COURT HOUSE –– A county Chancery Division judge dismissed lawsuits between a municipal tax officer and a local sand and gravel mining pit operator.
On July 25, Superior Court Judge William C. Todd III, whose General Equity lawsuits deal with relief other than monetary compensation, issued an order dismissing the complaints between Phillip George Heun III, of Albrecht and Heun and Future Mining and Recycling Inc., and Joseph Ravitz, the Middle Township Tax Assessor.
The complaints, however, were not dismissed equally.
“Plaintiff’s (Heun) Second Amended Complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice based on plaintiff’s failure to obtain court authorization to proceed with this matter in accordance with the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2A: 15-18,” the order stated.
That state statute allows a taxpayer to sue a municipality if its governing body refuses to bring suit providing that the taxpayer first receives consent from the court to proceed in the interests of the municipality.
Tood apparently determined that Heun failed to ask for the court’s permission before commencing with the lawsuit. Heun’s attorney Salvatore Perillo, of Nehmad, Perillo & Davis, declined to comment on the judge’s order.
“All other claims asserted in this matter by any other party are dismissed without prejudice,” the order continued.
Complaints dismissed with prejudice can never be filed again, while those dismissed without prejudice, leave open the possibility of bringing the suit again.
These lawsuits stem from Future Mining’s application to construct a mining and recycling operation on a 253-acre site off Indian Trail Road in Burleigh.
Ravitz, who owns a parcel of land adjacent to the proposed site, has opposed the project since its inception.
In 2006, the zoning board granted the company a use variance that allowed the project to continue in an area where mining was not a permitted use.
Ravitz contested that approval to Superior Court Judge Valerie Armstrong. She affirmed the decision of the land use board.
In April 2007, township Committee granted Future Mining a mining license for the proposed site contingent upon the closing of its other mining and recycling operation on Goshen Road in Court House.
Ravitz, through his wife and attorney Carole Mattessich, named the township, township committee, the mining company and its subsidiary as well as unnamed municipal employees in a nine-count lawsuit.
The action, which was initially filed April 17 last year and amended Dec. 10, alleges an impartial, unfair relationship between the township and Albrecht and Heun that provided more favorable treatment for the company “than would be available to members of the general public.”
That suit, which is still active before Superior Court Judge Valerie Armstrong, asks for mining licenses to be revoked and operations halted, mandatory conflict education/monitoring, court fees and money damages from the mining company.
The lawsuit recently dismissed by Todd was initiated by Heun on Dec. 21, 2007. Heun alleged a conflict of interest and ethics violations among other charges relating to the assessor’s purchase of the property that abuts the proposed mining site.
Heun suggested that Ravitz, in his capacity as tax assessor, recommended in 2001 that township officials set a minimum bid price of $30,700 for the three-acre tract of land and he subsequently purchased the land for $100 more than that at a public auction.
The lawsuit, which said Ravitz took advantage of his office and “gained an advantage at the expense of Middle Township,” asked for the property to be returned to the township, that several judgments be found against the assessor and that he pay compensatory and punitive damages.
Ravitz told the Herald that Heun’s lawsuit was retaliatory due to his continued opposition to the proposed project. He also said the mining company wanted to purchase his property for use in the project.
In answering the lawsuit, Ravitz denied Heun’s claims and responded with a three-count counterclaim of his own.
Ravitz claimed that Heun’s lawsuit was frivolous and that Future Mining interfered with the sale of his land. Ravitz also claimed a civil conspiracy in which Future Mining deprived him of his constitutional rights.
Ravitz sought the dismissal of Heun’s lawsuit as well as attorneys’ fees and damages.
Since he felt his reputation was at stake, Ravitz also repeatedly called on township officials to hold an ethics hearing for him to answer the charges publicly.
The township has yet to hold a public ethics hearing.
Is the matter concluded?
In his July 25 order, Todd specifically kept the door open for possible litigation in the future.
“This order is not intended to bar the defendant Township of Middle from asserting the claims that had been asserted in plaintiff’s complaint in its own name,” the order stated.
Contact Hart at (609) 886-8600 Ext 35 or at: jhart@cmcherald.com