SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2616-16T4

RICARDO MORAN,

Complainant-Appellant,

v.

TOWER MANAGEMENT 

SERVICES,

Respondent-Respondent.

______________________________

Submitted November 26, 2018 – Decided

Before Judges Haas and Mitterhoff.

On appeal from the New Jersey Division on Civil 

Rights, Docket No. HB52WR-61415.

Ferro & Ferro, attorneys for appellant (Nancy C. Ferro, 

on the briefs).

Gordon, Rees, Scully & Mansukhani, LLP, attorneys

for respondent Tower Management Services (Elizabeth 

F. Lorell and Jeffrey A. Kopco, of counsel and on the 

brief).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (Jason 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

December 3, 2018
2

A-2616-16T4

W. Rockwell, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; 

Megan J. Harris, Deputy Attorney General, on the 

statement in lieu of brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant Ricardo Moran appeals from the December 31, 2016 final 

determination of the Director of the Division on Civil Rights (Director), finding 

no probable cause to substantiate appellant's complaint that respondent Tower 

Management Services discriminated against him in violation of the Law Against 

Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49. For the reasons that follow, we 

vacate the Director's decision and remand for further proceedings.

The facts are not in dispute. Appellant receives Section 8 rental 

assistance.1 In March 2010, appellant visited the Ivy Lane Apartments, which 

are managed by respondent, and inquired about renting a one-bedroom 

apartment. The monthly rent for this unit was $995, and appellant's Section 8 

voucher would fully cover that amount. However, the rental agent told appellant 

 

1

 The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development funds the 

Section 8 housing choice voucher program, which "provides financial assistance 

to eligible individuals so that they may rent privately owned housing." 

Pasquince v. Brighton Arms Apartments, 378 N.J. Super. 588, 591 n.8 (App. 

Div. 2005). The State Department of Community Affairs, Division of Housing 

and Community Services, administers the program in New Jersey. Ibid. "An 

individual deemed eligible for Section 8 housing assistance is issued a housing 

choice voucher which verifies eligibility for assistance and that money is being 

set aside to assist the individual with paying his or her rent." Ibid. 
3

A-2616-16T4

that respondent required all lessees to meet a minimum annual income 

requirement of $33,000 in order to lease a one-bedroom apartment. After 

combining his annual Section 8 rental assistance and Social Security benefits, 

the agent determined that appellant's income from all sources was only $20,940. 

Therefore, she advised appellant that he would not be able to rent the apartment. 

Based on this advice, appellant left the premises without filling out a lease 

application.

Appellant thereafter filed a complaint with the Director, alleging that 

respondent refused to rent an available apartment to him in violation of the LAD. 

In this regard, N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(g)(1) states that is unlawful for any person to 

refuse to rent property to a prospective tenant because of the "source of lawful 

income" they intend to use for the rent payments. This section is aimed at 

preventing landlords from refusing to rent to tenants who receive rental 

subsidies through the Section 8 program or through other government programs 

designed to assist low-income persons to obtain housing. Franklin Tower One 

v. N.M. 157 N.J. 602, 618 (1999).

In its answering papers, respondent asserted that the Supreme Court 

recognized in Franklin Tower "that a landlord approached by a prospective 

tenant eligible for Section 8 assistance has the full right to screen and review the 
4

A-2616-16T4

tenant's references, background, employment and rental history to verify that the 

tenant is otherwise qualified to reside in the landlord's building." Id. at 622 

(citing 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(d)(1)(A); 24 C.F.R. § 982.307). It is also well 

established that a landlord may review the tenant's creditworthiness even if the 

tenant receives Section 8 assistance. Pasquince, 378 N.J. Super. at 595. Thus, 

respondent argued that its minimum income policy was necessary in order to 

enable it to determine whether the tenant could actually afford to live in the 

apartment even with the help of a subsidy. 

Respondent also provided documentation showing that it rented units to 

other Section 8 recipients who met its minimum annual income requirement. In 

response, appellant argued that respondent's income policy had a discriminatory 

impact on individuals who pay their rent using government subsidies, and that 

the requirement had little or no relationship to the ability of Section 8 subsidy 

holders to afford the rents for respondent's apartments.

In his written decision, the Director found that appellant failed to 

demonstrate probable cause to credit his allegations of discrimination because 

he "never applied for the one-bedroom apartment" and, as a result, "there can be 

no finding that the application was wrongfully denied." The Director also stated 

"there is nothing in this record indicating that [appellant's] Section 8 status 
5

A-2616-16T4

improperly influenced [r]espondent's analysis of his eligibility" because 

respondent applied the income requirement to all prospective tenants.

The Director did not address the possible discriminatory impact 

respondent's income requirement might have on Section 8 recipients. However, 

after appellant submitted his brief in this appeal, the Director filed a motion to 

remand the matter to him for reconsideration and additional analysis of that 

issue. Another panel of this court denied the motion.

Having now had the benefit of all of the parties' briefs, we conclude that 

a remand is warranted to enable the Director to address, in the first instance, 

appellant's argument that respondent's minimum income policy has a 

discriminatory impact on individuals and families who use Section 8 subsidies. 

As the administrative agency charged with the enforcement of New Jersey's antidiscrimination laws, see N.J.S.A. 10A:5-6, the Division on Civil Rights has the 

authority and experience necessary to more fully investigate appellant's claim 

and determine the presence or absence of a violation of the LAD. Terry v. 

Mercer Cnty. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 86 N.J. 141, 157 (1981) (noting the 

"unique discretion and expertise" of the Director to effectuate the policies 

underlying the LAD). Therefore, a remand is clearly appropriate under the 

unique circumstances of this case.
6

A-2616-16T4

In remanding this matter for further analysis by the Director, we make 

clear that nothing within this opinion forecasts any views on the merits of 

appellant's arguments nor on the question of which party may be entitled to 

prevail after a fuller record is developed. We say no more than that without 

additional analysis by the Director, the issues presented are not fully ripe for 

decision.

Therefore, we vacate the Director's December 31, 2016 finding of no 

probable cause, and remand the matter to the Director for further proceedings. 

Any party aggrieved by the Director's final decision following the remand may 

thereafter file a timely new appeal with this court. 

Vacated and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.