NJ Seal
State of NJ - Government Records Council Email Grc

2005-97

- Administrative Disposition
- Interim Decision on Access
- Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director

Administrative Disposition

GRC Complaint No: 2005 - 97                                             

 

Complainant: Vesselin Dittrich[1]          

Custodian: City of Hoboken – James Farina[2]                                                  

Date of Request: April 25, 2005       

Date of Complaint: May 12, 2005    

 

 

Case Disposition: The Complainant withdrew this case via letter dated July 10, 2006.

 

Type of Administrative Disposition:  Complaint withdrawn

 

Effective Date of Disposition: September 21, 2006

 

 

 

Prepared By:

                        Christopher Malloy

                        Case Manager

 

 

 

Approved By:

Catherine Starghill, Esq.

Executive Director



[1] No legal representation listed

[2] Represented by Joseph Sherman, Esq. Corporation Counsel, Hoboken, NJ

Return to Top

Interim Decision on Access

Vesselin Dittrich
    Complainant
         v.
City of Hoboken
    Custodian of Record

Complaint No. 2005-97

 

At the October 28, 2005 public meeting, the Government Records Council (“Council”) considered the October 7, 2005 Executive Director’s Findings and Recommendations and all related documents submitted by the parties.  The Council voted unanimously to adopt the entirety of said findings and recommendations. Therefore, the Council hereby finds that because there are issues in this case that are unclear and in dispute, the case will be referred to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing to determine:

  1. What records does the Custodian maintain that are responsive to the April 25, 2005 OPRA request?
  2. Of the records maintained by the Custodian that are responsive to the April 25, 2005 OPRA request what was provided to the Complainant on May 5, 2005? What was provided to the Complainant on May 10, 2005?
  3. Of the records provided on May 5, 2005 and May 10, 2005 what records did the Complainant receive?
  4. Were any records responsive to the April 25, 2005 request not provided by the Custodian? If so, what is the statutory basis for the denial of access?
  5. Does the Custodian maintain the letter written by Housing Inspector Joe Farina? If the record exists but has not been provided, what is the statutory basis for the denial of access?

Interim Decision Rendered by the
Government Records Council
On The 28th Day of October, 2005

Diane Schonyers, Vice-Chair
Government Records Council

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

DeAnna Minus-Vincent, Secretary
Government Records Council 

Decision Distribution Date:  November 3, 2005

Return to Top

Findings and Recommendations of the Executive Director

Vesselin Dittrich                                               GRC Complaint No. 2005-97 
Complainant
      v.
City of Hoboken
Custodian of Records

Records Requested: Copy of my Complaint of 4/11/2005 and related documents in the office of Housing Inspectors. I can’t be more specific about the related documents because I haven’t seen the file. I filed my complaint verbally with the secretary of the Office of Housing Inspectors.[1]
Request Made:  April 25, 2005
Response Made: May 5, 2005, May 9, 2005 and May 10, 2005[2]
Custodian:  Michael Mastrospasqua
GRC Complaint filed: March 12, 2005

Background

May 11, 2005

Complainant’s Denial of Access Complaint with the following attachment:

  • April 25, 2005 Complainant’s written OPRA request

The Complainant states that on April 25, 2005 he filed an OPRA request with the Hoboken Municipal Clerk. He states that on May 5, 2005 the Clerk showed him copies of two of the requested documents: the inspection report dated April 15, 2005, and the letter to 931 Park Avenue Condominium Association dated April 15, 2005, but denied his request for copies of all other documents. He also asserts that on May 10, 2005 an employee of the clerk’s office offered to give him copies of seven of the requested documents, but continued to deny his request for copies of the other related documents, including but not limited to his complaint taken by the Department of Housing Inspections secretary on April 11, 2005, and the letter written by housing inspector Joe Farina and sent to the owner of apartment #3R Robert Sorge.

May 20, 2005

Mediation sent to both parties[3]

May 23, 2005

The Complainant alleges that the City of Hoboken is denying him access to public records which he can use to defend himself in court, and he believes that the City will only use mediation to delay and postpone the formal investigation

June 8, 2005

Custodian’s Statement of Information with the following attachments:

  • April 25, 2005 – Complainant’s OPRA request
  • May 10, 2005 – Complainant’s OPRA request signed by the Custodian

The Custodian states that the Complaint registered with the Housing Office by the Complainant was provided (although not taken) along with all other documents specific to his living unit on May 10, 2005. He also states that there is no copy of the Farina letter in the file. The Custodian asserts that the Complainant chose to take only several pages of a packet that totaled forty-one pages.

June 27, 2005

Complainant’s response to the Custodian’s Statement of Information. The Complainant alleges that the Custodian acted in bad faith. He states that his request was specifically for a copy of his complaint dated April 11, 2005 and the related public documents. He states that most of the records provided are from 1994 to 2000 and are unrelated to his request. He also states that although the Custodian alleges that the provided documents were specific to his living unit, they included eleven year old records about a handrail in the basement, a fire alarm for the building, and other matters unrelated to his request. The Complainant also states that the Custodian denied access to the specifically requested public record.

The Complainant alleges that the first time he was provided a copy of his verbal Complaint was when he received the Statement of Information from the Government Records Council (GRC) staff.  The Complainant also states that his complaint shows that on April 11, 2005 he filed a complaint regarding water leaks coming from another apartment. He alleges that the Custodian’s SOI does not dispute the fact that the Office of Housing Inspections sent a letter to the owner of the other apartment (The Complainant alleges that this letter was sent soon after inspector Joe Farina inspected his apartment on April 12, 2005 and before April 27, 2005 when the office of Housing Inspections sent a similar letter to 931 Park Avenue Condo Association) however the Custodian refuses to submit that letter on the basis that there was no copy of the Farina letter in the file. The Complainant asserts that the Custodian “failed to explain what happened to that letter, why there is no copy of it in the file, while the same file contains a copy of a similar letter to 931 Park Avenue Condo Association of April 27, 2005.”

Analysis

WHETHER the Custodian unlawfully denied access to the records requested in the April 25, 2005 OPRA request?

The Open Public Records Act (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” in N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1. as:

 “ … any paper, written or printed book, document, drawing, map, plan, photograph, microfilm, data processed or image processed document, information stored or maintained electronically or by sound-recording or in a similar device, or any copy thereof, that has been made, maintained or kept on file … or that has been received …”  (Emphasis added.)

There are a number of issues in this case that are unclear and in dispute and require more in depth proceedings before a determination can be rendered in this case.  Therefore, the Government Records Council Staff recommends that the Council refer the case to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing to determine:

  1. What records does the Custodian maintain that are responsive to the April 25, 2005 OPRA request?
  2. Of the records maintained by the Custodian that are responsive to the April 25, 2005 OPRA request what was provided to the Complainant on May 5, 2005? What was provided to the Complainant on May 10, 2005?
  3. Of the records provided on May 5, 2005 and May 10, 2005 what records did the Complainant receive?
  4. Were any records responsive to the April 25, 2005 request not provided by the Custodian? If so, what is the statutory basis for the denial of access?
  5. Does the Custodian maintain the letter written by Housing Inspector Joe Farina? If the record exists but has not been provided, what is the statutory basis for the denial of access?

Conclusions and Recommendations

The Executive Director respectfully recommends the Council find that because there are issues in this case that are unclear and in dispute, the case should be referred to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing to determine:

  1. What records does the Custodian maintain that are responsive to the April 25, 2005 OPRA request?
  2. Of the records maintained by the Custodian that are responsive to the April 25, 2005 OPRA request what was provided to the Complainant on May 5, 2005? What was provided to the Complainant on May 10, 2005?
  3. Of the records provided on May 5, 2005 and May 10, 2005 what records did the Complainant receive?
  4. Were any records responsive to the April 25, 2005 request not provided by the Custodian? If so, what is the statutory basis for the denial of access?
  5. Does the Custodian maintain the letter written by Housing Inspector Joe Farina? If the record exists but has not been provided, what is the statutory basis for the denial of access?

Prepared By: Chris Malloy, Case Manager

Approved By:
Paul F. Dice
Executive Director
Government Records Council

October 7, 2005


[1] As written by the Complainant in the records request.
[2] As stated by the Complainant
[3] The Complainant declined mediation in this case

Return to Top