The Fund for a Better Waterfront

July 2007

Appellate Court negates bulk of Stevens' suit against FBW. FBW appealing to NJ Supreme Court asking for sanctions against Stevens.


 Stevens excavation site in April 2002 making way for massive waterfront parking garage. Operation sent asbestos from serpentine rock into the air.

July 31, 2007. Today, a three-judge panel of the Appellate Division of New Jersey Superior Court affirmed major portions of the trial court's dismissal of claims by Stevens Institute of Technology that statements and actions by a local advocacy group, the Fund for a Better Waterfront (FBW), defamed the school and caused harm to its reputation and business activity.

The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Stevens' prima facie tort claim saying that it was duplicative of their defamation claim. It agreed with FBW that its concerns about the health hazards of asbestos fibers that resulted from Stevens' blasting were constitutionally protected opinion. The Court agreed that FBW played no role in the actions of the Meadowlands Commission in preventing the further disposal of asbestos-containing rock from the Stevens site and requiring the rock to be covered in place. In addition, the Court did not disturb the trial court's finding that none of the allegedly defamatory statements attributed to FBW could have caused any damage to Stevens.

The three Judge Appellate Court panel, however, remanded a portion of the case to the trial court for further discovery and the deposition of George Vallone and Daniel Gans who developed the Maxwell House site that Stevens Institute had a competing plan although the school held no economic interest in this property.

The Appellate Division did not decide whether the two counts of Stevens' Complaint which were thrown out by the trial court amounted to frivolous claims which should have lead to sanctions against Stevens and its attorneys. FBW has been forced to marshal more than one million dollars of attorneys' time to fight off this frivolous litigation.

The Appellate Division panel heard oral arguments twice in this case, the second occurring on January 18, 2007. Attorneys defending FBW are currently appealing this case to the New Jersey Supreme Court, asking for sanctions against Stevens and its attorneys.

According to one of the defendants, Ron Hine, the Executive Director of FBW, the Court erred in its failure to determine that this suit was a SLAPP, an acronym for Strategic Litigation against Public Participation. In other words, according to Hine, "The sole purpose of this legal action was to destroy and silence an organization that had actively criticized Stevens' development plans."

In 2001, the Fund for a Better Waterfront (FBW) became a vocal critic of Stevens Institute after it unveiled extensive plans to extend its campus onto Hoboken's waterfront. The public debate heated up considerably in March 2002 as FBW complained of a potential health hazard caused by the blasting of some 30,000 tons of serpentine rock that contained naturally occurring asbestos at the Stevens' campus to make way for a multi-story waterfront parking garage.

In March 2002, FBW wrote an editorial charging that Stevens Institute's plans to build on several waterfront sites would destroy the opportunity for Hoboken to complete its proposed continuous waterfront park. That same month, Stevens Institute began the excavation of the serpentine rock on its campus to make way for a 725-car parking garage. The construction site is located in a densely populated, urban environment, adjacent to two academic buildings and across the street from a public soccer field and a little league field. A month later, Ron Hine discovered that this rock contained asbestos (known to Stevens but not revealed to the public or any public officials) and immediately posted an article on the organization's website. Hine and FBW President Aaron Lewit then filed a complaint with the Hoboken Health Department as the blasting continued sending dust into the air that settled on nearby playing fields. During the first month of operation, the contractor failed to hydrate the rock that was being blasted on a daily basis.

In January 2003, Stevens Institute filed suit against FBW for a series of statements made by its Executive Director and its President regarding the release of asbestos into the air and dumping of the serpentine rock in the New Jersey Meadowlands. After 17 months of depositions, discovery and the creation of a voluminous court record, the trial court dismissed all of the defamation claims made by Stevens Institute in this lawsuit, citing the First Amendment rights of the defendants to speak out on an issue of public concern. Today's decision upheld most of the lower court's rulings.

 

Related Items:
   Stevens Offers Resolution to Parking Garage Saga November 2007
   Appellate Court judges who ruled on a landmark zoning case hear oral arguments in FBW vs. Hoboken Zoning Board March 2006
   Court throws out final count of Stevens' case against FBW. 1st Amendment right to engage in public debate preserved. February 15 2005
   FBW files suit in Court claiming de facto rezoning by Hoboken Zoning Board for Stevens garage October 2004
   Court throws out defamation claim in Stevens Institute's lawsuit against FBW July 2004
   Judge Camille Kenny considers the evidence in Stevens Institute v. FBW July 2004
   Geologist testifies that drilling and blasting of serpentine rock at Stevens created public health peril February 2004
   Garage hearings tainted due to Stevens hiring brother of Zoning Board Chair February 2004
   Roof garden withers at first hearing for 725-car waterfront garage January 2004
   Stevens pushes forward with plans for mega-garage on Hoboken's waterfront October 2003
   Stevens Institute attempts to silence FBW through frivolous defamation lawsuit February 20 2003
   Waterfront group supports stop-work order February 15, 2003
   Stevens' campus master plan has new firm advocating same old projects January 2003
   Stevens seeking Planning Board approval for parking garage under construction for past six months September 2002
   Was illegal permit granted to Stevens Institute for parking garage? City of Hoboken to decide July 2002
   Stevens' proposals negate Hoboken's opportunity for continuous waterfront park March 2002

Community Response:
   Zoning Board didn't 'ask the right questions' by Hank Forrest
   Relentless overdevelopment continues by Greg Ribot
   Stevens skips chance to make case for garage by Helen Manogue, Doris China, Alice Crozier, Ken Geraghty, Paul Neshamkin, and Bill Tobias
   Don't let Stevens reverse progress on our waterfront by Ron Hine, Fund for a Better Waterfront
   Stevens and Hoboken by Elizabeth Glatt
   Re: Stevens and the garage by Hank Forrest
   Stevens' 'arrogance' caused quite a stir at Planning Board meeting by Ron Hine
   New parking garage or destruction to view of waterfront by Aaron Lewit
   I recognize a good project when I see it by Ricky Mason
   The Fall from Grace by Peter Rozano
   Consider Stevens waterfront plan carefully by Ann Wallace
   It simply feels right by Tom Schwartz
   Something stinks, and it's not the Hudson at low tide by Steve Trevisan
   This responsible development is just what Hoboken needs by Diane Daley
   Stevens plan may block waterfront community by Jason Burch
   A clearer picture by Randy Brummette

©1998-2000 Fund for a Better Waterfront