NJ Seal
State of NJ - Government Records Council Email Grc

2005-158

- Final Decision
- Supplemental Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director
- Interim Order
- In Camera Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director
- Interim Order
- Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director

Final Decision

December 14, 2006 Government Records Council Meeting

 

Cathy Cardillo

    Complainant

         v.

City of Hoboken (Zoning Office)

    Custodian of Record

Complaint No. 2005-158

 

 

 

At the December 14, 2006 public meeting, the Government Records Council ("Council") considered the December 7, 2006 Supplemental Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director and all related documentation submitted by the parties.  The Council voted unanimously to adopt the entirety of said findings and recommendations. The Council, therefore, finds that the Custodian complied with the Council's October 19, 2006 Interim Order within the required time frame.

 

This is the final administrative determination in this matter. Any further review should be pursued in the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey within forty-five (45) days. Information about the appeals process can be obtained from the Appellate Division Clerk's Office, Hughes Justice Complex, 25 W. Market St., PO Box 006, Trenton, NJ 08625-0006.  Proper service of submissions pursuant to any appeal is to be made to the Council in care of the Executive Director at the State of New Jersey Government Records Council, 101 South Broad Street, PO Box 819, Trenton, NJ 08625-0819. 

 

Final Decision Rendered by the

Government Records Council

On The 14th Day of September, 2006

 

Robin Berg Tabakin, Vice Chairman & Secretary
Government Records Council

 

I attest the foregoing is a true and accurate record of the Government Records Council.

Kathryn Forsyth

Government Records Council 

 

Decision Distribution Date:  December 19, 2006

Return to Top

Supplemental Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director

December 14, 2006 Council Meeting

Cathy Cardillo[1]

      Complainant

 

               v.

 

City of Hoboken (Zoning Office)[2]

      Custodian of Records

GRC Complaint No. 2005-158

 

 

Records Relevant to Complaint:

Plans for the renovation of 901 Hudson Street, Hoboken, N.J.

Request Made:  July 14, 2005[3]

Response Made: July 14, 2005

Custodian:  Joel Mestre

GRC Complaint filed: August 19, 2005

 

Background

 

October 19, 2006

            Government Records Council's ("Council") Interim Order. At its October 19, 2006 public meeting, the Council considered the September 7, 2006 In Camera Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director and all related documentation submitted by the parties. The Council voted unanimously to adopt the entirety of said findings and recommendations.  The Council, therefore, found that:

 

Page T-1 - This page is disclosable in its entirety. This document contains general information inclusive of: a symbols legend, general notes, zoning map location, architect firm name, address phone and fax numbers, site plan, ownership of documents notice, project description, project number, initials of the illustrator, and the initials of the person who "checked" the document.

 

 Page A-01 - The Basement and 1st Floor Demolition Plan. The demolition legend, demolition note at the top of the page, titles at the bottom of the page, and all items contained under the architect firm name should be disclosed. The remainder of the document, which includes the demolition schematics and plans, is exempt from disclosure and should be redacted pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A1.1. This information contains security information which would jeopardize the building and persons therein. The exempt portion of this document contains information about the removal and remainder of doors and windows which could jeopardize the security of the building and the persons residing in the building.

 

 Page A-02 - The 2nd Floor and 3rd Floor Demolition Plan. The demolition legend, demolition note at the top of the page, titles at the bottom of the page, and all items contained under the architect firm name should be disclosed.  The remainder of the document, which includes the demolition schematics and plans, is exempt from disclosure and should be redacted pursuant to N.J.S.A.47:1A1.1. This information contains security information which would jeopardize the building and persons therein. The exempt portion of this document contains information about the removal and remainder of doors and windows which could jeopardize the security of the building and the persons residing in the building.

 

Page A-03 - The Basement Floor Plan. The legend, general notes, title of the document and all items contained under the architect firm name should be disclosed. The remainder of the document, which includes the design schematics and plans, is exempt from disclosure and should be redacted pursuant to N.J.S.A.47:1A-1.1. This information contains security information which would jeopardize the building and persons therein. The exempt portion of this document contains information about the removal and remainder of doors and window and the location of all rooms inside which could jeopardize the security of the building and the persons residing in the building.

 

Page A-04 - The 1st Floor Plan. The legend, general notes, title of the document and all items contained under the architect firm name should be disclosed. The remainder of the document, which includes the design schematics and plans, is exempt from disclosure and should be redacted pursuant to N.J.S.A.47:1A-1.1. This information contains security information which would jeopardize the building and persons therein. The exempt portion of this document contains information about the removal and remainder of doors and window and the location of all rooms inside which could jeopardize the security of the building and the persons residing in the building.

 

Page A-05 - The 2nd Floor Plan and the 3rd Floor Plan. The legend, general notes, title of the document, and all items contained under the architect firm name should be disclosed. The remainder of the document, which includes the design schematics and plans, is exempt from disclosure and should be redacted pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1. This information contains security information which would jeopardize the building and persons therein. The exempt portion of this document contains information about the removal and remainder of doors and window and the location of all rooms inside which could jeopardize the security of the building and the persons residing in the building.

 

The Custodian shall comply with items #1-6 above within ten (10) business days from receipt of the Council's Interim Order and simultaneously provide certified confirmation of compliance to the Executive Director.

 

October 25, 2006

Council's Interim Order distributed to the parties.

 

November 2, 2006

            Custodian's response to the Council's Interim Order.  The Custodian provided a legal certification attesting to having notified the Complainant in letter (copy of which was attached to the certification) that the requested records were available for pick-up and had been redacted in accordance with the Council's October 19, 2006 Interim Order.

 

Analysis

 

Whether the Custodian complied with the Council's October 19, 2006 Interim Order?

 

            The Custodian provided a legal certification attesting to having notified the Complainant in letter (copy of which was attached to the certification) that the requested records were available for pick-up and had been redacted in accordance with the Council's October 19, 2006 Interim Order.

 

            Based on the legal certification of the Custodian, the Custodian has complied with the Council's October 19, 2006 Interim Order within the required timeframe. 

Conclusions and Recommendations

 

The Executive Director respectfully recommends the Council find that the Custodian complied with the Council's October 19, 2006 Interim Order within the required time frame.

 

 

 

Prepared and

Approved By:

Catherine Starghill, Esq.

Executive Director

 

 

December 7, 2006

                       



[1] No legal representation on record.

[2] Legal representation is Joseph Sherman, City Attorney (office located in the municipal building).

[3] There were two requests submitted on July 14, 2005. There was only one attached to the complaint. The attached request is at issue in this case.

Return to Top

Interim Order

Cathy Cardillo

    Complainant

         v.

City of Hoboken (Zoning Office)
    Custodian of Record

Complaint No. 2005-158

 

 

 

At the October 19, 2006 public meeting, the Government Records Council ("Council") considered the September 7, 2006 In Camera Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director and all related documentation submitted by the parties.  The Council voted unanimously to adopt the entirety of said findings and recommendations. The Council, therefore, finds that the building plans for the renovation of 901 Hudson Street, Hoboken, N.J. should be redacted or disclosed as follows:

 

  1. Page T-1- This page is disclosable in its entirety. This document contains general information inclusive of: a symbols legend, general notes, zoning map location, architect firms name, address phone and fax numbers, site plan, ownership of documents notice, project description, project number, initials of the illustrator, and the initials of the person who "checked" the document.
  2. Page A-01 - The Basement and 1st Floor Demolition Plan. The demolition legend, demolition note at the top of the page, titles at the bottom of the page, and all items contained under the architect firm name should be disclosed. The remainder of the document, which includes the demolition schematics and plans, is exempt from disclosure and should be redacted pursuant to N.J.S.A.47:1A1.1. This information contains security information which would jeopardize the building and persons therein. The exempt portion of this document contains information about the removal and remainder of doors and windows which could jeopardize the security of the building and the persons residing in the building.
  3. Page A-02 - The 2nd Floor and 3rd Floor Demolition Plan. The demolition legend, demolition note at the top of the page, titles at the bottom of the page, and all items contained under the architect firm name should be disclosed.  The remainder of the document, which includes the demolition schematics and plans, is exempt from disclosure and should be redacted pursuant to N.J.S.A.47:1A1.1. This information contains security information which would jeopardize the building and persons therein. The exempt portion of this document contains information about the removal and remainder of doors and windows which could jeopardize the security of the building and the persons residing in the building.
  4. Page A-03- The Basement Floor Plan. The legend, general notes, title of the document and all items contained under the architect firm name should be disclosed. The remainder of the document, which includes the design schematics and plans, is exempt from disclosure and should be redacted pursuant to N.J.S.A.47:1A-1.1. This information contains security information which would jeopardize the building and persons therein. The exempt portion of this document contains information about the removal and remainder of doors and window and the location of all rooms inside which could jeopardize the security of the building and the persons residing in the building.
  5. Page A-04- The 1st Floor Plan. The legend, general notes, title of the document and all items contained under the architect firm name should be disclosed. The remainder of the document, which includes the design schematics and plans, is exempt from disclosure and should be redacted pursuant to N.J.S.A.47:1A-1.1. This information contains security information which would jeopardize the building and persons therein. The exempt portion of this document contains information about the removal and remainder of doors and window and the location of all rooms inside which could jeopardize the security of the building and the persons residing in the building.
  6. Page A-05- The 2nd Floor Plan and the 3rd Floor Plan. The legend, general notes, title of the document and all items contained under the architect firm name should be disclosed. The remainder of the document, which includes the design schematics and plans, is exempt from disclosure and should be redacted pursuant to N.J.S.A.47:1A-1.1. This information contains security information which would jeopardize the building and persons therein. The exempt portion of this document contains information about the removal and remainder of doors and window and the location of all rooms inside which could jeopardize the security of the building and the persons residing in the building.
     
  7. The Custodian shall comply with items #1-6 above within ten (10) business days from receipt of the Council's Interim Order and simultaneously provide certified confirmation of compliance to the Executive Director.

 

 

 

Interim Order Rendered by the

Government Records Council

On The 19th Day of October, 2006

 

 

 

Robin Berg Tabakin, Vice Chairman & Secretary
Government Records Council

 

I attest the foregoing is a true and accurate record of the Government Records Council.

 


Government Records Council 

 

Decision Distribution Date:  October 25, 2006

 

Return to Top

In Camera Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director

Cathy Cardillo

    Complainant

         v.

City of Hoboken (Zoning Office)

    Custodian of Record

Complaint No. 2005-158

 

 

At the October 19, 2006 public meeting, the Government Records Council ("Council") considered the September 7, 2006 In Camera Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director and all related documentation submitted by the parties.  The Council voted unanimously to adopt the entirety of said findings and recommendations. The Council, therefore, finds that the building plans for the renovation of 901 Hudson Street, Hoboken, N.J. should be redacted or disclosed as follows:

 

  1. Page T-1- This page is disclosable in its entirety. This document contains general information inclusive of: a symbols legend, general notes, zoning map location, architect firms name, address phone and fax numbers, site plan, ownership of documents notice, project description, project number, initials of the illustrator, and the initials of the person who "checked" the document.
  2. Page A-01 - The Basement and 1st Floor Demolition Plan. The demolition legend, demolition note at the top of the page, titles at the bottom of the page, and all items contained under the architect firm name should be disclosed. The remainder of the document, which includes the demolition schematics and plans, is exempt from disclosure and should be redacted pursuant to N.J.S.A.47:1A1.1. This information contains security information which would jeopardize the building and persons therein. The exempt portion of this document contains information about the removal and remainder of doors and windows which could jeopardize the security of the building and the persons residing in the building.
  3. Page A-02 - The 2nd Floor and 3rd Floor Demolition Plan. The demolition legend, demolition note at the top of the page, titles at the bottom of the page, and all items contained under the architect firm name should be disclosed.  The remainder of the document, which includes the demolition schematics and plans, is exempt from disclosure and should be redacted pursuant to N.J.S.A.47:1A1.1. This information contains security information which would jeopardize the building and persons therein. The exempt portion of this document contains information about the removal and remainder of doors and windows which could jeopardize the security of the building and the persons residing in the building.
  4. Page A-03- The Basement Floor Plan. The legend, general notes, title of the document and all items contained under the architect firm name should be disclosed. The remainder of the document, which includes the design schematics and plans, is exempt from disclosure and should be redacted pursuant to N.J.S.A.47:1A-1.1. This information contains security information which would jeopardize the building and persons therein. The exempt portion of this document contains information about the removal and remainder of doors and window and the location of all rooms inside which could jeopardize the security of the building and the persons residing in the building.
  5. Page A-04- The 1st Floor Plan. The legend, general notes, title of the document and all items contained under the architect firm name should be disclosed. The remainder of the document, which includes the design schematics and plans, is exempt from disclosure and should be redacted pursuant to N.J.S.A.47:1A-1.1. This information contains security information which would jeopardize the building and persons therein. The exempt portion of this document contains information about the removal and remainder of doors and window and the location of all rooms inside which could jeopardize the security of the building and the persons residing in the building.
  6. Page A-05- The 2nd Floor Plan and the 3rd Floor Plan. The legend, general notes, title of the document and all items contained under the architect firm name should be disclosed. The remainder of the document, which includes the design schematics and plans, is exempt from disclosure and should be redacted pursuant to N.J.S.A.47:1A-1.1. This information contains security information which would jeopardize the building and persons therein. The exempt portion of this document contains information about the removal and remainder of doors and window and the location of all rooms inside which could jeopardize the security of the building and the persons residing in the building.
     
  7. The Custodian shall comply with items #1-6 above within ten (10) business days from receipt of the Council's Interim Order and simultaneously provide certified confirmation of compliance to the Executive Director.

 

 

 

Interim Order Rendered by the

Government Records Council

On The 19th Day of October, 2006

 

 

 

Robin Berg Tabakin, Vice Chairman & Secretary
Government Records Council

 

I attest the foregoing is a true and accurate record of the Government Records Council.


Government Records Council 

 

Decision Distribution Date:  October 25, 2006

Return to Top

Interim Order

Cathy C. Cardillo
    Complainant
         v.
City of Hoboken Zoning Office
    Custodian of Record

Complaint No. 2005-158

 

At the March 9, 2006 public meeting, the Government Records Council ("Council") considered the March 3, 2006 Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director and all related documentation submitted by the parties.  The Council voted unanimously to adopt the entirety of said findings and recommendations. The Council, therefore, finds that an in camera inspection of the requested records relevant to the Complaint shall be conducted to determine if the records are exempt from disclosure because they contain "security information or procedures for any buildings or facility which, if disclosed, would jeopardize security of the building or facility or persons therein" pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.

Interim Decision Rendered by the
Government Records Council
On The 9th Day of March, 2006

Robin Berg Tabakin, Vice Chair
Government Records Council

I attest the foregoing is a true and accurate record of the Government Records Council.

Catherine Starghill
Executive Director
Government Records Council 

Decision Distribution Date:  March 15, 2006

Return to Top

Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director

Cathy C. Cardillo                             GRC Complaint No. 2005-158
Complainant
          v.
City of Hoboken Zoning Office
Custodian of Records

Records Relevant to Complaint: (As stated by the Complainant)
"Copies of owner's 1/11/05 application and plans* [1]for conversion of 901-903 Hudson Street from a 3 family dwelling to 3 residential units."
Request Made:   July 14, 2005[2]
Response Made: July 14, 2005
Custodian:  Joel Mestre
GRC Complaint filed: August 19, 2005

Background

July 14, 2005

Written Open Public Records Act (OPRA) Request - Complainant seeks Copies of owner's 1/11/05 application and plans* for conversion of 901-903 Hudson Street from a 3 family dwelling to 3 residential units.

August 19, 2005

Denial of Access Complaint filed with the Government Records Council (GRC). The Complainant asserts she was denied access to copies of the requested records. She stated that she had to resubmit the request after being orally denied the records. She then submitted a second request in which she sought copies of the requested records and advised them that she wanted the records as permitted under Executive Order # 21. She then received the preliminary certificate of compliance, but was denied access to the plans.

 The Complainant further stated that she is already in possession of the plans for "903", which are floor plans, not schematics. She asserts that since the plans are not schematics, they are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to Executive Order #21.

The Complainant attached the following documents to her Denial of Access Complaint:

  • July 14, 2005 - Written Open Public Records Request.

August 26, 2005

GRC staff sent an offer of mediation to both parties.

August 26, 2005

GRC staff received e-mail from the Complainant stating that she did not want to mediate her complaint.

August 26, 2005

GRC staff received a signed agreement to mediate from the Record Custodian and their Counsel.

August 29, 2005

GRC staff sent a fax to the Custodian's Counsel requesting a Statement of Information.

August 29, 2005

The Custodian's Counsel submitted the Statement of Information to GRC staff. Counsel stated that the building plans for 901-903 Hudson Street, Hoboken were made available for review, but copies were not made available.  Counsel also stated that the requested information was proprietary information that was exempt from disclosure pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.

Counsel attached the following documentation to the Statement of Information:

  • July 11, 2005 - OPRA request in which the Complainant is seeking conversion records for 901-903 Hudson Street to a "5" family dwelling.
  • July 14, 2005 - An Acknowledgment Form signed by the Complainant asserts that she did not receive the requested record.
  • July 14, 2005 - Public Record Request Response - the Assistant Zoning Officer asserts that there is not a record responsive to the Complainant's request for the conversion to a "5" family dwelling.
  • July 14, 2005 - OPRA request for the owner's application of plans for conversion of 901-903 Hudson Street to a "3" family dwelling, as permitted under Executive Order #21.
  • An Acknowledgement Form without any signatures.
  • July 14, 2005 - The Public Records Request Response Form - The Assistant Zoning Officer asserts that the owner application did not exist however the Complainant could review the blueprints. The Assistant Zoning Officer further asserts that copies are not permitted to be released.
  •  A copy of the Zoning Application.

October 26, 2005

E-mail from the Complainant to GRC staff stating that copies of the plans for 901 Hudson Street were given to another requestor.

October 27, 2005

GRC staff sent a letter to the Custodian's Counsel requesting certified clarification of the Statement of Information. Specifically staff requested the following information:

  • Please explain the discrepancy between the records response and the Statement of Information?
  • Please explain why copies of the records were not made available?
  • Please explain why the document is considered proprietary information, but still able to be reviewed by the Complainant?
  • Does the Records Custodian deem that the requested records are Government Records as defined by N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1?

November 7, 2005

The Custodian's Certification for the request for clarification of the Statement of Information.  The Custodian stated the following:

  • On July 14, 2005 there were two requests filed by the Complainant. The first request was for plans for the conversion to a "5" family dwelling. The City does not have information for a conversion to a "5" family dwelling.
  • The second request was for a 1/11/2005 application for conversion plans. The Custodian stated that they did not have a 1/11/2005 application, however they did have a December 8, 2005 application. The Custodian further asserted that blueprints on file cannot be copied, however they are available for review.
  • Based upon advice of the City's Counsel, it is the Custodian's position that blueprints are proprietary information. While the City will allow review of the blueprints, they will not release a copy.
  • City Counsel advised the Custodian that the proprietary status of the blueprints is not waived if the requestor views them, however if they want copies, they are not Government Records because they are not property of the city, they are the property of a private architect.
  • The requestor who received copies of the blueprints for 901 Hudson Street received them from the architect not the city.

February 26, 2006

The Complainant submitted a response to the Custodian and counsel's November 7, 2005 certification. The Complainant alleges that the requested record should be disclosed to her because the plans do not contain security information, are not proprietary, and are government records as defined in N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.

The complainant asserts that the records do not contain security information. She alleges that the requested records merely contain the building scale and interior renovation. She maintains that since the plans do not contain schematics, their disclosure would not create security issues.

The Complainant further asserts that the requested plans are not trade secret and do not contain proprietary information. She alleges that the "key" factor in determining if information is proprietary is, "the relationship of the parties at the time of disclosure..." She asserts that the requested records should have been released as they contained information pertinent to her clients dwelling. The Complainant goes on to state that under OPRA an example of trade secrets is data processing software that is under a licensing agreement. Therefore, the Complainant alleges that the requested records do not fall under the trade secret/proprietary exemption as listed in OPRA.

Finally, the Complainant asserts that the requested record is a government record as defined in N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1 because the architect released a copy of the plans to the city which maintains them on file. The Complainant states that a submission of this nature has been found to be a public record. See Irval Realty, Inc. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners, 61 N.J. 366, 375 (1972).  The Complainant further asserts that the court has also identified a public record as "a writing filed in a public office." Higg-A-Rella, Inc. v. County of Essex, 141 N.J. 35, 46 (1995).

The Complainant asserts that because the record should be deemed a government record, the plans should be released to her. The Complainant further asserts that the requested plans do not include trade secret/proprietary  or security information, the plans should be released. The Complainant alleges that by not disclosing the record, the public is being done a disservice.

Analysis

WHETHER the Custodian unlawfully denied access to the requested records?

OPRA provides that:

"... government records shall be readily accessible for inspection, copying, or examination by the citizens of this state, with certain exceptions..." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.

OPRA defines a government record as:

"...any paper, written or printed book, document, drawing, map, plan...document...that has been made, maintained or kept on file in the course of his or its official business...or that has been received in the course of his or its official business..." (emphasis added.) N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.

OPRA also provides that:

"...[a] government record shall not include the following information which is deemed confidential for the purposes of [OPRA]:

...trade secrets and proprietary commercial or financial information, obtained from any source; [and]...security information or procedures for any buildings or facility which, if disclosed, would jeopardize security of the building or facility or persons therein..." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.

OPRA further states:

"... [t]he public agency shall have the burden or proving that the denial of access is authorized by law..." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6.

The Custodian has asserted that the requested records are not government records because they are "proprietary commercial information" which is deemed confidential pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.  In Newark Morning Ledger Co. Publisher of Star-Ledger v. New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority, GRC Complaint No. 2003-43 (April 2004), the Council determined that proprietary information needs to be "confidential" (citing Subcarrier Communications, Inc. v. L.Day, 229 N.J. Super. 634 (App. Div. 1997).  The application and building plans for conversion of a three (3) dwelling into three (3) single residential units are not confidential (meaning "exclusively owned" according to Webster's II New College Dictionary, Houghton Mifflin, Copyright 2001) when those records contain information from third-party architects, as well as other construction and design professionals.  Additionally, those records are generally accessible to the public and are routinely filed with the planning or zoning boards of adjustment.     Therefore, the requested records do not qualify as confidential proprietary information.

However, the requested records may be exempt from disclosure if they contain "security information or procedures for any buildings or facility which, if disclosed, would jeopardize security of the building or facility or persons therein" pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.  Specifically, disclosure of the requested records could potentially be used by any person seeking to enter the building illegally for the purpose of causing harm to persons in the building, or taking or destroying property.  This would include information concerning building security, electrical and telecommunication systems, and interior configuration.  

 Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6 the Custodian has to prove that a denial of access is authorized by law. While the Custodian unsuccessfully asserted that the requested records are exempt from disclosure as proprietary information, the records may be exempt from disclosure if they contain "security information or procedures for any buildings or facility which, if disclosed, would jeopardize security of the building or facility or persons therein" pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.  Therefore, the Council should conduct an in camera inspection of the requested records to determine if the records are exempt from disclosure.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The Executive Director respectfully recommends that the Council find that an in camera inspection of the requested records should be conducted to determine if the records are exempt from disclosure because they contain "security information or procedures for any buildings or facility which, if disclosed, would jeopardize security of the building or facility or persons therein" pursuant to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.

Prepared By:  Kimberly Gardner, Case Manager

Approved By:
Catherine Starghill
Executive Director
Government Records Council

March 3, 2006


[1] On the request form the Complainant stated that the * was a symbolism of her note at the bottom of the request which stated, "as permitted under Executive Order #21."
[2] There were two requests submitted on July 14, 2005. There was only one attached to the complaint. The attached request is at issue in this case.

Return to Top