Court Opinion

ID: 9900293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 22:08:42.492196+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:03.611108
License: Public Domain

TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY
JOSHUA D. NOVIN                                                   Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Justice Building
     Judge                                                         495 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., 4th Floor
                                                                          Newark, New Jersey 07102
                                                                        Tel: (609) 815-2922, Ext. 54680

                    NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL
                     OF THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS

                                              July 26, 2023

John N. Malyska, Esq.                         William T. Rogers, III, Esq.
Meyner and Landis, LLP                        Archer & Greiner, P.C.
One Gateway Center                            101 Carnegie Center
Suite 2500                                    Suite 300
Newark, New Jersey 07102                      Princeton, New Jersey 08540

Wesley E. Buirkle, Esq. 1
DiFrancesco Bateman Kunzman
 Davis Lehrer & Flaum, P.C.
15 Mountain Boulevard
Warren, New Jersey 07059

       Re:     Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a
               parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
               v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
               Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022

               -and-

               Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
               Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022

Dear Mr. Malyska, Mr. Rogers, and Mr. Buirkle:

       This letter shall constitute the court’s opinion on defendant/counterclaimant and third-party

plaintiff, Glen Ridge Borough’s (“Glen Ridge”) motions seeking entry of an order: (i)

disqualifying Archer & Greiner, P.C. from serving as counsel for Montclair Hospital, LLC,

1
   Montclair Township is not a party to these actions. However, the court has included counsel for
Montclair Township in this letter opinion as Glen Ridge Borough’s counsel has simultaneously
filed motions to “intervene as an interested party and to file an answer and to seek disqualification
of counsel due to prohibited conflicts of interest” in the matters captioned Montclair Hospital, LLC
tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC v. Township of Montclair, docket
numbers 008137-2019, 002011-2020, 007557-2021, and 004862-2022.
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -2-

MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC, and Mountainside Hospital-MPT due to alleged conflicts of

interest; (ii) dismissing with prejudice Mountainside Hospital-MPT’s complaints, filed under

docket numbers 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 08459-2022, because no

entity bearing the name “Mountainside Hospital-MPT” is authorized to transact business in

New Jersey; (iii) compelling discovery from Montclair Hospital, LLC, Mountainside

Hospital-MPT, and MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC; and (iv) compelling a reconciliation by

Montclair Hospital, LLC of the square footage of the Mountainside Medical Center.

       For the reasons set forth herein, the court: (i) denies Glen Ridge’s motions seeking to

disqualify Archer & Greiner P.C. from serving as counsel for Montclair Hospital, LLC,

MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC, and Mountainside Hospital-MPT; (ii) denies Glen

Ridge’s motions seeking dismissal with prejudice of Mountainside Hospital-MPT’s

complaints, filed under docket numbers 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and

08459-2022, and affords Mountainside Hospital-MPT leave of court, under R. 4:9-1, to file

pleadings amending/correcting plaintiff’s name within thirty (30) days; (iii) grants, in part,

and denies, in part, Glen Ridge’s motions seeking to compel discovery from Montclair

Hospital, LLC, Mountainside Hospital-MPT, and MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC; and (iv)

grants, in part, and denies, in part, Glen Ridge’s motions compelling a reconciliation by

Montclair Hospital, LLC of the square footage of the Mountainside Medical Center.

       I.    Procedural History and Factual Findings

       Pursuant to R. 1:7-4, the court makes the following findings of fact based on the

certifications in support of, and in opposition to, the motions and the pleadings.
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -3-

       Plaintiff, Montclair Hospital, LLC (“Montclair Hospital, LLC”), 2 is the tenant of a parcel

owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC (“MPT Legacy”). 3 Montclair Hospital, LLC initiated

local property tax appeals for the 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 tax years challenging the tax

assessments on block 92, lot 18, comprising the Mountainside Medical Center facilities (the “Main

Hospital Building”) in Glen Ridge.

       Plaintiff, Mountainside Hospital-MPT (“Mountainside Hospital-MPT”) initiated local

property tax appeals for the 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 tax years challenging the tax assessments

on block 91, lot 1 (“Highland Avenue”) in Glen Ridge. The Highland Avenue property comprises

a surface parking lot for the Mountainside Medical Center. The Main Hospital Building and

Highland Avenue properties shall be collectively referred to herein as the “Subject Property.”

       Glen Ridge filed counterclaims against Montclair Hospital, LLC and Mountainside

Hospital-MPT for the 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 tax years, arguing each tax year that the

“assessment is below the true value” of the Subject Property.

       In addition, Glen Ridge filed third-party complaints against MPT Legacy for the 2019,

2020, 2021, and 2022 tax years, similarly arguing that the Main Hospital Building’s “assessment

is below the true value.”

2
  Montclair Hospital, LLC (formerly known as Merit Mountainside, LLC) maintains the operating
license and operates the health care facility commonly known as Mountainside Medical Center.
Montclair Hospital, LLC is owned by Montclair Health System LLC. Montclair Health System
LLC is owned 20% by Hackensack University Medical Center and 80% by LHP Hospital Group,
Inc. LHP Hospital Group, Inc. is owned by Ardent LHP Hospital Group, Inc. Ardent LHP
Hospital Group, Inc. is owned by AHP Health Partners, Inc.
3
   MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC is owned by Medical Properties Trust, Inc.
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -4-

       MPT Legacy filed counterclaims under Glen Ridge’s third-party complaints for the 2019,

2020, 2021, and 2022 tax years, arguing that the Main Hospital Building’s “assessment(s) is/are

in excess of the true or assessable value of the property,” and that Glen Ridge’s Chapter 123 ratio

“does not accurately reflect the common level of assessment in the municipality, and . . . [thus,] is

discriminated against by its application.”

       Montclair Hospital, LLC sold the Main Hospital Building and Highland Avenue

properties 4 to MPT Legacy under deed dated March 31, 2014, for reported consideration of

$115,000,000. Said deed was recorded in the Essex County Register’s Office on April 3, 2014, as

instrument number 14023741. Contemporaneous with the execution and delivery of the deed,

MPT Legacy, as lessor, and Montclair Hospital, LLC, as lessee, entered into a Lease Agreement

for the Main Hospital Building and Highland Avenue properties (“Lease Agreement”) 5.

       The Lease Agreement commenced on or about March 31, 2014 and runs for an initial term

of fifteen (15) years. 6 Under the Lease Agreement, Montclair Hospital, LLC covenanted and

agreed “to pay, or cause to be paid, all Impositions before any fine, penalty, interest or cost may

be added for non-payment, with such payments to be made directly to the taxing or assessing

authorities.” Moreover, the Lease Agreement further provides that, “[a]fter obtaining written

approval from Lessor, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed,

Lessee may, at Lessee's sole cost and expense, protest, appeal, or institute such other proceedings

4
  Including block 92, lot 4 in Glen Ridge and block 4207, lots 1 and 2 in Montclair Township.
5
  Including block 92, lot 4 in Glen Ridge and block 4207, lots 1 and 2 in Montclair Township
6
  Provided that there is no “Event of Default,” as defined under the Lease Agreement, Montclair
Hospital, LLC has the option to extend the Lease Agreement for four terms, up to twenty (20)
years.
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -5-

as Lessee may deem appropriate to effect a refund or reduction of real estate assessments with

respect to the Leased Property, and Lessor, at Lessee's expense as aforesaid, shall fully cooperate

with Lessee in such protest, appeal, or other action. Any refunds of taxes paid by Lessee shall be

the property of Lessee.” As such, Montclair Hospital, LLC is “a single net tenant of the Subject

Property and is responsible for the payment of all property taxes related to the Subject Property

during the term of its tenancy.” Further, it is undisputed for purposes of these motions that

Montclair Hospital, LLC “has paid and continues to pay the property taxes for the Subject Property

for each tax year under appeal.”

        Montclair Hospital, LLC certifies that on May 19, 2019, it retained Archer & Greiner, P.C.

“as counsel for the purpose of pursuing property tax appeals on the Subject Property . . . , in order

to obtain a reduction in the assessed value [of the Subject Property] in each tax year pending before

this court.” 7

        MPT Legacy further offers a certification that it was “aware of the property tax appeals

filed by its tenant, Montclair Hospital, LLC . . . at the Subject Property, starting with the 2019 tax

year.” Moreover, it subsequently became aware of Glen Ridge’s third-party complaints for the

2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 tax years, joining MPT Legacy, as a third-party defendant, in these

local property tax appeals. MPT Legacy states that it is “represented by Archer & Greiner, P.C. .

. . as counsel in the pending property tax appeals” and is “also seeking a reduction in the assessed

value of the Subject Property for each year under appeal.”

7
   Thus, although the pleadings under docket numbers 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-
2021, and 08459-2022 identify the plaintiff as Mountainside Hospital-MPT, the true identity
of the party-in-interest in those local property tax appeals is Montclair Hospital, LLC.
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -6-

       Montclair Hospital, LLC asserts that, “[a]t no time during the pendency of the property tax

appeals has there been a significant risk that Archer [& Greiner, P.C.]'s representation of the

landlord of the Subject Property in the pending tax appeals materially limits Archer [& Greiner,

P.C.]’s responsibilities to the [Montclair] Hospital, [LLC].” Similarly, MPT Legacy asserts that it

“is not aware of any significant risk that materially limits Archer [& Greiner, P.C.]'s ability to

fulfill its responsibilities to MPT [Legacy] in the pending tax appeals as a result of Archer [&

Greiner, P.C.]'s representation of the Tenant in these appeals.”

       In or about October 2022, Glen Ridge propounded a document captioned

“Interrogatories/Requests for Admissions (October 2022) Directed to MPT Legacy of Montclair,

LLC” and “Interrogatories/Requests for Admissions (October 2022) Directed to MPT Legacy of

Montclair, LLC and Mountainside Hospital-MPT” (“October 2022 Discovery Demands”).

       The October 2022 Discovery Demands are a commingling of requests for admissions,

interrogatory requests, and demands for production of documents. The October 2022 Discovery

Demands contain twenty-five (25) questions, several with multiple subparts. The court’s review

of the October 2022 Discovery Demands reveals that many questions initially seek an admission

or denial from MPT Legacy or Mountainside Hospital-MPT, and then in the next subpart of that

question demand an explanation, facts, or documentation supporting the response to that

admission.

       In or about November 2022, Glen Ridge propounded a document captioned

“Interrogatories/Requests for Admissions (November 2022) Directed to Montclair Hospital, LLC”

and “Interrogatories/Requests for Admissions (November 2022) Directed to Mountainside
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -7-

Hospital, LLC” (“November 2022 Discovery Demands”).

        The November 2022 Discovery Demands are a similar commingling of requests for

admissions, interrogatory requests, and demands for production of documents. The November

2022 Discovery Demands contain three distinct parts. Part One is captioned “WITH REGARD

TO THE HELENA THEURER PAVILLION [sic] OF HACKENSACK UNIVERSITY

MEDICAL CENTER LOCATED IN HACKENSACK, NEW JERSEY.”                                Part Two is

captioned “FURTHER WIITH [sic] REGARD TO THE HELENA THEURER PAVILLION

[sic]   OF   HACKENSACK           UNIVERSITY       MEDICAL        CENTER      LOCATED        IN

HACKENSACK, NEW JERSEY.” Part Three is captioned “WITH REGARD TO CN 2017

– i.e., THE 2017 CERTIFICATE OF NEED CONCERNING THE PARTIAL TRANSFER

OF DIRECT/INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN MONTCLAIR HOSPITAL, LLC.”

In total, the November 2022 Discovery Demands comprise approximately fifteen (15)

questions, several with multiple subparts.    The November 2022 Discovery Demands seek

admissions from Montclair Hospital, LLC and documentation supporting the responses.

        By letters dated December 29, 2022 and January 20, 2023, Glen Ridge sought clarification

of several square footage calculations for the Main Hospital Building produced by Montclair

Hospital, LLC in spreadsheets and floor plans. Glen Ridge demanded that Montclair Hospital,

LLC “reconcile the materially differing square footage totals (all of which were supplied by the

[Montclair] Hospital [, LLC]).”

        On February 5, 2023, Glen Ridge moved before the court seeking entry of an order

compelling Montclair Hospital, LLC to provide a reconciliation of the differing square footage
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -8-

submissions.

       On February 6, 2023, Glen Ridge moved before the court seeking entry of an order

compelling MPT Legacy and Mountainside Hospital-MPT to provide responses to the October

2022 Discovery Demands.

        On February 13, 2023, Glen Ridge moved before the court seeking entry of an order

compelling Montclair Hospital, LLC to provide responses to the November 2022 Discovery

Demands.

        On February 13, 2023, Glen Ridge moved before the court seeking entry of an order

dismissing with prejudice the complaints filed by Mountainside Hospital-MPT asserting that no

such entity exists or is qualified to do business in New Jersey.

       On February 15, 2023, Glen Ridge moved before the court seeking entry of an order

disqualifying the law firm of Archer & Greiner, P.C. from further representation of Montclair

Hospital, LLC, MPT Legacy, and Mountainside Hospital-MPT, asserting that a prohibited

concurrent conflict of interest exists under RPC 1.7.

       II.     Conclusions of Law

               A.   Motions to Disqualify

       “[A] motion for disqualification calls for [the court] to balance competing interests,

weighing the 'need to maintain the highest standards of the profession' against a 'client's right freely

to choose his [or her] counsel.’” Dewey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 109 N.J. 201, 218 (1988)

(quoting Gov't of India v. Cook Indus., Inc., 569 F.2d 737, 739 (2d Cir. 1978)). However,

“[d]isqualification of counsel is a harsh discretionary remedy which must be used sparingly.”
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -9-

Cavallaro v. Jamco Prop. Mgmt., 334 N.J. Super. 557, 572 (App. Div. 2000). “Although doubts

are to be resolved in favor of disqualification, the party seeking disqualification must carry a

‘heavy burden’ and must meet a ‘high standard of proof’ before a lawyer is disqualified.” Carlyle

Towers Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Crossland Sav., 944 F. Supp. 341, 345 (D.N.J. 1996)

(quoting Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 822 F. Supp. 1099, 1114 (D.N.J. 1993)); see also

City of Atlantic City v. Trupos, 201 N.J. 447, 463 (2010) (concluding that “the burden of

persuasion on all elements under RPC 1.9(a) remains with the moving party, as it ‘bears the burden

of proving that disqualification is justified’” (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. V.J.,

386 N.J. Super. 71, 75 (Ch.Div. 2004))).

       When examining a motion to disqualify counsel, the trial court must engage in a

“painstaking analysis of the facts.” Dewey, 109 N.J. at 205 (quoting Reardon v. Marlayne, Inc.,

83 N.J. 460, 469 (1980)). Importantly, the court must also be cognizant that disqualification

motions can be misused as a litigation tactic that can delay an examination of the merits of the

claims and can undermine the judicial process. Dewey, 109 at 218. Thus, “close judicial scrutiny

of the facts of each case is ‘required to prevent unjust results.’” Carlyle Towers Condominium

Ass'n, Inc., 944 F. Supp. at 345 (quoting Gould, Inc. v. Mitsui Mining & Smelting Co., 738 F.

Supp. 1121, 1126 (N.D. Ohio 1990)).

       In some situations, a motion to disqualify counsel can be evaluated on the submission of

certifications; in other situations, an evidentiary hearing may be necessary. See Twenty-First

Century Rail Corp. v. New Jersey Transit Corp., 210 N.J. 264 271 n.3 (2012); O Builders &

Assocs., Inc. v. Yuna Corp. of NJ, 206 N.J. 109, 114 (2011); Comando v. Nugiel, 436 N.J. Super.
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -10-

203, 218-19 (App. Div. 2014); Van Horn v. Van Horn, 415 N.J. Super. 398, 416 (App. Div. 2010).

Here, the court finds that it possesses an adequate accounting of the facts and ample record from

the certifications offered to arrive at a conclusion without the necessity of an evidentiary hearing.

        It is undisputed that Archer & Greiner, P.C. represents Montclair Hospital, LLC and MPT

Legacy, plaintiff and third-party defendant/counterclaimant in these local property tax appeals,

who are also the lessor and lessee under the Lease Agreement.

        RPC 1.7(a) provides, in relevant part:

                (a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not
                represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict
                of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:

                (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another
                client; or
                (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more
                clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to
                another client, a former client, or a third person or by a personal
                interest of the lawyer.

                [RPC 1.7(a).]

        Thus, RPC 1.7(a) expressly prohibits two types of concurrent representations: (1) direct

adversarial representations, and (2) representations that pose a significant risk of material

limitation in the lawyer's responsibilities to a client. The prohibition contained under RPC 1.7(a)

against certain concurrent representations “arises out of the fundamental proposition that an

attorney owes a duty of undivided loyalty to his or her client.” Manoir-Electroalloys Corp. v.

Amalloy Corp., 711 F. Supp. 188, 192 (D.N.J. 1989). RPC 1.7(a) “reflects ‘the fundamental

understanding that an attorney will give complete and undivided loyalty to the client’ [and] ‘should

be able to advise the client in such a way as to protect the client's interests, utilizing his professional
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -11-

training, ability and judgment to the utmost.’” J.G. Ries & Sons, Inc. v. Spectraserv, Inc., 384 N.J.

Super. 216, 223 (App. Div. 2006) (alteration in original) (quoting State ex rel. S.G., 175 N.J. 132,

139 (2003)).

               1.   Direct adversarial representation

        RPC 1.7(a)(1) is clear and unequivocal in its prohibition: a lawyer shall not represent a

client in a litigation when representation of another client in that litigation will be directly adverse

to the other client. Comando, 436 N.J. Super. at 214; McDaniel v. Man Wai Lee, 419 N.J. Super.

482, 497 (App. Div. 2011). 8

        Moreover, RPC 1.9 states that:

                 [a] lawyer who has represented a client in a matter shall not
                 thereafter represent another client in the same or a substantially
                 related matter in which that client's interests are materially adverse
                 to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives
                 informed consent confirmed in writing.

                 [RPC 1.9.]

        In support of its motions, Glen Ridge asserts that the interests of Montclair Hospital, LLC

and MPT Legacy “are not only inherently and concurrently adverse but are intricately entwined in

a complicated and ongoing commercial transaction coupled with a complicated and ongoing real

estate transaction where large sums of money are at stake, where contracts contain complex

contingencies, and where options are numerous.” Glen Ridge argues that our Supreme Court’s

“bright-line rule” prohibiting certain concurrent representations, as articulated under Baldasarre v.

8
  Notably, however, the appearance of impropriety standard may not be used as a basis to find a
conflict of interest under RPC 1.7 or RPC 1.9. See State v. Hudson, 443 N.J. Super. 276 (App.
Div. 2015).
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -12-

Butler, 132 N.J. 278 (1993), precludes Archer & Greiner, P.C. from representing both Montclair

Hospital, LLC and MPT Legacy.

       Moreover, Glen Ridge further asserts that the relationship between MPT Legacy and

Montclair Hospital, LLC, as lessor and lessee under the Lease Agreement, creates a direct

adversarial relationship. Glen Ridge highlights that because the Lease Agreement “is silent on

whether the lessor’s written approval is required before the lessee can enter into a settlement,” the

absence of such a “mechanism for dispute resolution presents [a] concurrent conflict.” Thus, Glen

Ridge maintains that because of this vagueness, a conflict could arise with respect to any potential

settlement and “disagreements as to refund entitlements have led to litigation.” See Aperion

Enterprises, Inc. v. Borough of Fair Lawn, 25 N.J. Tax 70 (2009).

       In addition, Glen Ridge emphasizes that under several articles in the Lease Agreement

(casualty insurance coverage, future rent calculation, etc.), Montclair Hospital, LLC possesses a

“vested interest . . . in claiming or asserting a low fair market value” for the Subject Property,

while MPT Legacy, conversely, “need[s] to assert a high fair market value.” Thus, “the potential

for conflict in this type of complex real estate transaction is too great to permit even consensual

dual representation.”

       In response, Archer & Greiner, P.C. maintains that Glen Ridge has not met its burden to

justify disqualification. Archer & Greiner, P.C. asserts that Glen Ridge’s motions are based on a

“falsehood” that “the relationship between a landlord and a tenant can only be inherently hostile

or adversarial.” Rather, Archer & Greiner, P.C. stresses that no adversarial relationship exists

between Montclair Hospital, LLC and MPT Legacy, who, despite the lack of commonality of
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -13-

ownership, share the goal of obtaining a reduction in the Subject Property’s tax assessments.

       Here, based on the court’s review of the pleadings and motion record, the court does not

find that Glen Ridge has proven that: (i) Archer & Greiner, P.C.’s representation of Montclair

Hospital, LLC in these local property tax appeal matters is “directly adverse” to MPT Legacy, or

(ii) Archer & Greiner, P.C.’s representation of MPT Legacy in these local property tax matters is

“directly adverse” to Montclair Hospital, LLC under RPC 1.7(a)(1).

       While Glen Ridge correctly points out that the relationship between MPT Legacy and

Montclair Hospital, LLC is that of lessor and lessee, that fact standing alone does not inevitably

lead the court to conclude that they are “directly adverse.”        The mere possibility that the

relationship and Lease Agreement between Montclair Hospital, LLC and MPT Legacy may trigger

future disputes involving the rent payable or other obligations under the Lease Agreement is not

the barometer by which the court measures whether their interests are directly adverse in these

local property tax appeal matters under RPC 1.7(a)(1).

       Moreover, the court finds Glen Ridge’s reliance on Baldasarre v. Butler, for the proposition

that the Supreme Court’s “bright-line rule prohibiting dual representation” should be applicable to

these matters, is misplaced. 132 N.J. 278, 296 (1993). In Baldasarre, the plaintiffs retained Butler

as counsel for their late father’s estate, and to assist them in selling a 40.55-acre tract of

undeveloped land that they inherited from their father. Plaintiffs presented Butler with an outline

of the terms under which they would sell the property. Butler approached one of his clients,

DiFrancesco, who expressed interest in buying the property under plaintiffs’ terms. However,

DiFrancesco added two additional terms: he wanted the right to assign the contract, and the right
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -14-

to waive the subdivision approval contingency. DiFrancesco further wanted Butler to represent

him in the purchase transaction with plaintiffs and with the subdivision approval process. Butler

advised plaintiffs and DiFrancesco of the potential conflict of interest and had plaintiffs and

DiFrancesco execute written waiver agreements, waiving the concurrent conflict of interest.

Thereafter, unknown to plaintiffs, Butler represented DiFrancesco in negotiating a contract to sell

the property to another construction company once he obtained title to the property. When

plaintiffs learned of the contract between DiFrancesco and the construction company, they sued

Butler and sought recission of the contract with DiFrancesco. Emphasizing the consequences,

dangers, and hazards that can arise from the dual representation of a buyer and a seller in a complex

real estate transaction, our Supreme Court expressed that,

               [t]he disastrous consequences of Butler’s dual representation
               convinces us that a new bright-line rule prohibiting dual
               representation is necessary in commercial real estate transactions
               where large sums of money are at stake, where contracts contain
               complex contingencies, or where options are numerous. The
               potential for conflict in that type of complex real estate transaction
               is too great to permit even consensual dual representation of buyer
               and seller. Therefore, we hold that an attorney may not represent
               both the buyer and the seller in a complex commercial real estate
               transaction even if both give their informed consent.

               [Baldasarre, 132 N.J. at 295-96 (emphasis added).]

       No allegation has been raised by Glen Ridge that Archer & Greiner, P.C. is representing

or has represented both Montclair Hospital, LLC and MPT Legacy in connection with the

negotiation of the Lease Agreement, or that there are any ongoing lease negotiations between

Montclair Hospital, LLC and MPT Legacy where Archer & Greiner, P.C. is serving as their

counsel. Rather, Glen Ridge contends that, because Montclair Hospital, LLC, as lessee, and MPT
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -15-

Legacy, as lessor, are parties to the Lease Agreement, their relationship is so “intricately entwined”

that it contravenes the “bright-line rule” established under Baldasarre.

       It is undisputed that the Subject Property involved is a regional medical center and its

management/ownership involves a complex commercial structure. However, these local property

tax appeal matters are not commercial real estate transactions of the sort described in Baldasarre.

This is litigation, and in these local property tax appeals, both parties seek substantially identical

goals, a determination that the Subject Property’s true or market value are less than its equalized

value, and a corresponding reduction in the Subject Property’s tax assessments.

       Moreover, the motion record has failed to disclose that Montclair Hospital, LLC and MPT

Legacy are engaged in any other pending litigation or have an acrimonious relationship with each

other. The court’s review of the motion record and pleadings does not disclose any claims or

allegations levied by Montclair Hospital, LLC against MPT Legacy, or vice versa. Thus, the court

finds that no evidence has been presented to the court by Glen Ridge demonstrating that a direct

adversarial relationship exists between Montclair Hospital, LLC and MPT Legacy under RPC

1.7(a)(1).

             2.    Significant risk that representation will be
                   materially limited by responsibilities to another client

       In adopting RPC 1.7(a)(2), our Supreme Court employed language requiring consideration

of whether, based on an objective evaluation of facts presently known, a significant risk “will”

exist in the future, materially impacting a lawyer’s responsibilities to another client. In adopting

RPC 1.7(a)(2), the intended goal was for attorneys to avoid “placing themselves in the position of

serving two masters with incompatible interests.” In re Op. 682 of the Advisory Comm. On Prof’l
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -16-

Ethics, 147 N.J. 360, 368 (1997). Thus, the court’s determination of whether a significant risk,

under RPC 1.7(a)(2), exists that Archer & Greiner, P.C.’s representation of Montclair Hospital,

LLC and MPT Legacy will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to each client is

more nebulous.

       Critical to identifying whether a significant risk will exist is, “‘the likelihood that a

difference in interests’ will arise, and ‘if it does, whether it will materially interfere with the

lawyer's independent professional judgment in considering alternatives or foreclose courses of

action that reasonably should be pursued on behalf of the client.’” In re Opinion No. 17-2012 of

Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, 220 N.J. 468, 469 (2014). Accordingly, “the problem

of multiple representation is best addressed by an evaluation by the individual attorney of the

circumstances of each case, so that he or she may determine whether the common representation

of the prospective clients can be undertaken. In every such case the attorney will have to be

satisfied based on objective reasonableness that there is no direct adversity between the defendants

and that joint representation will not adversely affect the relationship of either class of

defendants, RPC 1.7(a), nor materially limit his or her professional responsibilities towards any

such client-defendant, RPC 1.7(b).” In re Petition for Review of Opinion 552 of Advisory

Committee on Professional Ethics, 102 N.J. 194, 206 (1986).

       Glen Ridge argues that, generally, in all local property tax appeal litigation the taxpayer

and/or property owner face the prospect of an increase in the property’s local property tax

assessment following trial. See Passaic St. Realty Assoc. v. Garfield City, 13 N.J. Tax 482, 484

(Tax 1993) (concluding that “[i]n a revaluation year the court will not increase the assessment
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -17-

above the assessor's or county board's determination, absent the filing of a counterclaim or a

petition by the municipality. In years other than revaluation years, the assessment can be increased

even without the filing of a counterclaim or complaint by the taxing district”).

       Glen Ridge highlights that Section 12.1 of the Lease Agreement permits MPT Legacy to

demand Montclair Hospital, LLC pay “an amount not to exceed the contested amount,” if

Montclair Hospital, LLC challenges an Imposition “involv[ing] a sum of money or potential loss

in excess of Two Percent (2.0%) of the Lease Base.” Thus, Glen Ridge asserts that because the

prospect of an increased tax assessment could result in a loss exceeding the two percent threshold,

a significant risk exists that different interests will arise between Montclair Hospital, LLC and

MPT Legacy, resulting in a material interference of Archer & Greiner, P.C.’s duties to each client.

       Moreover, Glen Ridge argues that because the supplemental certifications submitted fail

to adequately disclose that informed consent was given by Montclair Hospital, LLC and MPT

Legacy under RPC 1.7(b), disqualification of Archer & Greiner, P.C. is warranted. 9

9
   Under RPC 1.7(b), a “lawyer may represent a client if: (1) each affected client gives informed
consent, confirmed in writing, after full disclosure and consultation, provided, however, that a
public entity cannot consent to any such representation. When the lawyer represents multiple
clients in a single matter, the consultation shall include an explanation of the common
representation and the advantages and risks involved; (2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the
lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client; (3) the
representation is not prohibited by law; and (4) the representation does not involve the assertion
of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or
other proceeding before a tribunal.” Thus, RPC 1.7(b) allows for joint representation of parties on
one side of a litigation only if the lawyer has explained the potential conflicts to each client and
each client has provided informed written consent. Informed consent is defined as “the agreement
by a person to a proposed course of conduct after the lawyer has communicated adequate
information and explanation about the material risks of and reasonably available alternatives to the
proposed course of conduct.” RPC 1.0(e); see In re Lanza, 65 N.J. 347, 352, (1974).
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -18-

       In response, Montclair Hospital, LLC and MPT Legacy assert that RPC l.7(a)(2) requires

counsel to “‘reasonably believe’ that it can provide ‘competent and diligent representation’ to

affected clients. Archer [& Greiner, P.C.] not only believes it can provide such representation, it

is.”   Moreover, Montclair Hospital, LLC and MPT Legacy assert that Glen Ridge has

“manufactured this situation by forcing MPT [Legacy of Montclair, LLC]'s involvement in this

action as a third-party defendant. Such action by the [Glen Ridge] Borough was and is wholly

unnecessary under the Court Rules and well-established case law pertaining to tenant-initiated tax

appeals. The [Montclair] Hospital, [LLC] as the single-net tenant is the party responsible for the

payment of the property taxes during the pendency of its long-term lease. Therefore, the landlord

has ‘almost no interest in the assessment.’”

       Additionally, Montclair Hospital, LLC and MPT Legacy argue that the lack of common

ownership in the Subject Property or common management is “irrelevant” and “does not inherently

create a ‘significant risk that the representation’ of the [Montclair] Hospital [, LLC] or MPT

[Legacy] ‘will be materially limited by’ Archer [& Greiner, P.C.]’s responsibilities to the

[Montclair] Hospital [, LLC] or MPT [Legacy].”

       The court emphasizes that the mere possibility that a potential conflict of interest could

arise at a future date does not preclude concurrent representation under RPC 1.7(a)(2). As

explained by our Supreme Court in Sears Mortgage Corp. v. Rose, although “the possibility of a

conflict of interest engenders a duty of full disclosure and disqualification if an actual conflict

occurs,” it is at the point when the possible conflict blossoms into an actual conflict, and not before,

that the dual representation must end. 134 N.J. 326, 342-43 (1993) (emphasis added). This logic
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -19-

and reasoning was reinforced by our Supreme Court in In re Opinion No. 17-2012 of Advisory

Committee on Professional Ethics, where the Court stated that the “mere possibility of subsequent

harm does not itself require disclosure and consent” under RPC 1.7(a), rather “there must be

‘a significant risk that a lawyer's ability to consider, recommend or carry out an appropriate course

of action for the client will be materially limited as a result of the lawyer's other responsibilities or

interests.’” 220 N.J. at 469 (quoting ABA Model Rules of Prof'l Conduct, R. 1.7 cmt. 8 (2013)).

        Although local property tax appeal litigation may give rise to potential exposure to a

taxpayer and/or property owner of a raised tax assessment, the mere possibly that such claim may

exist is not the barometer by which the court measures concurrent conflicts of interest under RPC

1.7(a)(2). Rather, the court’s inquiry under RPC 1.7(a)(2) focuses on whether a significant risk

will materialize in the future, considerably impacting a lawyer’s responsibilities to another client.

In conducting the inquiry, the court must evaluate the likelihood that differences in interest will

arise, and whether such difference will “materially interfere with the lawyer's independent

professional judgment in considering alternatives or foreclose courses of action that reasonably

should be pursued on behalf of the client.’” In re Opinion No. 17-2012 of Advisory Committee

on Professional Ethics, 220 N.J. at 469.

        Here, the court finds that Glen Ridge has failed to demonstrate that Archer & Greiner,

P.C.’s concurrent representation of Montclair Hospital, LLC and MPT Legacy, including the

likelihood that future differences of interest will arise, poses a significant risk that Archer &

Greiner, P.C.’s representation of one client will be materially limited. Therefore, Glen Ridge’s

motions seeking to disqualify Archer & Greiner, P.C. from representing Montclair Hospital, LLC,
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -20-

MPT Legacy, and Mountainside Hospital-MPT are hereby denied.

           B.    Motions to Dismiss

       Glen Ridge charges that “[a] search of the State of New Jersey's online business services

indicates no entity with the name ‘Mountainside Hospital MPT’ exists or is qualified to do business

in New Jersey.” Moreover, Glen Ridge asserts that although “use of the initials ‘MPT’ in the name

. . . suggests this ‘entity’ is affiliated with a group of entities themselves affiliated with MPT

Legacy [of Montclair, LLC] . . . Glen Ridge . . . has no knowledge or information about

Mountainside-MPT.” Therefore, the court should dismiss the complaints because “Mountainside

Hospital-MPT” is not authorized to transact business in New Jersey, and Mountainside Hospital,

LLC and MPT Legacy have unclean hands.

       Here, the court’s review of the motions record discloses that for the 2019, 2020, 2021, and

2022 tax years, Glen Ridge’s tax assessment roll reflected the owner of the Highland Avenue

property as “Mountainside Hospital-MPT.” Moreover, for the 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 tax

years, the Essex County Board of Taxation issued Memorandum of Judgments bearing the name

of the taxpayer/petitioner as “Mountainside Hospital-MPT.” Thus, despite Montclair Hospital,

LLC admittedly having sold the Highland Avenue Property to MPT Legacy under deed dated

March 31, 2014, for unknown reasons, Glen Ridge’s municipal tax assessment rolls continued to

identify the Highland Avenue property owner as “Mountainside Hospital-MPT.” 10

10
    Our Legislature delineated the tax assessment process under N.J.S.A. 54:4-23. A part of that
process includes the tax assessor’s duty to “ascertain the names of the owners of all real property
situate in his taxing district[.]” N.J.S.A. 54:4-23. Moreover, the municipal tax assessor is charged
with the duty of annually preparing the municipal tax assessment roll containing “the names of the
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -21-

       However, despite knowledge of such error, neither MPT Legacy, nor Montclair Hospital,

LLC seemingly made any written request upon Glen Ridge’s municipal tax assessor to correct the

tax assessment rolls. Instead, Montclair Hospital, LLC filed local property tax appeal complaints

on the Highland Avenue property, continuing to perpetuate the error for the 2019, 2020, 2021, and

2022 years. Under each of those complaints, Montclair Hospital, LLC identified “Mountainside

Hospital-MPT” as the plaintiff and did not identify itself on either the complaints or in the case

information statements.

       In the local property tax appeal context, one of the critical goals of our Legislature was to

“to ensure municipalities receive timely notice that a particular property’s valuation is subject to

challenge.” Prime Acct. Dept. v. Twp. of Carney's Point, 212 N.J. 493, 508 (2013). As stated by

our Supreme Court,

               [p]ursuant to Rule 8:3-5(a)(1), the first paragraph of a tax appeal
               complaint or counterclaim ‘shall set forth the block, lot and street
               address of the property.’ R. 8:3-5(a)(1). The complaint must
               include the name of the owner, the assessment and the type of
               property. Ibid. It must identify by year any action pending in the
               Tax Court that concerns the same property, and must indicate
               whether the taxpayer claims an exemption or farmland qualification.

               [Ibid.]

       Our Supreme Court further observed that the “statutory scheme for tax assessments and

the procedural requirements for tax appeals serve common objectives. Municipalities are required

to maintain updated tax assessment lists and to provide effective notice to each taxpayer.” Ibid.

owners [of real property] , and [shall] set down in proper columns opposite each name the
description and area of each parcel sufficient to ascertain its location. . . .” N.J.S.A. 54:4-24.
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -22-

(citing N.J.S.A. 54:4-23, -24, -29, -30, -31, -34, -35, -36, -36.1, -37, -38)

       However, when a complaint contains errors or misstatements, it is within the discretion of

the trial court to permit the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to correct errors and/or to allege

additional facts to state a proper cause of action. Hoffman v. Hampshire Labs, Inc., 405 N.J. Super.

105, 116 (App. Div. 2009). The exercise of the trial court's discretion to amend is carried out

through a two-step process which considers “whether the non-moving party will be prejudiced,

and whether granting the amendment would nonetheless be futile.” Grillo v. State, 469 N.J. Super.

267, 275 (App. Div. 2021) (quoting Notte v. Merchs. Mut. Ins. Co., 185 N.J. 490, 501 (2006)).

       After an answer to a complaint is filed, the plaintiff “may amend a pleading only by written

consent of the adverse party.” R. 4:9-1. However, “Rule 4:9-1 requires that motions for leave to

amend be granted liberally.” Notte, 185 N.J. at 501 (quoting Kernan v. One Wash. Park Urban

Renewal Assocs., 154 N.J. 437, 456-57 (1997)). Moreover, a motion for leave to amend “’should

generally be granted even if the ultimate merits of the amendment are uncertain.’” Marinelli v.

Mitts & Merrill, 303 N.J. Super. 61, 77 (App. Div. 1997) (internal citation omitted).

       Thus, R. 4:9-1’s express “language, and the majority of cases applying it, address the

typical setting in which a defendant has been misidentified in a prior pleading.” Prime Acct. Dept.,

212 N.J. at 513. R. 4:9-1 “has also been applied to an amendment re-identifying the party making

the claim provided all of the conditions of the rule are satisfied.” Ibid. (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted). Its purpose is to accomplish “substantial justice on the merits by

permitting a technical and otherwise fatal flaw to be corrected where such correction will not

materially prejudice another party.” Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 4
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -23-

on R. 4:9-3 (2022). Therefore, a timely filed local property tax appeal complaint that adheres to

all other requirements to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the Tax Court, but misidentifies the

plaintiff/taxpayer is not fatal, and the “defect in the complaint can be corrected by amendment.”

Prime Acct. Dept., 212 at 510.

          Here, Montclair Hospital, LLC timely filed complaints for the 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022

years under the name “Mountainside Hospital-MPT” following entry of the Memorandums of

Judgment by the Essex County Board of Taxation. Montclair Hospital, LLC, as tenant for MPT

Legacy, is an aggrieved taxpayer within the intendment of N.J.S.A. 54:3-21, and thus possessed

standing to file the local property tax appeals. See Village Supermarkets, Inc. v. West Orange,

106 N.J. 628, 632-33 (1987). However, like the facts in Prime Acct. Dept., Montclair Hospital,

LLC “simply copied the name that mistakenly appeared on the municipal tax assessment list,” and

designated “Mountainside Hospital-MPT” as plaintiff. Prime Acct. Dep’t., at 212 N.J. at 509.

Moreover, Glen Ridge timely received notice that the 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 local property

tax assessments on the Highland Avenue property were being contested. If Glen Ridge had any

uncertainties or questions about who was prosecuting the local property tax appeals and what

relationship, if any, that party had to the owner of the Highland Avenue property, Glen Ridge was

able to make such inquiries during the discovery process.

          Accordingly, the court will afford Montclair Hospital, LLC leave of court, under R. 4:9-

1, to file amended pleadings amending/correcting plaintiff’s name under docket numbers

012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 08459-2022 within thirty (30) days of the date

hereof.
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -24-

             C.     Motions to Compel Discovery – Reconciliation of Hospital Square
                    Footage, October 2022 and November 2022 Discovery Demands

       Our rules of discovery are intended “to further the public policies of expeditious

handling of cases, avoiding stale evidence, and providing uniformity, predictability and

security in the conduct of litigation.” Zaccardi v. Becker, 88 N.J. 245, 252 (1982). The

discovery rules are “designed to eliminate, as far as possible, concealment and surprise in the

trial of lawsuits to the end that judgments rest upon real merits of the causes and not upon the

skill and maneuvering of counsel.” Oliviero v. Porter Hayden Co., 241 N.J. Super. 381, 387

(App. Div. 1990).

       A standard of substantial liberality is applied in affording access to information,

documents, and materials that favor litigants’ rights to “broad pretrial discovery.” Payton v.

New Jersey Turnpike Authority, 148 N.J. 524, 535 (1996) (citing Jenkins v. Rainner, 69 N.J.

50, 56 (1976)). See also Shanley & Fisher, P.C. v. Sisselman, 215 N.J. Super. 200, 215-216

(App. Div. 1987).      In general, a party may obtain material which “appears reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” pertaining to the cause of action.

In re: Liquidation of Integrity Ins. Co., 165 N.J. 75, 82 (2000).

       Our court rules afford litigants the right to “obtain discovery regarding any matter, not

privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . .” R.

4:10-2(a). Although not explicitly defined in the court rules, “relevant evidence” is defined

as “evidence having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any fact of consequence to

the determination of the action.” N.J.R.E. 401. However, the relevancy of documents or other

materials is not predicated upon its admissibility at trial, instead it is centered upon whether
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -25-

the information sought is “reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence respecting the

cause of action or its defense.” Pressler & Verniero, Current New Jersey Rules Governing

the Courts, comment 1 on R. 4:10-2(a) (2022). Thus, disclosure of evidence which may be

inadmissible at trial is required “if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” R. 4:10-2(a). See also Irval Realty Inc. v.

Board of Public Utility Commissioners, 115 N.J. Super. 338, 346 (App. Div. 1971), aff'd, 61

N.J. 366 (1972); Berrie v. Berrie, 188 N.J. Super. 274, 278 (Ch. Div. 1983). Information

which bears even a remote relevance to the subject matter of the cause of action is discoverable

but can be withheld by a demonstration of privilege. Payton, 148 N.J. at 539.

       Although discovery should be liberally granted, the scope of pretrial discovery is not

limitless. Meandering expeditions which seek irrelevant, oppressive or burdensome discovery are

not permitted. “The discovery rights provided by our court rules are not instruments with which

to annoy, harass or burden a litigant or a litigant's experts.” Gensollen v. Pareja, 416 N.J. Super.

585, 591 (App. Div. 2010). R. 4:10-3 allows a litigant or the person from whom discovery is

sought to obtain relief from the court to “protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,

oppression, or undue burden or expense. . . .” R. 4:10-3.

       Our court rules afford trial courts expansive authority in discovery matters, including

directing that discovery not be permitted; limiting the scope of discovery to certain information;

on specified terms and conditions; by prescribed methods; and in the presence of only designated

individuals. See R. 4:10-3(a) and 3(d). The determination of what discovery request is reasonable

and relevant, and what constitutes an annoying, embarrassing, oppressive or unduly burdensome
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -26-

request, must be measured by the trial court on a case-by-case basis. Berrie, 188 N.J. Super. at

278.

       Glen Ridge’s October 2022 Discovery Demands and November 2022 Discovery

Demands are a commingling and meshing of requests for admissions, demands for answers

to supplemental interrogatories, and demands for production of documents. However,

Montclair Hospital, LLC and MPT Legacy’s alleged responses to the October 2022 Discovery

Demands and November 2022 Discovery Demands, and Glen Ridge’s motions to compel,

were similarly conflating and vague. Importantly, the motion record has failed to disclose

that Montclair Hospital, LLC and/or MPT Legacy have provided any document in direct

response to the requests for admission and supplemental interrogatories demanded by Glen

Ridge under its October 2022 Discovery Demands and November 2022 Discovery Demands.

       Additionally, Montclair Hospital, LLC and MPT Legacy have failed to offer any valid

arguments as to why they should be relieved of the obligation to respond to Glen Ridge’s

discovery requests, nor have they sought protection from the court for such discovery

demands. In general, the information being sought by Glen Ridge appears designed to

reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

       Accordingly, the court grants Glen Ridge’s motions to compel discovery with respect

to the October 2022 Discovery Demands and November 2022 Discovery Demands, as limited

and specifically outlined in the annexed Order.

       Finally, with regards to Glen Ridge’s motion to compel a reconciliation of alleged

inconsistent data pertaining to the square footage of the Mountainside Medical Center
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -27-

building, the court finds that Montclair Hospital, LLC has similarly failed to adequately

respond to Glen Ridge’s December 29, 2022 and January 20, 2023 discovery requests.

       Accordingly, within forty-five (45) days of the date hereof, Montclair Hospital, LLC

shall set forth/reconcile/detail (per building, floor, pavilion, and/or tower of the medical center)

how it arrived at the April/May 2022 pdf data, reflecting a net square footage of 700,919 square

feet for the Mountainside Medical Center building as of the fiscal year ending December 31, 2023.

       In addition, within forty-five (45) days of the date hereof, Montclair Hospital, LLC shall

set forth/reconcile/detail (per building, floor, pavilion, or tower of the medical center) how it

arrived at the January 2023 submission data, reflecting a net square footage of 663,097 square feet

for the Mountainside Medical Center building. However, the court finds that data and information

regarding the square footage of the Mountainside Medical Center buildings in 2010, 2012, and

2013 is not relevant, nor reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence respecting the cause

of action or its defense in these local property tax appeals for the 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 tax

years. Therefore, Montclair Hospital, LLC does not have to further reconcile or detail the

Mountainside Medical Center’s square footage reported in the 2010, 2012, and 2013 documents

and information.

       III. Conclusion

       For the foregoing reasons, the court: (i) denies Glen Ridge’s motions seeking to

disqualify Archer & Greiner P.C. from serving as counsel for Montclair Hospital, LLC,

MPT Legacy, and Mountainside Hospital-MPT; (ii) denies Glen Ridge’s motions

seeking dismissal with prejudice of Mountainside Hospital-MPT’s complaints, filed under
Montclair Hospital, LLC, tenant in a parcel owned by MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
v. Glen Ridge Borough v. MPT Legacy of Montclair, LLC
Docket Nos. 008630-2019, 002022-2020, 004324-2021, and 003702-2022
Mountainside Hospital-MPT v. Glen Ridge Borough
Docket Nos. 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 008459-2022
Page -28-

docket numbers 012319-2019, 007634-2020, 010221-2021, and 08459-2022; (iii) grants, in

part, and denies, in part, Glen Ridge’s motions seeking to compel discovery from Montclair

Hospital, LLC, Mountainside Hospital-MPT, and MPT Legacy; and (iv) grants, in part, and

denies, in part, Glen Ridge’s motions compelling a reconciliation by Montclair Hospital, LLC

of the Mountainside Medical Center’s square footage.

       An Order memorializing the conclusions set forth in this letter opinion is annexed hereto.

                                            Very truly yours,

                                            Hon. Joshua D. Novin, J.T.C.