Trenton, NJ -- The appellate court should reject the City of Long Branch’s attempt to have Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen’s arguments stricken from the record of an eminent domain case that centers on the city’s attempt to condemn a neighborhood of beachfront homes for redevelopment, according to the advocate’s brief filed today.

The brief was filed in response to the city’s request that the court set aside the advocate’s initial brief, filed Jan. 11, from the record.

“Eminent domain is an issue of enormous public importance,” Chen said. “Clearly, our role in this case as a friend-of-the-court is not only legal and appropriate, it is vital if we are to safeguard the rights of all homeowners in New Jersey.”

Chen added that the purpose of an amicus is to call the court’s attention to law, facts or other circumstances that might otherwise escape consideration. Participating in cases like the Long Branch eminent domain matter is one of the department’s primary roles as guardian of the public interest, he noted.

The advocate’s amicus brief supported an appeal by 38 Long Branch residents fighting the city’s condemnation of their modest beachfront homes to make way for an upscale condominium project. 

Chen urged the Appellate Division to reverse the trial court’s judgment and send the case back to the courts for a full and fair hearing to resolve disputed facts. The homeowners had requested full discovery, a hearing and dismissal of the condemnation action, but the trial court denied their request.

“Given the broad statewide and national public concern about eminent domain practices, and the constitutional rights at stake, the City’s motions are not in the public interest and should be denied,” the brief filed today stated.

The brief answered the city’s two arguments against allowing the Public Advocate’s brief and appendix to remain in the record.

First, the trial record clearly shows that the issue of whether homeowners were properly notified their homes were targeted for condemnation was a primary consideration in the initial case.

The city also objected generally to the appendix that the Public Advocate attached to its brief, but failed to specify any objectionable documents. 

The appendix consisted of three types of documents that were all “properly before the court,” the brief said. It included documents that appear in the trial court record and/or the Appellate Division appendices, scholarly reports and matters of public record that  illustrate the trial court erred in failing to permit discovery and an evidentiary hearing, the brief stated.

“The arguments raised by the Public Advocate are not only well within the scope allowed an amicus, but consistent with the statutory obligation of this Department, to ‘represent the public interest in such administrative and court proceedings . . . as the Public Advocate deems shall best serve the public interest,’ ” the brief concluded.

Read the Public Advocate's brief.
Read the most recent Public Advocate eminent domain report.