SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NOS. A-1499-17T2

 A-1500-17T2

 A-1501-17T2

 A-1530-17T2

 A-1540-17T2

 A-1553-17T2

FAIR SHARE HOUSING CENTER, 

INC.,

 

Plaintiff-Respondent, 

v.

THE ZONING BOARD OF THE

CITY OF HOBOKEN,

DefendantCross-Respondent,

and

ADVANCE AT HOBOKEN, LLC, 

Defendant-Third-Party PlaintiffCross-Appellant

v.

CITY OF HOBOKEN AND THE

MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2

A-1499-17T2

CITY OF HOBOKEN,

Third-Party Defendants-Appellants/

Cross-Respondents.

__________________________________

CITY OF HOBOKEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant/

Cross-Respondent,

v.

ARTISAN HOBOKEN APARTMENTS,

LLC,

Defendant-RespondentCross-Appellant.

__________________________________

FAIR SHARE HOUSING CENTER, 

INC., 

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

THE ZONING BOARD OF THE

CITY OF HOBOKEN,

Defendant-Respondent,

and

1415 PARK AVENUE, LLC AND 

BIT INVESTMENT SIXTY-ONE, LLC,
3

A-1499-17T2

Third-Party PlaintiffsCross-Appellants,

v.

CITY OF HOBOKEN AND THE

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF HOBOKEN,

Third-Party Defendants-Appellants/

Cross-Respondents.

__________________________________

FAIR SHARE HOUSING CENTER, INC.,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

THE ZONING BOARD OF THE CITY

OF HOBOKEN,

Defendants-Appellants/

Cross-Respondent,

and

9TH MONROE, LLC AND

900 MONROE HOBOKEN, LLC,

Defendants-Respondents/

Cross-Appellants.

v.

CITY OF HOBOKEN AND THE

MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF HOBOKEN,
4

A-1499-17T2

Third-Party Defendants-Appellants/

Cross-Respondents.

___________________________________

FAIR SHARE HOUSING CENTER, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellant/

Cross-Respondent,

v.

THE ZONING BOARD OF THE CITY 

OF HOBOKEN,

Defendant-Respondent

and

NEW JERSEY CASKET COMPANY,

INC.,

Defendant-Respondent/

Cross-Appellant.

_________________________________

Argued January 8, 2020 – Decided September 30, 2020

Before Judges Fuentes, Haas and Enright. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Hudson County, Docket Nos. L-3643-11, L5052-11, L-0733-12, L-1978-12, and L-4563-15.

Ronald D. Cucchiaro argued the cause for 

appellant/cross-respondent City of Hoboken (Weiner 

Law Group LLP, attorneys; Ronald D. Cucchiaro, of 
5

A-1499-17T2

counsel and on the briefs; Richard Brigliadoro, Donald 

A. Klein, and Steven R. Tombalakian on the briefs).

Herschel P. Rose argued the cause for appellant/crossrespondent Zoning Board of the City of Hoboken 

(Davison, Eastman, Muñoz, Lederman & Paone, PA, 

attorneys; Dennis M. Galvin, on the briefs).

John J. Curley argued the cause for respondent/crossappellant Artisan Hoboken Apartments (John J. Curley 

LLC, attorneys; John J. Curley of counsel and on the 

briefs; Jason M. Hyndman, on the brief).

Jennifer Phillips Smith argued the cause for 

respondent/cross-appellant Advance at Hoboken LLC 

(Gibbons PC, attorneys; Jennifer Phillips Smith and 

Cameron W. MacLeod, on the briefs).

Kevin J. Coakley argued the cause for 

respondents/cross-appellants 1415 Park Avenue, LLC, 

9th Monroe, New Jersey Casket Company, 900 Monroe 

Hoboken and BIT Investment (Connell Foley LLP, 

attorneys; Kevin J. Coakley and Nicole B. Dory of 

counsel and on the briefs; Michael Affrunti on the 

briefs).

Kevin D. Walsh argued the cause for appellant Fair 

Share Housing Center, Inc. 

The opinion of the court was delivered by

FUENTES, P.J.A.D.

In Fair Share Hous. Ctr. v. Zoning Bd., 441 N.J. Super. 483, 486 (App. 

Div. 2015), certif. denied, 224 N.J. 246 (2016), we described that the trial court's 

order under review:
6

A-1499-17T2

invalidated the zoning approval conditions imposed by 

the Zoning Board, relieved the developers from their 

obligation to comply with the ordinance's provisions, 

and enjoined the City from enforcing or imposing "any 

requirement against the parties to construct affordable 

housing units and/or collect any monetary contribution 

related to the affordable housing from the parties[.]"

After acknowledging the Supreme Court's holding in In re N.J.A.C. 5:96 

& 5:97, 221 N.J. 1, 6 (2015), which "directed trial courts to resolve 

municipalities' constitutional obligations under Mount Laurel," we reversed the

trial court's order invalidating the City's affordable 

housing ordinance . . . [and held] the trial court erred in 

invalidating the zoning approval conditions related to 

compliance with the ordinance's provisions as to all of 

the developers named as defendants by Fair Share and 

remand[ed] for the trial court to adjudicate the 

remaining legal issues raised by the parties.

[Fair Share, 441 N.J. Super. at 487 (emphasis added).]

On remand, the Law Division judge erroneously granted summary 

judgment to these same developers based on an as applied challenge to the 1988 

Hoboken Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO). Furthermore, in a manner 

irreconcilable with this court's decision, the Law Division held that the City's 

AHO did not apply to the developments at issue because the City of Hoboken 

and its Zoning Board of Adjustment were estopped from enforcing the ordinance 

due to its collective failure to apply the ten percent affordable housing set-aside 
7

A-1499-17T2

contained in the ordinance to any other development between 1988 and 2011. 

The Law Division concluded this alleged misconduct by the City constituted a 

violation of the doctrine of selective enforcement.

In this appeal, we hold the Law Division misconstrued the scope of the

remand ordered by this court by allowing the developers to relitigate the 

enforceability of the City's 1988 AHO. Furthermore, these developers were also 

precluded from challenging the enforcement of the AHO based on their 

expressed waiver of those issues in the 2012 litigation.

The developers claim that the issues addressed by the Law Division in the 

2015 litigation under review here were not raised before the trial judge in the 

2012 litigation. This is simply not true. In a letter dated October 11, 2012 

submitted to the trial judge by the law firm that represented 1415 Park and 

Advance in the 2012 litigation, the attorney-author stated:

[O]ur respective clients agreed to dismiss the two 

remaining counts in each of their Crossclaims and Third 

Party Complaints against the City...and the Zoning 

Board. Dismissal of these claims will have the effect 

of resolving all remaining claims in the litigation.

[(emphasis added).]

 

That same letter included a proposed order that dismissed with prejudice 

the outstanding counts of the third-party complaints that were not addressed in 
8

A-1499-17T2

the June 1, 2012 order. The trial judge entered the order submitted by this 

attorney which, inter alia, included the following paragraphs:

6. The Tenth and the Eleventh Count of each of the 

Third Party Complaints are dismissed with prejudice;

and

7. All other counts in the Third Party Complaints have 

been resolved by the [c]ourt by the June 1, 2012 Order 

and by this Order. 

As a result, on November 9, 2012, the trial judge issued a final judgment 

in these consolidated matters. The judge made clear that in an initial "trial 

limited to the issue of whether the Affordable Housing Ordinance is valid and 

enforceable as written," the court found that the ordinance was "inconsistent 

with the Municipal Land Use Law, the Fair Housing Act, and the procedures 

and guidelines that have been promulgated by the Council on Affordable 

Housing." The order further stated that "[t]he Affordable Housing Ordinance, 

known as Sections 196-68 to -81 of the City of Hoboken Zoning Code, is hereby 

declared null, void, and unenforceable as a matter of law" and that "[t]he City 

of Hoboken and the Zoning Board are prohibited from enforcing the Affordable 

Housing Ordinance against Advance and 1415 Park."

On July 23, 2012, Developer 9th Monroe filed a motion for summary 

judgment relying on the court’s June 1, 2012 decision. On August 17, 2012, NJ 
9

A-1499-17T2

Casket filed a similar motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted 

these motions in two orders dated November 9, 2012. 9th Monroe, like the other 

third-party plaintiffs, agreed to dismiss its remaining third-party claims against 

the City of Hoboken.

"Under the doctrine of the law of the case, a party cannot relitigate a 

previously resolved issue." Washington Commons v. City of Jersey City, 416 

N.J. Super. 555, 563 (App. Div. 2010). Legal issues that have been decided on 

the merits in a prior appeal cannot be relitigated by the same non-prevailing 

parties in a later appeal of the same case. Id. at 564 (citing State v. Cusick, 116 

N.J. Super. 482, 485 (App. Div. 1971)).

As this record shows, the remand we ordered does not permit the 

developers to relitigate the enforceability of the AHO. This court upheld the 

validity of the AHO in its prior opinion and declared it enforceable against the 

four developers. The trial court did not have the legal authority to adjudicate 

the issues these developers voluntarily waived in the first case, thus creating a 

backdoor to continue to challenge the validity of the AHO.

Appeals may be taken to the Appellate Division as of right "from final 

judgments of the Superior Court trial divisions." R. 2:2-3(a)(1). The Supreme 

Court has made clear that "in a multi-party, multi-issue case, an order granting 
10 A-1499-17T2

summary judgment, dismissing all claims against one of several defendants, is 

not a final order subject to appeal as of right until all claims against the 

remaining defendants have been resolved by motion or entry of a judgment 

following a trial." Silviera-Francisco v. Bd. of Educ., 224 N.J. 126, 136 (2016).

When we reversed the trial court judgment that invalidated Hoboken's 

AHO in Fair Share, we expressly found that "[e]ach of the four developers 

named as defendants in this case received significant relief from the City's 

zoning laws in the form of variances from the Zoning Board of Adjustment 

(Zoning Board), conditioned upon the developers' compliance with the City's 

affordable housing ordinance." 441 N.J. Super. at 486 (emphasis added). Thus, 

at the conclusion of the case, we remanded "these cases to the trial court for such 

further proceedings as may be necessary to address and adjudicate to finality the 

remainder of the issues raised by defendants/third-party plaintiffs." Id. at 513

(emphasis added). 

Here, the record shows the developers knowingly and carefully pruned the 

legal issues before the trial court in 2012 to fashion a sustainable legal basis for 

the trial court's final judgment. They accomplished this by waiving all the issues 

they originally raised before the trial court to create the finality necessary to 

trigger this court's mandatory jurisdiction. The only legal issues remaining after 
11 A-1499-17T2

the developers' strategic waiver concerned the molding of an appropriate remedy 

to vindicate the public policy underpinning the AHO.

The 1988 AHO was intended to provide a means to counter the 

gentrification that was overwhelming the City's historical character and 

endangering its demographic diversity. The developers who obtained approval 

to construct these high-end residential properties secured significant variances 

from the City's zoning ordinance that substantially increased the value of their 

projects. In return, they each agreed to comply with the requirements of the 

AHO. The City is entitled to receive good faith compliance with these legally 

valid requirements.

Reversed.