SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2327-20

MUSTAFAA SHABAZZ,

Complainant-Appellant,

v.

COMMUNITY REALTY 

MANAGEMENT and NORTH 

25 URBAN RENEWAL 

PRESERVATION LP,

Respondents-Respondents.

____________________________

Submitted March 16, 2022 – Decided July 27, 2022

Before Judges Accurso and Enright.

On appeal from the New Jersey Division on Civil 

Rights, Docket No. HA19HW-68070.

Mustafaa Shabazz, appellant pro se.

Margolis Edelstein, attorneys for respondents 

Community Realty Management and North 25 Urban 

Renewal Preservation LP (Kyle L. Wu, of counsel and 

on the brief).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2327-20

Matthew J. Platkin, Acting Attorney General, attorney 

for respondent Division on Civil Rights (Sookie Bae, 

Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Farng-Yi D. 

Foo, Deputy Attorney General, on the statement in 

lieu of brief).

PER CURIAM

Mustafaa Shabazz, a tenant in an apartment complex owned by 

defendant North 25 Urban Renewal Preservation LP, appeals from a March 8, 

2021 final decision of the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights finding no 

probable cause for Shabazz's claims that North 25 and its building manager, 

defendant Community Realty Management, violated the Law Against 

Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49, in their dealings with him.1 We affirm, 

essentially for the reasons expressed in the Division's comprehensive and wellreasoned decision.

Plaintiff, a Vietnam War veteran, has been a tenant of North 25 

Apartments, a federally subsidized, affordable living complex in Trenton

renting to seniors and persons with disabilities, since September 2016. He is 

legally blind and describes himself as having "several disabilities and other 

1

 Although plaintiff references the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 

42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, throughout his brief, he alleged defendants 

violated the LAD, not the ADA, in his verified complaint to the Division.
3

A-2327-20

serious health related problems" necessitating daily visits by home health aid 

workers, as well as family and friends to assist him in managing his care.

In August 2018, plaintiff alleges he began to have "verbal 

communication problems" with management "due to staff not being adequately 

trained and supervised in addressing the problems of tenants with disabilities. " 

His dissatisfaction with the building management not having abated, in July 

2019, plaintiff began to communicate his complaints in writing. In August,

defendants acceded to his request that management communicate with him by 

telephone or email in addition to providing him written notice regarding the 

annual income recertification process as an accommodation for his vision 

impairment. Plaintiff documented several other complaints, including that 

management was abusive and neglectful and that defendants' March 2020 

COVID-19 restrictions on visitors in the building were preventing necessary 

access by his healthcare workers. 

In September 2020, plaintiff filed a verified complaint with the Division 

on Civil Rights alleging defendants refused his caregiver access to the building 

to assist him with his various medical conditions, denied his accommodation 

request to have notices sent by email and subjected him to discriminatory 

terms and conditions in services. The Division investigated his allegations and 
4

A-2327-20

found no probable cause to believe defendants had discriminated against 

plaintiff based on his disability. 

Specifically, in a comprehensive decision detailing its investigation into 

plaintiff's complaints, the Division concluded defendants did not single 

plaintiff out in denying him visitors. Instead, it found defendants put in place 

"a blanket policy restricting all tenants' rights to have non-essential visitors" in 

response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Noting plaintiff resided in "an over 55 

building with many individuals with disabilities," the Division did not find the 

policy had a disparate impact on tenants with disabilities nor that defendants 

had applied the policy to plaintiff in a manner different from other residents.

As to denying his caretaker access, the Division found only that one 

healthcare worker was delayed in entering the building on one occasion "due 

to an issue with the caretaker's identification." Following plaintiff providing 

the names of his caretakers to security at the front desk, the problem had

apparently not recurred. The Division found defendants had agreed to 

accommodate plaintiff as he had requested regarding notifications relating to 

his recertification based on documents submitted by the parties, and it found 

no evidence that defendants had harassed him based on his disability.
5

A-2327-20

Our review of administrative agency actions is, of course, limited. In re 

Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 27 (2007). We do not independently assess the 

evidence in the record as if we were the court hearing it in the first instance. 

In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999). We will not upset an agency's final 

quasi-judicial decision absent a "clear showing that it is arbitrary, capricious, 

or unreasonable, or that it lacks fair support in the record." In re Herrmann, 

192 N.J. at 27-28.

Applying those standards here, plaintiff has provided us no basis on 

which to overturn the Division's decision that the investigation did not support 

plaintiff's claims of disability discrimination. Although he contends we need 

not apply our usual deference to agency action here based on the Division's 

"lack of critical analysis" of the allegations of plaintiff's verified complaint and 

the Director's uncritical acceptance "of the excuses offered" by defendants for 

their conduct, he does not point to any flaws in the Division's investigation

that would permit us to do so. There is simply nothing in the record to shake 

"our confidence that there has been a careful consideration of the facts in issue 

and appropriate findings addressing the critical issues in dispute." See Bailey 

v. Bd. of Review, 339 N.J. Super. 29, 33 (App. Div. 2001).

Affirmed.