IRVINGTON, NJ — Newark Superior Court Judge Christine A. Farrington denied a request Friday, Aug. 7, for a stay of her June court order directing Irvington township Clerk Harold Weiner to certify the notice of intent to organize a recall petition drive. Township attorney Ramon Rivera had directed Weiner not to certify the petition, which the administration believes is not based on indisputable facts.
The notice of intent was to recall Mayor Tony Vauss and had been filed with Weiner’s office by Irvington Joint Block Association Coalition President and Nesbit Terrace Block Association President Elouise McDaniel, former at large Municipal Council candidate Destin Nicholas, Oakland Street and Orange Avenue Block Association President Dee Fuqua and Cathy Southerland, in accordance with state law. Attorney J. Edward Waller is representing the group.
Weiner is being represented by attorney Eric M. Bernstein of Warren, who was hired by Irvington’s legal department to represent Weiner.
Weiner originally denied the group’s notice of intent filing, saying it had not been filed properly or in a timely manner, according to state rules. According to Rivera, “It could not be filed until 50 days prior to the date of the mayor’s first year since taking office.”
In response, McDaniel and company rewrote their notice of intent and refiled it with Weiner, who denied their filing for a second time Tuesday, May 12, and for a third time Monday, May 26.
On Friday, June 26, Farrington ordered Weiner to certify the filing within three business days after the town’s receipt of the order, adding a handwritten note explaining her reasons on the certification order itself.
“The clerk’s reason for denying certification are not found in the statute and therefore not within his authority to deny certification,” Farrington hand wrote on the order as an addendum to it.
But that didn’t stop the Vauss administration from filing another motion on Wednesday, July 15, asking Farrington to rescind her Friday, June 26, order because it was short on “facts” and long on defamatory statements. A hearing on that motion was scheduled for Friday, Aug. 7.
But Farrington denied that motion, saying the filing meets the statutory requirements laid out by state law, which she called “clear and unambiguous,” when it comes to filing notices of intent for recalls. She said the same goes for motions to reconsider orders that have already been made by a court.
“A motion for reconsideration must be based on at least one of three grounds: 1, the court’s decision was palpably incorrect on the facts of the law; 2, the court did not appropriately consider or appreciate evidence; or 3, the party has new information which could not be brought previously which the court can consider in its discretion,” Farrington said in the letter to Bernstein dated Friday, Aug. 7.
“The party seeking reconsideration ‘must state with specificity’ the basis for the motion, including ‘the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked or as to which is has erred.’ For the court to even consider a motion for reconsider, the ‘magnitude of the error cited must be a game-changer.’”
Farrington said, “Thus, ‘a litigant must initially demonstrate that the court acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner before the court should engage in the actual reconsideration process.’” On Friday, Aug. 7, she found the Vauss motion did not meet that established legal standard.
“Even if, for the purpose of this motion, the statements are defamatory, the defendant’s statutory obligation to certify the notice of intention is not avoidable.”
This means Farrington found the Vauss administration’s argument insufficient to warrant a reconsideration of her June 26 order to certify the notice of intent.
McDaniel said she was happy for the news, adding that she hopes Weiner, Vauss and their lawyers will at last comply with Farrington’s order to certify their notice of intent to conduct a recall filing.
“They tried to fight it and delay it, but this means we are going to move forward and we have everything in order and ready to move. We’re just waiting for the letter to be certified and now they have to do it, so we’re ready to move forward,” McDaniel said Aug. 17.
Attempts to reach Vauss, Weiner or their lawyers for a comment on Farrington’s Aug. 7 ruling were not successful by press time this week.