Edison, NJ – Attorney Bryan Plocker of the firm Hutt Shimanowitz & Plocker is leading a legal challenge on behalf of 41 property owners, representing 8,216 apartment units in Edison, seeking to invalidate a recently passed local ordinance. The lawsuit alleges that Ordinance O.2215-2024, adopted on April 25, 2024, imposes an illegal licensing requirement on multi-family apartment complexes and demands improper information and payments for individual unit registration.
Plocker argues that the ordinance goes beyond the scope of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of Township residents, as it mandates the disclosure of sensitive financial information about landlords and lease terms. This overreach has raised concerns about the legality of the ordinance and the motives behind its implementation.
Adding another layer of complexity to the issue is the potential conflict of interest involving the law firm Rainone, Coughlin and Mincello. Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin, a partner at the firm, hails from Woodbridge, where many of the same property owners also have holdings. Questions have been raised about whether the town has received different legal advice regarding similar ordinances in Woodbridge.
According to the Business Entity Statement filed with the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission the firm of Rainone Coughlin and Minchello made $8,309,033.76 in public contracts 2023 while reporting $210,300 in political contributions. Edison Township was the largest client on that list paying the firm $745,199.20 in 2023. The firm also billed $175,222.14 in Woodbridge Township who has successfully enforced property maintenance issues for years.
Attorney Bryan Plocker stated, “This ordinance is a clear overreach by the Edison Council. It imposes unnecessary burdens on property owners and violates their rights. We are confident that the court will recognize the illegality of this ordinance and protect the interests of our clients.”
The lawsuit has garnered significant attention, as it highlights the ongoing tension between local governments and property owners regarding regulations and property rights. The outcome of this legal challenge could have far-reaching implications for similar ordinances in other municipalities.
As the case proceeds, it will be important to closely monitor the court’s decision and its potential impact on the future of property regulations in Edison and beyond.
