Marina Bay Towers Owner, Residents Go to Court

COURT HOUSE – As Superior Court Judge Raymond Batten called the hearing to order Feb. 5, his introductory statements ended with this phrase: “A daunting task.”
A daunting task is set before the court in the matter of McNamara vs. Marina Bay Towers, Urban Renewal Two. Described by both sides as “a complex web of legal and engineering problems,” the future of the towers as a structure and its residents hangs in the balance while Batten considers the arguments and the request of the Marina Bay Towers residents for a receiver to immediately intervene and take control of the building.
Counsel for plaintiff, Bonnie McNamara, is comprised of Olga Pomar and Ken Goldman of Legal Services. The defense counsel is a foursome: Salvatore Perillo, James Lawlor, Keith Bonci and Thomas Aljian. All attorneys represent established legal firms throughout the state determined to see justice served for their individual clients. Batten will preside over the case throughout the proceedings.
Many residents of Marina Bay Towers filled the courtroom and Paul Cocoziello, the owner of the towers, was also in attendance for the preliminary hearing on Feb. 5. Three other lawyers attended the hearing via teleconference and spoke at various intervals during the hearing.
After Batten’s opening statements, Pomar presented her client’s case with an acknowledgement of the fact that no immediate danger to health and safety has been issued, but that “wires and roofing issues are signs of major destruction.”
An alleged amount of $11 million worth of damage exists throughout the structure as a whole. Pomar called the towers, “a seriously distressed building.”
By placing the towers under a receivership statute, the building will be saved as affordable housing for seniors at a low-income rate and will also benefit the community as a whole. In the counsel’s words, they wish to “avert a crisis.”
If the court does not appoint a receiver, then Cocoziello should propose a plan to restore the building. A foreclosure is pending, and if Cocoziello proceeds with his plan, “then what?”
Pomar also stated to Batten that her services were first required when the electric was threatened to be turned off because of unpaid bills.
Batten then posed to the counsel: “How could a receiver fix the roof? Where would a receiver find $3 million?” Pomar responded by directing the court’s attention to the fact that a restructuring move, on the part of the opposition, would not adequately serve her clients and the residents of Marina Bay.
Pomar also pointed out the public interest in the case and of seniors “losing housing” due to “one more legal complication.”
A sampling of certification was taken into evidence and, according to the defense counsel, Cocoziello has offered to relocate residents to other units and that Super Storm Sandy has affected the condition of several units.
The four members of defense counsel presented arguments before the court. One by one, they pointed out that “every person in the building, in good standing, will keep their low income standing.” Aljian said that not every unit can afford to stay low income; apparently, the towers had 90 percent occupancy before Super Storm Sandy. A number of units are not fit for residency.
According to the defense, McNamara has allegedly not paid her rent. Therefore, the counsel moved that the alleged complaints from 2005 – 2006 “should be struck from the record,” stating “there is no eminent danger to the residents in the building.” When asked about the alleged unpaid rent, McNamara said, “All of it is untrue. I will prove it in court.”
A lack of insurance funds from Sandy has hampered repairs, so why not remove the damaged units?
Defense counsel presented to the court a report from a state Department of Community Affairs inspector from Jan. 29 of this year, saying he saw no health and safety violations.
Copies of service requests from residents in the building have been served and the defense directed the court’s attention to their client having to pay taxes due to litigation from the City of North Wildwood. The litigation is in an appellate case and could not be commented on further.
The argument continued for the defense and concluded with: “How do we make the building better now?”
PAC Capital, a bank and investment company, is presently involved in the matter as is Essex County Improvement League. “We have inconvenience and unsightliness, but major repairs can only be done under a reconstruction act,” counsel stated.
The defense went on to say that if a receiver is in place, more problems would be created. “It is not an easy mosaic to put together,” the defense submitted.
Goldman and Pomar concluded with “we do not ask this lightly.”
If more evidence is required, tenants could testify at a later hearing as well as other inspectors if the court is not satisfied. History shows a record of violations – the argument ended on a single point: occupancy is not an issue, violations are.
Batten summed up the hearing with a list of requirements he will need in order to make a complete decision:
• Justification for a receiver must be proven.
• What is the practical appointment, how will the receiver be paid, how big is the job, and how will it be better.
• Time must be considered as well in the proceedings.
“The record is extensive. I will comment more fully at a later time.” Batten said and scheduled another hearing for March 5, in order to hear more complete arguments from residents and the defense for Cocoziello.
In a statement on behalf of Cocoziello and the defense team, Perillo said that the plan will serve “existing tenants if complying with their leases.” He wished the public to understand that point.
To contact Rachel Rogish, email rrogish@cmcherald.com.