C-000349-11

DONALD WINANT; j MICHAEL LICAMELI;

: SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY : BERGEN COUNTY

JOHN ECKEL Plaintiffs

v.

: CHANCERY DIVISION

: DOCKET NO:

: Civil Action

- , , -

THE BOROUGH OF DUMONT VERIFIED COMPLAINt

and COUNCILMAN CARL MANNA(Official, Capacity) CARL MANNA(Individual Capacity); : COUNCILMAN ELLEN ZAMECHANSKY (Official Capacity); ELLEN ZAMECHANSKY (Individual Capacity); COUNCILMAN MATHEW CARRICK Official Capacity); MATHEW CARRICK (Individual Capacity); COUNCILMAN KENNETH FREEMAN (Official Capacity); KENNETH FREEMAN

(Individual Capacity); COUNCILMAN HAROLD STYPi\NOU(OfficiaICapacity); HAROLD STYLIANOU (Individual Capacity); COUNCILMAN MARTIN CASP ARE (Official Capacity); MARTIN CASP ARE (Individual Capacity) GREGG PASTER, ESQ

Defendants

COMPLAINT

: . .

C:_' r. .. '

Plaintiffs, Donald Winant, Michael LicameIi, and John Eckel(hereinafter "the Plajntiffs")

by and through their attorney, Frederic C. Goetz., Esq .. hereby bring this Complaint against

Defendants, Borough of Dumont, Councilpersons Carl Manna, Ellen Zamechansky, Mathew

Carrick, Kenneth Freeman, Harold Stylianou, Martin Caspare, Gregg Paster, Esq., all in their

official and individual capacities, respectively, aver as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action for a declaratory, injtllction, monetary and other appropriate relief

, is brought by plaintiff to redress the violations of USC 1983, Statutes and Public Policy of the

State of New Jersey perpetrated by Defendants of the rights secured to them by the laws of the

State of New Jersey.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff.�, Donald Winant, Michael Licameli, andJohn Eckel at times relevant

hereto, are residents of the Borough of Dumont.

;3. The Borough of Dumont a public entity operating under the laws of the

State of New Jersey.

4. Defendants, Carl Marma, Ellen Zamechansky, Mathew Carrick, Kenneth

Freeman, Harold Stylianou, and Martin Caspare were at all times relevant hereto

Council Persons of the Borough of Dumont and known residents of Dumont.

5. Gregg Paster is a licensed attorney in the State of New Jersey and is the Borough

Attorney for Dumont.

Preliminary Statement

6. ' Approximately over the last 13 years, defendants either directly or indirectly or

through the actions of tlJeir agents or known associates, have participated in a scheme to damage

the reputations and credibility of the plaintiffs for defendants own political gain or the gain of

their agents or known associates in an effort to distract the public from their failings as public

officials.

7. Defendants scheme stems out of a 20 year old controversy concerning soil

contamination at the Department of Public Works building in Dumont. During the years the.

Department of Environmental Protection (Hereinafter "DEP") has cited the Borough for

violations of numerous laws and regulations. The defendants, for their own benefit or for the

benefit of their associates have falsely tried to blame the plaintiffs for the problems they and/or

,

their associates originally created. Now through the improper use of their official office and

under the color of law they have tried to further their scheme. This time however they have gone

too far as they have slandered the plaintiffs, deliberately lied to the public, abused their authority,

violated the public policy of the Sate of New Jersey, and violated the public trust they hold to the

. citizens of Dumont in an effort to try and perpetuate their own political power.

8. On November 9, 2010 all the defendants but Caspare and Paster improperly voted

for a resolution to authorize an investigation into the DEP issue. They specifically attempted to

grant subpoena power to the entire Council of the Borough.

9. On January 12,2011, plaintiffs' attorney, Robert Galantucci, wrote to defendants'

hand picked Borough Attorney defendant Gregg F. Paster, and informed him of his incompetence

in drafting the resolution. He advised him that he did not follow the law. Specifically he failed to

follow N.J.S.A 40:48-25 which requires that the authority they sought could only be exercised by

a c01l11l1ittee that they must vote to establish. Paster still billed the Borough for the work he did

drafting the resolution.

10. On AprilS, 2011 the defendants fixed their attorney's incompetence and adopted

a Resolution drafted by defendant Paster establishing the formation of an "Ad-Hoc C01l11l1ittee to

Investigate in Re DPW Environmental Remediation." This time-his incompetence was

3

substituted by a deliberate, wanton, reckless act. The resolution contains a lie to the public.

Specifically, the third clause of the resolution states:

Whereas, certain individuals are unwilling to voluntarily provide testimony, to wit, former Councilman Michael Licameli, former Mayor/Administrator John Eckel and former Mayor Donald Winant, whose testimony is critical to successful completion of the investigation . ...

11. The clause stated above falsely states that the plaintiffs were unwilling to

voluntarily give their testimony.

12 At no time did defendant Paster or any of the defendants request that the plaintiffs

voluntarily come to the committee and testify before it. .

13. Defendants wantonly and recklessly place that statement into the resolution to

justify to the public the need to create the committee and therefore lied to the public.

14. Defendants knew the statement was false, but proceeded anyway.

15. Defendants used their official authority to promulgate their false statement to the

public to further their own purposes, not the public interest.

16. Using public resources and their official authority they voted to create the

committee and grant subpoenas power to defendants Carrick, Stylianou, and Zamechansky.

17. Defendants committee took no action all summer long and finally sought to act as

the 2011 election cycle took shape.

18. In an article that appeared in the Bergen Record on Tuesday September 20, 2011

defendants propagated the lie they knowingly voted on. The relevant portion of the article states:

Borough Attorney Gregg Paster said last week that about 12 current and former borough employees and elected officials have

4

given statements about the contamination. Some provide testimony voluntarily, while others were subpoenaed, he said. Winant, who served as mayor from 1992 to 2003, Eckel and Licameli were subpoenaed because they were among those who did not volunteer information to Paster, Manna said.

19. Under the color of law defendants first issued subpoenas to the plaintiffs in late

2010. Then again sometime in August 2011 just before the election cycle.

20. Subpoenas require the plaintiffs to appear and give testimony and bring

documents based on a false statement and essentially threaten the freedom of the

plaintiffs.

21. Because the subpoenas were issued under false pretences they are not enforceable.

22. Just before the election cycle without a resolution the defendants removed

committee member defendant Stylianou and installed defendant Manna on to the

committee.

23. Defendants actions are wanton, reckless, deceitful, to further their or their

associates personal interests, not for public policy purposes.

24. As a result of defendants' actions plaintiffs had to employ two attorneys to

respond to their illegal SUbpoena.

COUNT I

Violation of Public Trust and Policy.

25. Plaintiffs, incorporate all the facts contained as set forth in the Preliminary

Statement and paragraphs 8 though 24 as if fully set forth herein.

26. The actions of the defendants have violated the public trust and public policy of

5

the State of New Jersey as set forth in the common law and in N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.

I et. seq.

27. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs have suffered

damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Donald Winant, Michael Licameli, and John Eckel

respectfully request this Honorable Court to:

a. Enter a declaratory judgment that Defendants' acts of lying in a public

resolution for the purpose of issuing subpoenas

have violated and continue to violate the rights of plaintiffs as secured

by federal and state legislative enactments and the common law,

public policy and the United States and New Jersey Constitution.

b. Enjoin Defendants from harassment or any other retaliatory action

toward Plaintiffs in the future.

c. Award plaintiffs compensatory damages including, but not limited to,

pain, suffering, emotional distress, past economic loss, future economic

loss, back pay, front pay, loss of life's pleasures, loss of reputation, loss of

benefits, medical expenses and other damages;

d. Award reasonable costs and attorney's fees;

e. Award punitive damages, and;

f. Grant any other relief this Court deems just and proper under the

circumstances.

6

COUNT II

42 U.S C. 1983

28. Plaintiffs, incorporates all the facts contained as set forth in the Preliminary

Statement, paragraphs 8 though 27 including Count I as if fully set forth at length herein.

30. The actions of the defendants were pursuant to the policy of the State of New

Jersey which also for the formation of ad hoc committees with the power of subpoena.

31. Commanding the plaintiffs to appear before them were pursuant to acting in their

official capacity under the color of law. The actions of Defendants have created and create to

create a retaliatory hostile work environment in violation of CEP A.








b. Erljoin Defendants from harassment or any other retaliatory action

toward Plaintiff in the future.

c. Award plaintiff compensatory damages including, but not limited to, pain,

suffering, emotional distress, past economic loss, future economic loss,

back pay, front pay, loss of life's pleasures, loss of reputation, loss of

7





circumstances.

COUNT III

Violation of Civil Rights N.J.S.A. 10:6-2 et. seq


Statement, paragraphs 8 though 21 including Counts I and I I as if fully set forth at length herein.

33. Defendants actions using the color of law based on known false statements is a

violation of plaintiffs civil rights.

34. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs have suffered

damages.









toward Plaintiffs in the future.

8








circwnstances.

Count IV

Defamation


Statement, paragraphs 8 though 34 including Counts I, II, and III as if fully set forth at length

herein.

36. Defendants statements in the Bergen Record are false and were knowingly made

false with a wanton, reckless disregard for the truth with the intent to paint the plaintiffs in false

light.

37. As a direct and proximate cause of defendants statements plaintiffs have suffered

damages.

38. The plaintiffs further state that said words so spoken by the defendant were and are

utterly false, malicious and slanderous.

9

39. By reason of the acts of the defendant aforesaid, in and about the speaking and

publishing of the said false, malicious and slanderous words and statements, the plaintiffs were and

are greatly and permanently injured and damaged in their good names and reputations, and were

exposed to public contempt, hatred and ridicule, and have been further damaged.









toward Plaintiff in the future.








circumstances.

10

COUNT V

Defamation Per Se

40. Plaintiffs, incorporate all the facts contained as set forth in the Preliminary

Statement, paragraphs 8 though 39 including Counts [, II, III, and [Vas if fully set forth at length

herein.

41. The defendants' statements published in the Bergen Record in the County of Bergen

to the public at large were maliciously spoke and published of and concerning these plaintiffs,

certain slanderous, false, malicious, scandalous and defamatory words, to wit:

Borough Attorney Gregg Paster said last week that about 12 current and former borough employees and elected officials have given statements about the contamination. Some provide testimony voluntarily, while others were subpoenaed, he said. Winant, who served as mayor from 1992 to 2003, Eckel and Licameli were subpoenaed because they were among those who did not volunteer information to Paster, Manna said.

42. The words aforesaid tended to blacken and injure the honesty, integrity, morality and

reputation of the plaintiffs and to thereby expose then to public contempt and ridicule, and to injure

and damage their business.

43. . The plaintiffs further state that said words so spoken by the defendants were and are

utterly false, malicious and slanderous.

44. By reason of the acts of the defendants aforesaid, in and about the speaking and

publishing of the said false, malicious and slanderous words and statements, the plaintiff s were

11

' . . " .

... and ill'egr�atly:and p6;Uari�lltlyinjur�d and damag�d in th�irgoodnam�s and reputations, and '. . . . . ' , ��,;\ � ", ' '. . ' . ' . '

wer�and are expose'd to public contempt, hatred and ridicule, and have been further damaged in

their said business . . ",.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs respectfully demand judgment against the defendants for

damages, toge.tperw.i.t):limerest and .costs of suit. " '" .' ,. ':'�.: i:'i�:""" ": , . . " ,

Respectfully subriiitted, • ::'

THE LAW OFFICE OF FREDERIC C. GOETZ, ESQ., LLC

, " ;"'" '

' :BY: / . �

Frederi7.

c C. Goetz., Esq. Attorqey for Plaintiffs

. . ,' ,

'. . . . .. . ......... . ' JURY TRIAL DEMAND.

. . ... Plaintiffs her�6f;�;�� a trial by jury on al

'{1sL�:�� triable.

. :, ':'.' .

THE LAW. OFFICE OF F�"",,'fC C.GOETZ, ESQ;, LLC .

BY:

, .. �:;: ' " "� ' ,,�. ,:�"":" -",�.), .. :

DATED: "11109/11 /�;;:-n::,": ... ,-.'-:� ;�,::.,:, ,�;. '::; ,;'.!:,."

'. "�

, -' ./

VERIFICATION

The undersigned, offull age, in lieu of oath or affidavit, hereby certify and say:

1. We are the plaintiffs in the foregoing Verified Complaint.

2. We have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and aver that the facts contained therein

are true to the best of our personal knowledge and belief.

13

We-certijy that tli.� fb�egoing statements made by us are true: We are aware that if any of

the foregoing statements. made by us are willfully false, we. are subject to punishment.

9Enold �Jza1Zi Donald Winant

Dated: . \1 / � 111.-

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Rule 4:5�1, the undersigned, offull age, hereby certifies that:

2.

3.

4.

I am an attorney of the State of New Jersey and I am the attorney principally charged - with handling this matter;

-

, . - '-'-. : , .' , : .. '

To the bestofrny knowledge andinformation, the within action is not the subject of any other action pending in any Court, or any arbitration proceedings contemplated;

To the best of my knowledge and infOlmation, there are no other parties who should be joined in this.action at this time; and .- . .

This Certification is provided pursuant to the requirements of Rule 4:5-1.

I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. Lam aware that if any of th.\�:J��tatmbtltit�madeililbme-im:�will£lll¥,jillse,T"��w;;�\\IO";\-

. -

" ' .. "

.' :J.;+ " .:'. theforegol�gstat��riti ih�de'�; me are willfully false, lam subject to p�ishment.

DATED:. 11/09/11 .. ' . . " . . . , �.' . .

. " '.: . .

THE LAW OFFICE OF FREDERIC C. GOETZ, ESQ., LLC

' BY:

, Please. take.notic;;e that pu,rsuant .to Rule 4:25-4, Fred;eric C. Goetz, Esquire is hereby designated as trial c6W;�eIin the ab()ve-captioned matter 011. behalf of the Plaintiff(s).

. ' . , , . " , THE LAW OFFICE OF FREDERIC C. GOETZ, ESQ., LLC

BY:

. � ..

, Fre4ric (::. Goetz, Esq: .. ' Attorney 'forPlaiittiffs< , . . . ." '.> ::"'; , .. � -" ' . " ,-,., .. .. . : . . DATED,: 11/09/if:

, :: .\, .. '

" .:,; . , . 15 .

·.'

�MBERS AYE CARRICK ( CABPW JIREEMAN I MANNA j STYLIANOU J ZMmCIWISKY / MAYOR. MeHALl TOTALS 5'

Offered by: Seconded by:

2010 BOROUGH OF DUMONT

RESOLUTION.

NAY ABSTAIN ABSENT

vi

.. . .

,/

Resolution No. 285 �--�--�---------

Date: ' November 9, 2010 Page: lof 2 --------�------�---

Subject: Investigation and Subpoena pO'l)'er ,related to DPW Environme:ntal Remediation

Purpose: Authorization

Account No ..

Contractlllo. ,.,

Dollar Amount: ------�----�-----

Prepared By: .

Gregg Paster, Esq.

Certified as a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the Borough of Dumont on above date ata Regular Meeting by: �� , ,

Susan Connelly, RMC, Borough Clerk Borongh of Dumont, Bergen County, New Jersey

AUTHORIZATION OF INVESTIGATION AND SlT.B.POENA POWER RELATED TO DPW ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION "

RESOLUTION OF THE BOROUGH OF DUMONT COUNTY OF BERGEN" STATE OF NEW JERSEY

WHEREAS, the governijl.g body hIis aUthorized investigation into the circumstlinces and actions surrounding certain environmental spill cases as set forth in a letter dated E?eptember 29, 2010 from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; a:ild

WHEREAS, the investigation requires additionallnfonnation, including document requests and subpoenas; and

WHEREAS, the Borough Council of the Borough of Dumont now seeks to exercise its powers pursUant to the New Jersey Constitution, applicable statute and case law interpretations to issue su!J.lxlenas to compel teStimony and production of documents as required to complete the investigation. . .

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Borough of Dumont, County 'of Bergen, State of New Jersey that the Borough Attomey· be and is hereby authorized to issue subpoenas ad testificandum and/or subpoenas duces tecum in the name of the Borough of Dumont, and to request such testimony. and' production of documents and things as may be necessary to complete the authorized investigation.

I hereby certify'the foregoing to be a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Borou� of Dumont Council at a meeting held on November 4, 2010. .

BOROUGH OF DUMONT

BY: ATTEST:

#dl&fl /MAITHEW . � .

4.6:�,6� ��r� Clerk

Dated: November 9, 201(j

. ...

Gregg F. Paster, Esq. 18 Railroad Ave., Suite 104 Rochelle Park, NJ 07662 Tel: (201) 489-0078 Fax: (201) 489-0520 Attorney for Borough of Dumont

IN RE DPW ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF DUMONT BERGEN COUNTY-NEW JERSEY

SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM

THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY TO:

Michael Licameli 58 Wilcox Street Dumont, NJ 07628

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to attend and give testimony at the Law Offices of Gregg F. Paster & Associates, 18 Railroad Avenue - Suite 104, Rochelle Park, New Jersey 07662, on Friday, January 14, 2011 at 11:00 A. M. with regard to the above entitled action.

This subpoena is issued· pursuant to a resolution of the Dumont Borough Council dated November 3, 2010 and it concerns New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Case #90-05-17-1528 (aka 90-05-17-1620, 90-03-08-1811, 91-09-12-1533) .

Failure to appear according to the command of this Subpoena will subject you to a penalty, damages in a Civil Suit and punishment for contempt of Court.

You are commanded to bring with you any documents, records, contracts, applications, notes, memos, electronic data or other physical mate�ials or things pertaining or related to the alleged release of hazardous substances at the Dumont Boro DPW Garage and nearby properties during the 1980s, 1990s and/or 2000s including, but not limited to, company policy on such release of hazardous substances, identity of decision making authorities, chain of command a d procedure to obtain permission for such deposit.

Date: /£.,/ \ ql \) PASTER,

Attorney for Borough of Dumont

PROOF OF SERVICE

State of New Jersey} ss:

County of Bergen

On , I, the undersigned, being over the age of 18, served the within Subpoena by personally delivering a copy thereof to the person named therein, at

And by tendering to such person the attendance fee of two dollars ($2.00) as allowed by law.

Date:

• GALANTUCCI & PATUTO

ROSERT L. G"LANTUCCI

JAMES P. PATUTO

PHILIP DE VENCENTES

JAMES O. ADDIS

DAVID J. A.LTIERI

PAUL A. HUQT O� COUNSEL

January 1�, �011

Gregg F. Paster, Esq.

COUNSELLORS AT LAW

18 Railway Avenue---Suite 104 .B.Q.gj;e.J,:J._e Pl!-:r�!. � • .!'_ .. ��_rsel" 07 66�

55 STATE STREET

HACKENSACK. NEW JERSEY 0760 I 120l} 646·1100

FAX: (201) 343·4639

ReI subpoena Ad Testificandum to Michael Licameli

Dear Mr. Pasterl

Thank you for your letter of January 5, �011 regarding the subpoena served. I am sorry if my letter did not clarify what my concerns are - namely the validity of this subpoena -- and I am afraid that the Council' Resolution which you have provided to me does not alleviate my concerns.

While there is no question that the municipal council has the power to "investigateW for legislative purposes, a concOlllllU'tant of its power to legislate. However, pursuant to N.J.S.A.'" 40148-�5, the power to issue subpoenas for such investigative activity does not belong to the Council, but solely to the investigating committee of members of the

. ----· ·--.Goune4:1. inv.es,ted.wi th; .that .. aut.b9%!.ty !_._�\lsB_C.Qi\.\!hf.t;:l;�e .. J1N.t ..

be appointed by the Council, and wben it has formally don.· so, nthe committee mayisaue a subpoena � testificandum or subpoena duces tecum, to any person within this State • • • "

Id. See also ad. of Education of Union City v. union City, 11� N.J. Super. 493 (Law Div. 1970), aff'd, 118 N.J. Super. 435 (App, Div. 1970)1 ad. of Trustee. of Free Public Library of union City v. union City, 11� N.J. Super. 484 (Ch. Div. 1970), aff'd 116 N.J. Super. 186 (App. Div.

1970). And, of course, such subpoenas, when validly

'. •

- 2 -

issued, are returnable to and before the "Committee," not to the Committee's attorney.

As to this last point, my inquiry as to your status relates to the further fact that while the investigating committee which the Council must establish is not the Council itself, and the committee's role is � among the "legal affairs" of the governing body as to which the municipal attorney normally provides legal advice and guidance. Thus, in the absence of a municipal ordinance specifically describing the municipal attorney's office as

. inclUdIng -'the-'-r1gnt::"to acrE as legal-adVisor to such committee, the Council must appoint a "special counsel" for such purposes. See Evanko v. Duff, 53 N.J. Super. 548 (Law Div. 1990).

Please advise as to whether you will withdraw this subpoena at this time, or in the event the statutory requirements have been met, please adjourn the Committee meeting until X have been provided with evidence of the statutory requirements set forth.

Very truly yours,

GALANTUCCy /

BY:

GALANTUCCI & PATUTO COUNS£LLORS AT LAW

GALANTUCCI & PATUTO

ROBERT L. GALANTUCCI

JAMES P. PATUTO

PHILIP DE VENCENTES

JAMES O. ADDIS

DAVID J. ALTIERI

PAUL R. HUOT OF COUNSEL

January 26, 2011

Gregg F. Paster, Esq. 18 Railroad A venue Suite 104 Rochelle Park, NJ 07662

COUNSELLORS AT LAW

RE: Subpoena Ad Testificandum to Donald Winant DPW Environmental Remediation

Dear Mr. Paster:

55 STATE STREET HACKENSACK. NEW JERSEY 07601

(201) 646-1100

FAX: (201) 343·4639

. ' .. _ .. _-_. --'''-._- - . _ . -

Please be advised that this firm has recently been consulted with regard to a purported subpoena, which was served upon the above named person, commanding that he attend and give testimony at your office.

As you know, this firm also represents Michael Licameli with regard to the same issue.

The subpoena is purportedly based upon the Resolution of the Dumont Borough Council, erroneously dated November 3, 2010. I remain concerned about the validity of both subpoenas to MI. -LicameH and to Mr. Winant, and I presume-iliat-tfle-.Resolut-ien-whiGh------ - --__ _

you have suggested supports the issuance of the subpoena is the same Resolution in support of the subpoena for Mr. Winant.

As we previously expressed to you, although the Municipal Council has the power to "investigate" for legislative purposes pursuant to statute, the power to issue subpoenas for such investigative activity does not belong to the Council, but solely to an investigating committee vested with that authority. The committee must be appointed by the Council and that committee when duly formed may issue a SUbpoena. A validly issued subpoena is returnable to and before the "committee" and not the municipality's attorney or the committee's attorney. It is not to be construed as a deposition.

RE: Subpoena Ad Testificandum to Donald Winant DPW Environmental Remediation

January 26, 2011 Page ·2·

As you know, we have supported these various positions with cases as referenced in our prior correspondence to you regarding the subpoena to Michael Licameli, said letters being dated December 30, 2010 and January 12, 2011. Ther-efore,. we have adv·ised Mr. Winant that he is under no obligation to respond ..to',&e ..... "" subpoena based on the premise that you have suggested in your correspondence. Additionally, Mr. Winant has requested that I return to you the $2.00 check offered in support of that sUbpoena.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

GALANTUCCI&PATUTO

BY: ROBERT L. GALANTUCCI

RLG/ac cc: Denald Winant

GALANTUCCI & PATUTO COUNSELLORS AT LAW

MEMBERS AYE CARRICK ,j CASPARE ,/ FREEMAN ,/ MANNA V STYLJANOU ,j ZAMECHANSKY .,j MAYOR MoHALE

TOTALS 0, Offered by: Seconded by:

2011 BOROUGH OF DUMONT

RESOLUTION

Resolution No. NAY ABSTAIN ABSENT Date:

Page:

Subject:

Purpose:

Account No.

Contract No.

Dollar Amount:

Prepared By:

101

April 5, 2011

1 of 2

DPW Environmental Investigation

Establishment of Ad-hoc Committee

Gregg Paster, Esq.

Certified as a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the Borough of Dumont on above date ata Regular Meeting b�� _

Susan Connelly, RMC, Borough Clerk ·Borough of Dumont, Bergen County, New Jersey

ESTABLISHEMENT OF AD-HOC COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE IN RE DPW ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION

WHEREAS, the goveming body has authorized investigation into the circumstances and actions surrounding celiain envirorunental spill cases as set forth in a lette!' dated September 29, 2010 from the New Jersey Department of Envirorunental Protection; and

WHEREAS, the inves.tigation requires additional information, including document requests and subpoenas; and

WHEREAS, certain individuals are unwilling to voluntarily provide testimony, to wit, former

I , I

GALANTUCCI & PATUTO

ROBERT L. GALANTUCCI

JAMES P. PATUTO

PHILIP DE VENCENTES

JAMES D. ADDIS

DAVID J. A,LTIERI

PAUL R. HUQT

OF COUNSEL

October 11, 2011

Miehael-Licameli 58 Wilcox Street Dumont, NJ 07628

Donald Winant 177 Magnolia Avenue Dumont, NJ 07628

COUNSELLORS AT LAW

RE: DPW Environm�ntal Remediation Subpoenas Michael LicameIi and Donald Winant

Dear Michael and Don:

55 STATE STREET HACKENSACK, NEW JERSEY 07601

(201) 646-1100

FAX: (201) 343-4639

Enclosed herewith please find copy of letter recently received in the above-captioned matter. After you've had an opportunity to review the same, please contact me immediately so that we can arrange an appointrnentandmake some decisions.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

RLG:dc Ene.

GREGG F. PASTER & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS Ai LAW

WWW.PASTERESQ.COM

GRliaa F, PASTER -'OM Il'I"D NJ A PII

Q P"'STIlA.�A'TCIit �'�.COM

MItCHAN V, TOMLINSON AOMITTED NJ a: NY

MTOMLIN50NO'''STE.RISQ.COM

Ie RAIL.ROAD AVENUe:· SUITE! 104 ROCHE:L.L.E PARK, NEW JE:RSIiY 07662

TEL. (201) 489·0078 • FAX (201) 489-0520

',."

October 1 0, 2011

Via regular mail and fax at (201) 343-46�@ Robert·L, Galantucel· Galantueci & Patuto 55 State Street Hackensack. NJ 07601

RE: DPW EnYironmental Remediation Subpoenas Michael LicameJl: Donald Winant

Dear Mr. Galantueei:

STIi:VI!N W. KL.EINMAN 1I0MI'I'UD NJ /I< NY

0,. COUN.U:.L SKLE: I N MAN.PAS .... " IIQ,(;OM

As you are aware, your clients Michael Llcamell and Donald Winant remain subject to subpoenas issued by the Dumont DPW Investigatory Committee on September 12. 2011. I am in receipt of your October 3 correspondence and read the recent profile of the trial you are currently engaged in. While I am anxious to accommodate your schedule. the Committee consists of a member who will be leaving the council at the end of the year. As such. the Committee intends to proceed on Monday, October 17. 2011 at 6:30 p.m. The Committee fully recognizes your clients' constitutional right to counsel and to decline to testify In the absence of counsel of their choosing. I can represent that If you or someone from your firm cannot attend that evening, and you advise accordingly, the Committee wi ll not hold your clients in contempt- fer- failure to· appear, but I cannot· guarantee that thelr·-testlmony -wllI- be·· rescheduled. In that event, the Committee may begin preparing its report of findings and simply report that Messrs. Winant and Licameli were unable to testify due to scheduling difficulties. I will. however. prevail upon the Committee to attempt to accommodate you and your clients' schedules. but cannot guarantee anything In that regard. To that end. if you give me some avai!�ble dates. I will discuss them with the Committee to give your clients the opportunity to put their testimony In the public record .

I understand that you have stated publicly that It Is your opinion that the timing of the Committee hearing Is designed to provide political ammunition In support of this Fall's election. However. the reality is that once November begins, between the election, League of Municipalities Conference, Thanksgiving and the Christmas and Hanukah

v\"'\, I V' L V I I I I , V I nil! nu, fIJi r, L c

holiday seasons, there Is simply not enough available time to complete the Committee's work by the end of the year.

Should you have any further questions regarding this matter , please feel free to contact our office.

Very truly yours, GREGG F. PASTER & ASSOCIATES

fIJM.otd-� Gregg F. Paster

-GFP-:mvt. cc; DPW Investigatory Subcommittee·

Susan Connelly, RMC-Borough Clerk

�-------" -

"


18 Railroad Ave. , Suite 104 Rochelle Park, NJ 07662 Tel: (201) 489-0078 Fax: (201) 489-0520 Attorney for Borough of Dumont



Donald Winant 177 Magnolia Avenue Dumont, NJ 07628



/:�'<;:.;. )-' ," . "i}:;':\ ,,\: .. \\

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to attend and give tes timony before the DPW Inves tigatory Committee at the Borough Hall of the Borough of Dumont, 50 Washington Ave., Dumont, New Jersey, 07628 on Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 8:00 P.M. with regard to the above entitled action.

This s ubpoena is issued pursuant to a resolution of the Dumont Borough Council dated April 5, 2011 and it concerns New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Case #90-05-17- 6 1528 (aka 90-05-17-1620, 90-03-08-1811, 91-09-12-1533). Failure to appear according to the command of this Subpoena will subject you to a penalty, damages in a Civil Suit and punishment for contempt of Court.

You are commanded to bring with you any documents , records, contracts, applications, notes, memos, electronic data or other physical materials or things pertaining or related to the alleged rele\l.s e of hazardous subs tances at the Dumont Boro DPW Garage and nearby properties during the 19 80s, 1990s and/or 2000s including, but not limited to, comPany policy on such release of hazardous substances, identity of decision making authorities, chain of command and rocedure, obtain permission for such deposit.

Date: i Lt! 1\ G SQ. Attorney for Borough of Dumont

PROOF OF SERVICE

State of New Jersey} ss:

County of Bergen

On I, the undersigned, being over the age of 18, s erved the within Subpoena by personally delivering a copy thereof to the person named therein, at

And by tendering to s uch person the attendance fee of two dollars ($2. 00) as allowed by law.

Date:


18 Railroad Ave., Suite 104 Rochelle Park, NJ 07662 Tel: (201) 489-0078 Fax: (201) 489-0520 Attorney for Borough of Dumont





Michael Licameli 58 Wilcox Street Dumont, NJ 07628

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to attend and give testimony before the DPW Investigatory Committee at the Borough Hall of the Borough of Dumont, 50 Washington Ave., Dumont, New Jersey, 07628 on Thursday, September 22, 2011 at 6:30 P.M. with regard to the above entitled action.

This subpoena is issued' pursuant to a resolution of the Dumont Borough Council dated April 5, 2011 and it concerns New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Case #90-05-17-1528 (aka 90-05-17-1620, 90-03-08-1811, 91-09-12-1533). Failure to appear according to the command of this Subpoena will subject you to a penalty, damages in a Civil Suit and punishment for contempt of Court.

You are commanded to bring with you any documents, records, contracts, applications, notes, memos, electronic data or other physical materials or things pertaining or related to the alleged release of hazardous substances at the Dumont Boro DPW Garage and nearby properties during the 1980s, 1990s and/or 2000s including, but not limited policy on such release of hazardous substances, of decision making authorities, chain of command an to obtain permission for such deposit.

Date: q!I,-[I\ G PASTER, ESQ. Attorney for Borough of Dumont

I' "

I PROOF OF SERVICE

State of New Jersey} SS:

County of Bergen

On I, the undersigned, being over the age of 18, served the within Subpoena by personally delivering a copy thereof to the person named therein, at

And by tendering to such person the attendance fee of two dollars ($2,OO) as allowed by law.

Date:

GALANTUCCI & PATUTO

"hlf;lE"RT L. \.�L.\NrU';;CJ J�ME'; P t>.1.TUTO nHU.IP DE v£.'.:,�t:N I 1';';' JoIMES 0 ... nt)l:>

I-'�UL R "Uor . " ,-" ,

COUNSE LLORS AT LA.W

F -\CSIMILE TRANSMISSION SHEET

TO: 1'1, L', ccz � � FROM: y, w,' "V'- ��

'IZ , G ...st��c. '-I DATE: lo-(,-I{

RE: �"'''-� ��

55 STArE STREET

HACKENSACK. NEW JERSEY 07601

,201,646·1100

FAX' ,201' 343·4639

NUMBER OF PAGE$ SENT (INCLUDING COVER PAGE) _� __ _

MESSAGE:

If you do not receive all pages or have any problems receiving this fax, please call (201) 646·1100 and ask for ___ _

R08ERT L. GALANTUCCI JAMI::5 p, PATUTO

GALANTUCCI & PATUTO COUNSELLORS AT LAW

55 STATE STREET

PHILIP DE: VENCENTES

JAMES O. ADDIS

HACKENSACK. NEW JERSEY 07601

DAVID J ALTIERI

PAUl. R. HUOT c. ccu"Uc

October 17, 2011

Gregg F. Paster, Esq, 19 Railroad Avenue Suite 104 Rochelle Park, New Jersey 07662

Re: DPW Environmental Remediation Subpoenas Michael Licamelli and·Donald Winant

Dear Mr. Paster:

(201) 6A6·1100

FAX, 12011 343'4639

Thank you for your letter of October 10, 2011. So there is no misunderstanding,. however, the scheduling problema have· been entir&ly related to Il\lr' schedule arid not those of Il\lr' c1i�ts. They· are.and remain willing to fully cooperate with the Committee'S inquiries. I and they would be availallle on any date in the second week of Noveml,er if you feel their attendance is necessary.

As to the apparently press� time factor based on one committee member's leaving the Council, I would point out that although the municipal· council clearly determined to investigate this matter in the Fall of 2010, it was not until April 5·, :lOll that the Committee was established by the Council.;. and. not until. September 8, 2011,. less than two months before municipal elections, that the·Committee subpoenas were issued to Il\lr' clients. under· such circumstances it is not unreasonable to suggest that the urgency of the timing waB not incidental to the upcoming elections .

As indicated, Il\lr' clients. are fully committed to cooperating with the Committee. However, as I have· indicated � you previously, they are in possession of no

-2-

documents related to the operations or functioning of the

DPW during their terms in office. During those times, all

files were in the hands of the township attorney and/or the

township administrator, which are certainly available to

the Committee. All information relating to the matters

being investigated was conveyed to my clients, as well as

other members of the municipal council, by the township

attorney and/or.the township administrator, upon which

information and advice my clients relied. My clients'

testimony therefore would relate solely to that information

and advice.

As indicated. my clients are ready, willing and able,

to cooperate by testifying before the Committee, or indeed

any other investigatory body, regarding the information and

advice provided to them by the township attorney and the

township administrator during the relevant time periods.

Please advise if the second week of November is acceptable

to the Committee.

Very tru1y yours,

GALANTOCCr « PATUTO

BY: ROBERT L. GALANTUCCI

Via telefax/regular mail ce: Michael Licamelli

Donald Winant

GALANTUCCf & PATUTO COUNSELLORS AT LAW

Appendix:XII-Bl

r CIVIL CASE INFORMATION 8T ATEMENT (C IS)

FOR USE BY CLERK'S OFFICE ONLY

Use for Initial Law Division

PAYMENT TYPE: D CK D CG D CA CHG/CK NO.:

Civil Part pleadings (not motions) under Rule 4:5-1 . AMOUNT: Pleading will be rejected for filing, under Rule 1 :5-6(c), if information above the black bar is not completed or

if attorney's signature is not affixed.

OVERPAYMENT: BATCH NUMBER:

OFF[CE ADDRESS 1 0 1 1 Hudson Ave. P.O.Box 454 Ridgefield, NJ 07657

DOCKET NUMBER (when available)

DOCUMENT TYPE Complaint

JURY DEMAND

NAME OF PARTY (e.g., John I I Capacity); �:::f!:::�:.t:;l::3ti�::::�--"-r!Th!'1!!!![§1��!!�!1��!i��i1�� Donald Winant; .Michael Llc:anle'l: Capacity); John Eckel J Capacity);

I Cas pare (Individual Capacity); Gregg

[S TH[S A PROFESS[DNAL MALPRACT[CE CASE? NO CASE TYPE NUMBER (See reverse side for listing) [F YOU HAVE CHECKED " YES:' SEE N.J.S.A. 2A:S3A-27 AND APPLICABLE CASE LAW

609

RELATED CASES PEND[NG? D YES� NO

REGARD[NG YOUR [ TO F[LE AN AFF[DAV[T OF MER[T. [F YES. LIST DOCKET NUMBERS

DO YOU ANT[C[PATE ADD[NG ANY PARTIES (arising out of same transaction or occurrence)?

NAME OF DEFENDANT'S PR[MARY [NSURANCE COMPANY. [F KNOWN D YES � NO

, D NONE � UNKNOWN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS rO�\'il CANNOT BE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE.

CASE CHARACTERISTIc'S FOR PURPOSES o'F DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION

DO PART[ES HAVE A CURRENT,. IF YES, IS THAT PAST OR RECURRENT . RELATIO.NSHIP D EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE D FRIEND/NEIGHBOR

D FAMILIAL . . D BUSINESS IXI OTHER (explain) .Eorm".

RELATIONSHIP? OO YES [J NO DJJ�ant.MaYDfiC:ounc1( ______

DOES THE STATUTE.GOVERNING THIS CASE PROVIDE D YES � NO FOR PAYMENT OF FEES BY THE LOSING PARTY? USE TH[S SPACE TO ALERT THE COURT TO ANY SPECIAL CASE CHARACTER[ST[CS THAT MAY WARRANT [ND[VIDUAL MANAGEMENT OR ACCELERATED D[SPOS[TION:

16.1 \ 00 YOU OR YOUR CLIENT NEED ANY DISABILITY ACCOMMODATIONS? .

W[LL AN INTERPRETER BE NE.EQED?· D YES [XI NO [F YES. PLEASE IDENTIFY THE

REQUESTED ACCOMMODATION:

D YES � NO [F YES, FOR WHAT LANGUAGE:

I certify that confidential personal identifiers .h n redacted from documents now submitted to the court, and will be redacted from all documents submitted �utu�n accordance with "Rule 1. :38-7(b).. .

ATTORNEY SIGNATURE

/�' i"redliJriC C ooetz� ESq.

An Attorney at Law of NJ_

;30 - Civil Case Information Stateint ;CIS) / AppendL, XII·B1; eN 10517 Rev. 7/1O Effective 7/1/10 P7/1O

Powered by HotDocs"

Prin d A L- E te by L STAT LEGAL •

A Division of ALL-STATE International, Inc. www.as1egal.com . 800.222.0510 Page 1

CIVI L CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT (CIS)

Use for initial (not motions) under Rule 4:5-1

CASE TYPES (Choose one and enter number of case type in appropriate space on the reverse side.)

Track 1 - 150 days' discovery 151 NAME CHANGE 175 FORFEITURE 302 TENANCY 399 REAL PROPERTY (other than Tenancy, Contract, Condemnation, Complex CommerCial or Construction) 502 BOOK ACCOUNT (debt collection matters only) 505 OTHER INSURANCE CLAIM (INCLUDING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTIONS) 506 PIP COVERAGE 510 UM or UIM CLAIM (coverage issues only) 51 1 ACTION ON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT 512 LEMON LAW 801 SUMMARY ACTION 802 OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (SUMMARY ACTION) 999 OTHER (briefly describe nature of action) . ___________________ _

Track II - 300 days' discovery 305 CONSTRUCTION 509 EMPLOYMENT (other than CEPA or LAD) 599 CONTRACT/COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION 603 AUTO NEGLIGENCE - PERSONAL INJURY 605 PERSONAL INJURY 6 1 0 AUTO NEGLIGENCE - PROPERTY DAMAGE 621 UM or UIM Claim (includes bodily injury) 699 TORT - OTHER

Track III - 450 days' discovery 005 CIVIL RIGHTS 301 CONDEMNATION 602 ASSAULT AND BATTERY 604 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE 606 PRODUCT LIABILITY 607 PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE 608 TOXIC TORT 609 DEFAMATION 616 WHISTLEBLOWERICONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT (CEPA) CASES 617 INVERSE CONDEMNATION 618 LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (LAD) CASES

Track IV - Active Case Management by Individual Judge/450 days' discovery 156 ENVIRONMENTAUENVIRONMENTAL COVERAGE LITIGATION 303 MT. LAUREL 508 COMPLEX COMMERCIAL 513 COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION 514 INSURANCE FRAUD 620 FALSE CLAIMS ACT 701 ACTIONS IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRITS

Centrally Managed Litigation (Track IV) 280 lELNORM 285 STRYKER TRIDENT HIP IMPLANTS 288 PRUDENTIAL TORT LITIGATION

Mass Tort (Track IV) 248 CIBA GEIGY 281 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB ENVIRONMENTAL 266 HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY (HRT) 282 FOSAMAX 271 ACCUTANE 272 BEXTRNCELEBREX 274 RISPERDAUSEROQUEUlYPREXA 275 ORTHO EVRA 277 MAHWAH TOXIC DUMP SITE 278 lOMETA/AREOlA 279 GADOLINIUM

283 DIGITEK

284 NUVARING

286 LEVAQUIN 287 YAZlYASMIN/OCELLA 601 ASBESTOS 619 VIOXX

If you believe this case requires a track other than that provided above, please indicate the reason on Side 1 , in the space under "Case Characteristics."

Please check off each applicable category: o Verbal Threshold

30 � Civil Case Information Statement (CIS) AppendixXII-Bl; eN 10517 Rev. 7/1O Effective 7/1/10 P7/1O

o Putative Class Action

Powered by HotDocs'"

o Tille 59

Printed by ALL-STATE LEGAL® A Division of ALL·STATE International, Inc. www.aslegal.com 800.222.0510 Page 2

C-000349-11

Documents

Transcript of C-000349-11