Court rules on Meetings Act's "anticipated litigation" exception.

1 min read

In a January 28, 2016 decision, Monmouth County Superior Court Judge Paul X. Escandon ruled in Kash v. Borough of Freehold, et al, Docket No. MON-L-2814-15 that Freehold Borough’s Redevelopment Entity’s decision to enter into nonpublic (closed or executive) session because of the “anticipated litigation” exception embodied within N.J.S.A. 10:4-12(b)(7) did not violate the Open Public Meetings Act.  Even though a land use challenger did not directly threaten the Borough with litigation, his lawyer’s inquiries to the Borough’s lawyer about whether he would be permitted to cross-examine the applicant’s witnesses and the appeal process if his bid to cross-examine was denied justified the closed session.

Judge Escandon also ruled, among other issues presented, that Borough Mayor J. Nolan Higgins’ ownership of a funeral home near the property that was the subject of the application did not constitute a conflict of interest that precluded Mayor Higgins from participating in the application.

Top comments about this post on Facebook.

Related News:  Freeholder Virginia Haines Receives $1,739 Travel Expense Reimbursement
Previous Story

Appeal seeks reversal of judge's ruling that OPRA requestors don't have to reside in New Jersey.

Next Story

OPRA's "immediate access" provision tested in GRC filing.

Latest from Blog