SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2807-16T3

SALVATORE J. MORETTI,

Appellant,

v.

BERGEN COUNTY 

PROSECUTOR'S

OFFICE,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Submitted December 11, 2018 – Decided

Before Judges Suter and Firko.

On appeal from the New Jersey Government Records 

Council, GRC Complaint No. 2015-390.

Salvatore J. Moretti, appellant pro se.

Florio, Perrucci, Steinhardt & Cappelli, LLC, attorneys 

for respondent Bergen County Prosecutor's Office

(Craig P. Bossong and Michael J. Marotta, on the brief).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent Government Records Council (Cameryn J. 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

January 9, 2019
2

A-2807-16T3

Hinton, Deputy Attorney General, on the statement in 

lieu of brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant Salvatore Moretti appeals from two orders issued by the 

Government Records Council (GRC) denying his requests for the disclosure of 

documents pursuant to the New Jersey Open Public Records Act (OPRA), 

N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -12, and the common law right of access (CLROA). We 

affirm, substantially for the reasons set forth in the written decision of the GRC.

At issue here are two separate requests for documents made in November 

2015. Appellant made the first of these requests to respondent, Bergen County 

Prosecutor's Office (BCPO), seeking hardcopies via U.S. mail of "records" the 

BCPO has which would be helpful in continuing to live in Bergen County. In 

his second request, appellant sought "records for supporting materials so [he] 

does not become a victim of a municipal property seizure."

In response to appellant's request, the records custodian for the BCPO 

certified in a timely fashion on January 4, 2016, that access was denied because 

no specific government records were identified and a custodian did not have to 

aid a requester in articulating an OPRA request.

Appellant filed a Denial of Access Complaint with the GRC seeking the 

following:
3

A-2807-16T3

1. All tax records as to reports on assessments due to 

arsons and felonies;

2. All felonies committed at 387 Park Street and 340

through 395 Park Street;

3. All Citi Bank robbery reports regarding the 

[appellant's] stick-up;

4. All evidence of conflicts about the City of 

Hackensack from 1958 through 1999; and

5. Miscellaneous others stated in this filing.

GRC's counsel sent a written response to appellant denying both requests, 

stating, "the two OPRA requests generically seek 'records' that would aid him, 

thus rendering the requests invalid because they seek unspecified documents 

rather than specifically named or identifiable government records." Counsel

further stated: "The [c]ustodian had no legal duty to research her records to 

locate those potentially responsive to either of the [appellant's] requests." Legal 

authority was cited to support that statement.

In January 2017, the GRC Executive Director determined the requests 

were invalid and was satisfied that the custodian lawfully denied access for the 

reasons previously stated by GRC counsel, adding: "The [appellant] seemed to 

narrow the requests in his Denial of Access Complaint. However, these [five] 

items fail to cure any deficiencies present in the actual requests. Additionally, 
4

A-2807-16T3

it is implausible that the [c]ustodian could have gleaned these items from the 

requests at issue."

In February 2017, appellant filed a request for reconsideration of the 

GRC's final decision claiming a "change in circumstances, extraordinary 

circumstances, fraud, illegality, mistake, and new evidence" warranted same. In 

denying the reconsideration request, the GRC found that appellant failed to 

establish that it "acted arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably," and he "failed 

to provide any new or additional arguments as to why his request was somehow 

valid." This appeal followed.

We agree with the GRC's analysis and conclusion that the BCPO was not 

required to provide documents in response to appellant's overbroad first and 

second requests. The GRC found that the custodian appropriately denied access 

to appellant's "voluminous, but rambling OPRA requests" that "failed to identify 

government records," and did so in a timely manner. In support of its decision, 

the GRC cited the holding of this court that, "a custodian does not have to aid a 

requester to reshape an invalid OPRA request into a valid one." Lagerkvist v. 

Governor of N.J., 443 N.J. Super. 230, 237 (App. Div. 2015). 

On appeal, appellant argues:
5

A-2807-16T3

POINT I.

THE BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE 

ENGAGED IN ABUSE OF PROCESS, THEREBY 

PREVENTING APPELLANT FROM EARNING A 

LIVING.

POINT II.

BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR MOLINELLI 

AND INVESTIGATOR MORDAGA ENGAGED IN 

CRIMINAL MAINTENANCE AND LITIGATION 

FUNDING, CONFISCATING APPELLANT'S 

REALTY IN HACKENSACK.

POINT III.

THE BCPO VIOLATED APPELLANT'S CIVIL 

RIGHTS, PROTECTED BY 42 U.S.C. §§ 1483 & 

1485, AND N.J. STAT. ANN. § 10:6-1 TO 2, THE N.J. 

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.

POINT IV.

THE BCPO DID NOT ENGAGE IN CLASSIC 

PROSECUTORIAL ACTS IN THE CASE AT BAR.

POINT V.

THE BCPO AND MORDAGA ARE IN VIOLATION 

OF N.J.S.A. 2A:170-83, BY SOLICITING DINNALL 

TO SUE THEREBY RECEIVING A PERCENTAGE 

OF THE RECOVERY.

POINT VI.

THE BCPO AND MORDAGA BY FORCING OUT 

BERGEN COUNTY SHERIFF JOSEPH CICCONE 
6

A-2807-16T3

AND HACKENSACK POLICE CHIEF CHARLES 

"KEN" ZISA HAVE ACCELERATED THE NUMBER 

OF HOME FORFEITURES, THEREBY FAILING TO 

ACT UNDER COLOR OF LAW.

POINT VII.

THE BCPO AND MORDAGA ARE ENGAGING IN 

LITIGATION FINANCING WHICH HAS 

RESULTED IN THE BANKRUPTING OF 

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J.

These arguments lack merit. A reviewing court "will not upset an agency's 

ultimate determination unless the agency's decision is shown to have been 

'arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or not supported by substantial credible 

evidence in the records as whole.'" Barrick v. State, 218 N.J. 247, 259 (2014) 

(quoting In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011)). The "court owes 

substantial deference to the agency's expertise and superior knowledge of a 

particular field. Deference controls even if the court would have reached a 

different result in the first instance." In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 28 (2007). 

"[O]ur courts give 'great deference' to an agency's 'interpretation of statutes 

within its scope of authority and its adoption of rules implementing' the laws for 

which it is responsible." Hargrove v. Sleepy's, LLC, 220 N.J. 289, 302 (2015) 

(citations omitted). The judiciary should not interfere unless an agency's 

determination is "patently incompatible with the language and spirit of the law." 
7

A-2807-16T3

In re Hudson City. Prob. Dep't., 178 N.J. Super. 362, 371 (App. Div. 1981) 

(internal citations and quotations omitted). 

GRC decisions are governed by the same legal principles, and are 

therefore subject to the same standards of deference and review as any other 

state agency, Paff v. Galloway Twp., 229 N.J. 340, 356 n.7 (2017), meaning an 

agency's determination will not be upset unless it is affirmatively shown that it 

is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or that it lacks fair support in the record. 

Karins v. City of Atl. City, 152 N.J. 532, 540 (1998); see also Fisher v. Div. of 

Law, 400 N.J. Super. 61, 70 (App. Div. 2008).

Requests for public records may be made under OPRA, or pursuant to the 

common law. OPRA provides that "all government records shall be subject to 

public access unless exempt . . . ." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1. OPRA defines 

government records as:

any paper, written or printed book, document, drawing, 

map, plan, photograph, microfilm, data processed or 

image processed document, information stored or 

maintained electronically or by sound-recording or in a 

similar device, or any copy thereof, that has been made, 

maintained or kept on file in the course of his or its 

official business by any officer, commission, agency or 

authority of the State or of any political subdivision 

thereof, including subordinate boards thereof, or that 

has been received in the course of his or its official 

business by any such officer, commission, agency, or 

authority of the State or of any political subdivision 
8

A-2807-16T3

thereof, including subordinate boards thereof. The 

terms shall not include inter-agency or intra-agency 

advisory, consultative, or deliberative material.

[N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1.]

The agency bears the burden of showing that the law authorizes the denial 

of access to the documents sought. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6. While OPRA creates a 

vehicle for access to important and useful information, it does not allow for 

"[w]holesale requests for general information to be analyzed, collated and 

compiled by the responding government entity." N.J. Builders Ass'n v. N.J. 

Council on Affordable Hous., 390 N.J. Super. 166, 177 (App. Div. 2007)

(quoting MAG Entm't, LLC v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 375 N.J. 

Super. 534, 546 (App. Div. 2005)). The GRC's Handbook for Custodians states 

that "[i]f a request does not name specifically identifiable records or is overly 

broad, a custodian may deny access . . . . [An e]xample of an overly broad 

request [would be]: 'Any and all records related to the construction of the new 

high school.''' Government Records Council, The New Jersey Open Public 

Records Act: Handbook for Records Custodians, 19 (5th ed. Jan. 2011).

Appellant's requests are even broader. We reiterate that, "OPRA does not 

convert a custodian into a researcher . . . ." Lagerkvist, 443 N.J. Super. at 237, 

and conclude that the agency met its burden here. 
9

A-2807-16T3

Further, "the common-law definition of public record is broader than the 

[OPRA] definition." S. N.J. Newspaper v. Twp. of Mt. Laurel, 141 N.J. 56, 71 

(1995). The definition is met where a record is a: (1) written memorial; (2) made 

by a public officer; (3) that the officer was authorized to make by law. Bergen 

Improvement Auth. v. N. Jersey Media Grp., 370 N.J. Super 504, 518 (App. Div. 

2004). In other words, a common law public record is a record "made by public 

officers in the exercise of public functions." S. N.J. Newspaper, 141 N.J at 72.

A citizen seeking access to a common law public record must establish an 

interest in the subject matter of the material, and that citizen's right of access 

must be balanced against the government or agency's interest in preventing 

disclosure. Mason v. City of Hoboken, 196 N.J. 51, 67-68 (2008); Bergen 

County Improvement Auth., 130 N.J. Super. at 519. Our Supreme Court has 

articulated several factors to consider while balancing these interests, including: 

(1) the extent to which disclosure will impede agency 

functions by discouraging citizens from providing 

information to the government; (2) the effect disclosure 

may have upon persons who have given such 

information, and whether they did so in reliance that 

their identities would not be disclosed; (3) the extent to 

which agency self-evaluation, program improvement, 

or other decision[-]making will be chilled by 

disclosure; (4) the degree to which the information 

sought includes factual data as opposed to evaluative 

reports of policymakers; (5) whether any findings of 

public misconduct have been insufficiently corrected 
10 A-2807-16T3

by remedial measures instituted by the investigative 

agency; and (6) whether any agency disciplinary or 

investigatory proceedings have arisen that may 

circumscribe the individual's asserted need for the 

materials.

[S. Jersey Publ'g. Co. v. N.J. Expressway Auth., 124 

N.J. 478, 488 (1991) (quoting Loigman v. Kimmelman, 

102 N.J. 98, 112 (1986)).]

Appellant has failed to satisfy any of these criteria. Calling for the 

custodian to research and compile BCPO records in order to attempt to comply 

with appellant's requests here was clearly overbroad. See MAG, 375 N.J. Super. 

at 549-50. Such broad requests require a custodian "to manually search through 

all of the [files], analyze, compile and collate the information contained therein

. . . ." Id. at 549. We do not require an agency to do the research and 

investigation appellant was required to do. Ibid. Because appellant's document 

requests were vague, generic, and failed to identify with any specificity the 

records he sought, his OPRA and common law requests were lawfully denied, 

and the denial of access was proper.

We find insufficient merit in appellant's other arguments to warrant 

further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D).

Affirmed.