Aaron, Ocean Township. Shapiro explained Monday that the city filed its motion to disqualify Chen's brief based on two points. According to Shapiro, Chen's argument that residents in the redevelopment zone were not properly notified of the pending condemnation was information not on record during the trial court proceeding and two-thirds of the information in Chen's appendix was never before the trial court. "They are saying the trial court got it wrong," Shapiro said. "But how could they have decided on material that was not before them?" Attorney William J. Ward is representing the Anzalones in the appeal of Judge Lawrence M. Lawson's June 22 decision that said the city had the right to acquire the properties in the MTOTSA area, which is in the Beachfront North, phase II redevelopment zone. Ward said Friday that the city's motion is "just ridiculous." "[The city] claims that Chen relied on things that were not in the record," Ward said. "In his [amicus] brief, Chen is making arguments of the residents not being properly notified of the plans for their property. "The city is stating that these issues were not raised before Lawson [in the trial court] and should not be in the Appellate Division." Ward disagreed with the city's argument. "Louis Anzalone," Ward said, "did say he was never noticed that his area was changed from infill to an area [slated for eminent domain]. "We raised that issue in our brief to Lawson and in our appeal to the Appellate Division," Ward said. "They are dead wrong." According to Ward, the motion by the city amounts to harassment. "This is part of the pattern of Mayor Adam Schneider and his administration and attorneys," Ward said. "They confront the residents, they harass the residents and they make them jump through hoops," he said, adding. "It is improper." Chen filed an amicus curiae brief as a "friend of the court" in the state Appellate Division of the Superior Court Jan. 11, supporting the appeal by the Anzalones and MTOTSA. Attorney Peter H. Wegener, with the public interest law firm Institute for Justice (IJ) as co-counsel, is representing some 20 MTOTSA property owners in the appeal. In the amicus brief, Chen urges the Appellate Division to reverse Lawson's decision. Chen also urges the appellate court to grant the homeowners' request for full discovery and a hearing, both of which were denied by Lawson. Chen charges in the brief that further discovery is needed to resolve facts that remain in dispute in three areas: conflicts of interest during the redevelopment process; the blight designation of the properties; and proper notification of the condemnation to the affected residents. In a similar motion filed in November, the city also attempted to have IJ disqualified from entering the case "pro hac vice." A pro hac vice motion, which translates as "for this matter only," is required to be filed by out-of-state attorneys in order to be permitted to practice law in a state where they are not licensed. The Arlington, Va.-based public interest firm was granted pro-hac-vice status by the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division Dec. 4. "The position of the City of Long Branch is totally without merit and further evidence of a disturbing pattern of conduct," Ward said. "They seek to discredit or prevent participation by groups such as the Public Advocate and the [IJ], which support the Long Branch property owners in their fight against eminent domain abuse. "The city will not succeed in their efforts and they are only prolonging the inevitable, the reversal of Judge Lawson's June 22 opinion," he said. According to Ward, the city filed a motion to block Chen's report in the Anzalones' case at this time, because the Anzalones are a separate case from the majority of MTOTSA plaintiffs. "We have our own briefing schedule," Ward said. "Our office, on behalf of the Anzalones, as well as the brief for Long Branch, have been filed in [the Anzalone case]," Ward said, adding that Chen's brief has also been filed and submitted for the case. "The MTOTSA case has not been briefed yet," he said. "I believe the reason to be because of all the time it took in IJ being admitted pro hac vice," Ward said. "No briefs have been filed for them as of this time as far as I know, except for the public advocate's brief." Ward said he also has requested that the N.J. Supreme Court hear the Anzalone case, rather than wait for the oral arguments to be heard in the appellate division.