Qassis v. Borough of Carlstadt

• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
• Writing for the Court: SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J.
• Docket Number: Civil Action 22-3713 (SDW) (MAH)
• Decision Date: 10 November 2025
• Citation: Qassis v. Borough of Carlstadt, Civil Action 22-3713 (SDW) (MAH) (D. N.J. Nov 10, 2025)
• Parties: PAUL QASSIS, PETRA HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. BOROUGH OF CARLSTADT, Defendant.
• topic: Civil Rights,Commercial Litigation,Contracts,Administrative Law

1

PAUL QASSIS, PETRA HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. BOROUGH OF CARLSTADT, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 22-3713 (SDW) (MAH)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

November 10, 2025

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

SUSAN D. WIGENTON, U.S.D.J.

Before this Court is Defendant the Borough of Carlstadt's (“Defendant” or “the Borough”) Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E. 109 (“Motion”))^[1]pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 56. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. This opinion is issued without oral argument pursuant to Rule 78 and Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the reasons stated herein, the Motion is GRANTED in part.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND^[2]

Plaintiffs Paul Qassis (“Plaintiff” or “Qassis”) and Petra Holdings, LLC^[3](“Petra”), the owners of Block 59, Lot 14 (“the Property”)-also known as 491 Broad Street-on the Borough's tax map, challenge the Borough's course of action as it relates to Plaintiffs' attempt to build a multi-unit residential dwelling on said Property. (D.E. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶ 13.) This Court endeavors to summarize years' worth of events, highlighting the most pertinent and salient facts to Plaintiffs' Complaint and Defendant's Motion.

A. Initial Re-Zoning Application, 2015 Litigation & Settlement

From 2012 to 2017, Plaintiffs operated a “large restaurant and lounge” on the Property. (Compl. ¶ 14.) After being issued a number of citations by the Borough and having multiple people-including the Borough's then-mayor-suggest a residential development would be a better use of the property, Plaintiffs applied for a variance from the Borough's Zoning Board of Adjustment (“the Zoning Board”) in March 2014. (Id. ¶¶ 17-18.) Plaintiffs' initial request sought permission to build a ten-unit residential dwelling, with two of the units being designated for affordable housing. (Id. ¶ 18.) After two public hearings, the Zoning Board denied Plaintiffs' initial application on January 19, 2015. (Id. ¶ 19.)

Plaintiffs renewed their application, this time submitting a revised application seeking a variance to build an eight-unit dwelling with one affordable housing unit. (Id. ¶ 20.) After a public hearing, this revised application was similarly denied on February 25, 2015. (Id. ¶ 21.) The Borough's Independent Monitor (“Monitor”), Robert T. Regan, Esquire, reversed the Zoning Board's denial and granted Petra's requests for a site plan approval and variance.^[4] (Id. ¶ 22.)

On May 7, 2015, the Borough filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs against Petra and the Monitor in New Jersey Superior Court, Bergen County, challenging the Monitor's reversal of the Zoning Board's decision. (Compl. ¶ 23.) Ultimately, the parties settled the 2015 litigation and entered a Consent Order in which the parties agreed Petra would submit its revised plan for an eight-unit development to the Zoning Board for a Whispering Woods hearing.^[5](Compl. ¶ 25.) The Zoning Board held the Whispering Woods hearing on September 21, 2016, and approved Plaintiffs' revised plan. (Id. ¶ 26; D.E. 109-2, Borough Ex. J at 216.)

B. Subsequent Negotiations and the Developer's Agreement

Notwithstanding the approval of Plaintiffs' revised plan to build an eight-unit development, the parties continued negotiating several aspects and details pertinent to the development's construction from 2017 to May 2020. (D.E. 109-11 (“Borough SOMF”) ¶ 37.) On May 26, 2020, however, the Borough's attorney sent the Monitor an email with the following message:

The Governing Body^[6] and the adjacent property owners are opposed to this project and do not believe it is in the interest of the Borough of Carlstadt or its residents to move forward with the current plans. We understand your position as the Court appointed monitor and leave it to you to execute the Developer's Agreement signed by Mr. Cohen^[7] and his client and to issue appropriate construction permits.

(D.E. 109-2, Borough Ex. K at 333.)^[8]The Monitor proceeded to execute the Developer's Agreement on June 4, 2020. (D.E. 109-2, Borough Ex. M at 359.) Excavation on the Property began “in early to mid-June of 2020.” (Borough SOMF ¶ 44.)

C. Issuance of Stop Work Orders & Tropical Storm Fay

1. June 15, 2020 Stop Work Order

On June 15, 2020, the Borough issued a Stop Work Order (“SWO”) directing Petra to cease all construction until further notice, citing the performance of work without a required permit. (D.E. 109-3, Borough Ex. GG at 68-69.) The Order stated that “ALL PERMITS REQUIRED UNDER THE NEW JERSEY UNIFORM CONSTRUCTION CODE MUST BE SECURED PRIOR TO PERFORMING WORK.” (Id. at 68.) This SWO was issued nearly a week after the Borough's Construction Official, Frank Recanati, issued a memorandum to the Borough Manager Joseph Crifasi and Plaintiffs detailing several issues which “need[ed] to be addressed prior to the issuance of permits.” (D.E. 109-2, Borough Ex. N at 363.) For example, Petra was to “revise and resubmit [a] survey that reflects a setback minimum of 5' for zoning approval and prior to permit issuance,” and had to submit architectural plans for plumbing, electric, and fire. (Id.)

That same day, the Monitor emailed Petra's counsel confirming he was aware a SWO had been issued but noting he had not been advised as to the reason for its issuance. (D.E. 116-3, Pls. Ex. J at 50.) The Monitor also stated as follows: “Please be advised that the Stop Work Order is invalid and has no legal effect. The property owner is hereby authorized to remove the Stop Work Order from the chain link fence and to continue working at the site.” (Id.)

Via letter, Plaintiffs' engineer, Mark Reme, responded to the Borough on June 16, 2020, stating he had performed an inspection of the excavation and that his office “[did] not recommend any other protections to prevent undermining of the neighboring property other than careful excavation.” (D.E. 109-2, Borough Ex. R at 397.) That same day, Reme sent Qassis a letter noting the approved plans “have the wall and footing for you[r] building right at the property line,” and advising him that “[c]are will be needed to prevent over excavation and undermining of the neighbors [sic] property.” (D.E. 109-2, Borough Ex. Q at 399.)

2. June 25, 2020 Stop Work Order & Tropical Storm Fay

In the ten days between the issuance of the first and second SWO, Plaintiffs and the Borough and its officials engaged in a flurry of communications. (See D.E. 109-2, Borough Ex. S (June 16, 2020 Memorandum); Ex. T (document issued by Borough's Sub-Code Official Mark Sadonis stating the spacing between the shoring members was inconsistent with the shoring measurements in the shoring plan submitted and suggesting Plaintiffs' engineer visit the site); Ex. U at 402 (document issued by the Borough in response to Plaintiffs' submission indicating “[n]o permit will be granted until the shoring plan has been approved by Building Sub-Code” and that the Borough would continue to perform site visits without notice or Qassis's permission “to see that the property next door is safe guarded.”).) Additionally, on June 19, 2020, Linda Nicoletti, the developer of the property located at 497 Broad Street (“the Adjacent Property”), called the police to report property damage and that the fencing surrounding Plaintiffs' Property was encroaching on her property line. (D.E. 116-3, Pltfs. Ex. BB at 228.)

On June 25, 2020, the Borough issued a second SWO instructing Petra to cease all construction, citing “WORK BEING PERFORMED WITHOUT BENEFIT OF APPROVAL/PERMIT” as the violation. (D.E. 109-3, Borough Ex. HH at 71.) That same day, Sadonis reported he had visited the Property both on June 24 and 25, 2020 and observed that the shoring was still not in compliance with N.J. Admin. Code § 5:23-2.34 and that he had yet to receive architectural plans. (D.E. 109-2, Borough Ex. V at 404.)

In the days following, the shoring issue became more pressing, particularly because on June 30, 2020, Sadonis issued a memorandum and attached a photograph showing that “the section towards the rear of the neighboring property wall . . . did not have any shoring in place.” (Borough SOMF ¶ 80 (citing D.E. 109-2, Borough Ex. P (“Reme 5/12/25 Dep”) 52:17-53:3).) On July 6 and 8, 2020, Reme received more pictures depicting soil loss from the Adjacent Home and towards the Property, as well as a crack in the sidewalk. (Borough SOMF ¶¶ 81-83.) Sadonis's report from July 8, 2020 stated, in relevant part:

I visited the site yesterday Tuesday, the 7th and saw the blowout of the shoring wall on the west side was bigger than it had been the week before . . . The wood shoring wall as I stated in an earlier letter is not against the earth that it is supposed to hold in place. With that being said every time it rains more of the earth washes down behind the wall causing the top earth to collapse.

[ . . . ]

[T]he property to the west is losing much of the earth abutting the foundation and soon will compromise the integrity of the structure and walkways adjacent to the site. There was a visible crack in the sidewalk next door adjacent to the stairs.

(Borough SOMF ¶ 84 (citing D.E. 109-3, Borough Ex. AA).) Reme was made aware of the issues raised in Sadonis's July 8, 2020 report. (Borough SOMF ¶¶ 85-87.)

That same day, Reme and the Borough's engineer, Gregory Polyniak, participated in a conference call to discuss a “more . . . robust-type shoring” plan particularly since soil loss had been going on and bad weather was anticipated. (Id. ¶¶ 89-93.) Reme agreed to provide a revised sheeting and shoring design by the afternoon of July 8 or-at the latest-the morning of July 9, 2020. (Id. ¶ 94.) Yet on July 9, 2020, at 12:12 p.m., Polyniak had yet to receive anything and noted there was an...