SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1484-17T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, BY THE

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ARTHUR WILLIAMS III,1

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________

Argued February 3, 2020 – Decided April 16, 2020

Before Judges Fasciale, Rothstadt and Moynihan.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Ocean County, Docket No. L-2951-16.

Arthur Williams III, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

George G. Frino argued the cause for respondent 

(DeCotiis, FitzPatrick, Cole & Giblin, LLP, attorneys;

Michael J. Ash, of counsel and on the brief; Gregory J. 

Hazley, on the brief).

1

 The pro se appellant mislabeled his caption to read Williams v. DEP.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1484-17T4

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from an October 13, 2017 order authorizing the 

Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to exercise its power of eminent 

domain.

2

 Defendant is a property owner who responded to DEP's complaint by 

offering access to his property, but refusing to grant an easement. The judge 

rendered a final judgment granting DEP the authority to take the easement for 

shore protection. 

On appeal, defendant argues:

POINT I

ARBITRARY [AND] CAPRICIOUS –

[DEFENDANT] HAS OFFERED THE NJ DEP, VIA A 

LETTER TO GOVERNOR CHRISTIE, . . . AND VIA 

THE ANSWER AND ORAL ARGUMENT AT THE 

TRIAL, ACCESS AT NO CHARGE TO AND UPON 

HIS PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF CARRYING 

OUT THE COASTAL STORM DAMAGE 

REDUCTION "PROJECT." THEREFORE THE 

TAKING OF HIS PROPERTY IS UNNECESSARY, 

ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND THE 

TAKING MUST BE DENIED.

2

 We listed this appeal back-to-back with State v. 3.814 Acres of Land in the 

Borough of Point Pleasant Beach, State v. 10.041 Acres of Land in the Borough 

of Point Pleasant Beach, and State v. .808 Acres of Land in the Borough of Point 

Pleasant Beach (collectively Risden's); sixty-three consolidated cases known as 

State v. 1 Howe Street Bay Head, LLC (Howe); and New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection v. Midway Beach Condominium Ass'n (Midway). 

On this date, we issued opinions in Howe, Risden's, and Midway.
3

A-1484-17T4

POINT II

SUMMARY JUDGMENT – [DEFENDANT] MADE A 

BROAD OFFER OF COOPERATION TO THE DEP 

WHICH GAVE THE DEP THE ACCESS IT NEEDED 

TO CARRY OUT THE PROJECT. [THE] DEP DID 

NOT ACCEPT THE OFFER OR ATTEMPT TO 

MODIFY IT AND DUE TO ITS FAILURE TO 

RESPOND, ITS CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED ON 

A SUMMARY BASIS AS REQUESTED IN THE 

[DEFENDANT'S] ANSWER.

POINT III

NON-EXISTENT EASEMENT – THE DEP MAY 

WELL HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE EXISTING

RIGHTS OF WAY OR EASEMENTS BUT IT 

CANNOT TAKE SUCH RIGHTS IF THEY DO NOT 

EXIST.

POINT VI

FURTHER TO [POINT III] REGARDING NONEXISTENT EASEMENTS, GIVEN THE DEP'S 

RELIANCE ON A NON-EXISTENT EASEMENT, 

THE TAKING IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.

POINT V

GRANTOR-LESS GRANT OF EASEMENT. THE 

FINAL EASEMENT THE DEP CREATED AND 

TOOK WAS IN THE FORM OF A GRANTED 

EASEMENT BUT IT HAD NO GRANTOR, NOR DID 

THIS EASEMENT CONTAIN ANY CLUES AS TO 

HOW IT CAME TO LIFE OR HOW IT COULD HAVE 

ANY VALIDITY. THUS THE TAKING SHOULD BE 

DENIED.
4

A-1484-17T4

POINT VI

CASP – THE SUPERIOR COURT APPELLATE 

DIVISION SUPPORTS THE CIVIL APPEALS 

SETTLEMENT PROGRAM. THE SUPERIOR 

COURT SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED 

[DEFENDANT'S] OPENNESS TO THIS OR 

SIMILAR PROGRAMS, WHICH MIGHT HAVE 

RESULTED IN A SETTLEMENT AND THUS

AVOIDED THIS APPEAL.

POINT VII

NON-RESPONSE – THE FUNDAMENTAL REASON 

FOR THE EXISTENCE OF COURTS IS TO REVIEW 

ISSUES BROUGHT BEFORE THEM. I BELIEVE 

THE SUPERIOR COURT ERRED IN NOT 

ADDRESSING AND RESPONDING TO THE 

ISSUES OF:

[A.] NON-EXISTENT EASEMENT

[B.] CONTRACT, GRANT OR OTHER METHOD OF 

CREATING AN EASEMENT

[C.] REQUEST FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[D.] APPELLANT'S INTEREST IN ADL, CASP OR 

OTHER NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT.

I SEE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT FOR THIS COURT 

TO REMAND THESE MATTERS TO THE 

SUPERIOR COURT.

POINT VIII

INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY – THE 

JUDICIARY MUST PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM 
5

A-1484-17T4

EACH OTHER BUT IT MUST ALSO PROTECT 

THEM FROM THE STATE. WHEN THE STATE IS 

OVERREACHING OR THE JUDICIARY IS 

FAILING TO MAINTAIN ITS INDEPENDENCE, 

THE JUDICIARY MUST CORRECT THE STATE OR 

ITSELF.

POINT IX

DEATH OF EMINENT DOMAIN IN NJ – WHILE 

OUR FOCUS TODAY IS ON [THIS SPECIFIC 

CASE], THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE FAR 

EXCEEDS THE METES AND BOUNDS OF 359 

EAS[T] AVENUE IN BAY HEAD. EMINENT 

DOMAIN IS ON THE VERGE OF EXTINCTION IN 

NEW JERSEY AND IT MUST BE SAVED.

We conclude defendant's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant attention in 

a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add the following brief remarks. 

In November 2016, DEP filed a verified complaint against Arthur 

Williams III and Sandra C. Williams,

3 owners of beachfront property in Bay

Head, New Jersey. The Williamses offered access to their property but denied

an easement. The Williamses filed for summary judgment, which the judge

denied. In June 2017, DEP filed an amended verified complaint. On October 

13, 2017, the judge entered final judgment and appointed commissioners. 

DEP has broad condemnation powers and may create an easement or other 

3

 Sandra Williams is not participating in the appeal.
6

A-1484-17T4

interest in property. State v. North Beach 1003, LLC, 451 N.J. Super. 214, 240 

(App. Div. 2017). DEP's "discretion will not be interfered with by the courts in the 

absence of fraud, bad faith or circumstances revealing arbitrary or capricious action." 

Tex. E. Transmission Corp. v. Wildlife Preserves, Inc., 48 N.J. 261, 269 (1966). 

Here, defendant has made no showing of fraud, bad faith, or arbitrary or capricious 

action. There is no basis for interfering with DEP's properly exercised discretion.

Defendant argues that the judge conferred in chambers with DEP's counsel 

while counsel for other defendants and this pro se defendant watched in silence. At 

the hearing's conclusion on October 13, 2017, the judge invited DEP's counsel into 

chambers to discuss issues pertaining to the condemnation commissioners. Defense 

counsel for other defendants in the back-to-back matters, and this defendant did not 

object or voice concern about the judge conferring with DEP's counsel. 

Defendant contends the commissioners hired by the State owe allegiance to 

the State, and therefore they should not be permitted to determine just compensation. 

We disagree. To ensure fairness and lack of bias, the commissioners must take an 

oath to "faithfully and impartially" perform their duties, and to "make a true 

award to the best of their skills and understanding." N.J.S.A. 20:3-12. 

Additionally, defendant has not presented evidence of bias. 

Affirmed.