Judge sides with plaintiffs as Montgomery, shopping center owner seek source of financing
By: Greg Forester
MONTGOMERY The attorney representing three merchants in a suit against the planned Montgomery Promenade shopping center fended off an attempt to discover the identity of the suit’s financial backer during a court appearance last Friday.
Although lawyers representing the developer, Madison Marquette, and the Montgomery Planning Board said they wanted the financial source revealed, Judge Allison Accurso seemed to side with attorney Paul H. Schneider.
Judge Accurso asked Mr. Schneider’s remaining clients the Bagel Barn, Towne Wine and Liquors and Garbo Jewelers to file certification of their interest in the suit against the developer and Montgomery Township, an action that would not reveal any hidden participants behind the litigation.
"Whether it’s a big bad supermarket, the big bad wolf, or Osama Bin Laden behind this lawsuit, it has no bearing on the case," said Mr. Schneider. "These plaintiffs have real interest in this case, and are not straw people."
Several merchants at Montgomery Shopping Center and Princeton North Shopping Center, both located near the Montgomery Promenade site, told The Packet that an attorney had approached them about participating in the lawsuit, promising that an anonymous entity would pay all legal costs.
The suit claims the Planning Board failed to comply with the Municipal Land Use Law in approving the Montgomery Promenade, a high-end 325,000-square-foot shopping center anchored by a Stop & Shop supermarket to be built on a 53.5 acre site on Route 206 north of Princeton Airport.
The Montgomery Shopping Center is anchored by a Shop-Rite supermarket.
William Kearns, attorney for the Planning Board, said the published comments made by the store owners raised serious issues, and the fact that someone else might be paying for the suit was disingenuous.
Mr. Schneider said the comments in the newspaper articles were not sworn affidavits, and had no bearing on the case.
"I do not read The Princeton Packet," said Mr. Schneider. "The Princeton Packet is not the revered word of the almighty."
Madison Marquette attorney Tom Hall said the identity of the financial backer was important, citing a previous case involving a planning board and a secretive entity funding a lawsuit where the courts ruled in favor of revealing the identity of the unknown financial backer.
"We really do think we have the right to know who is really behind this," said Mr. Hall.
Judge Accurso reviewed the previous suit during Friday’s pretrial conference, but said she did not see any reason in discovery to reveal the identity of the benefactor previously mentioned by the plaintiffs.
She left the possibility of discovery open, should the certification given by the listed store owners fail to satisfy the attorneys for the shopping center and the township of their sincerity in joining the suit.
Mr. Schneider said the plaintiffs operated businesses in close proximity to the planned development and therefore had the right to bring the lawsuit against Madison Marquette and decisions made by the Montgomery Planning Board.
Although Judge Accurso did not find it necessary to reveal the identity of the financial backer, the attorneys representing Madison Marquette and the township said they were confident in their ability to fight the suit.
William Kearns, the Planning Board’s attorney, and Mr. Hall said both the township and developer had spent an extraordinary amount of time planning the project and carefully following the rules of Municipal Land Use Law.
"Five years were spent working on this project, setting forth ordinances and the standards the applicants had to meet," said Mr. Hall. "All of these guidelines were seriously and thoroughly vetted inside township subcommittees and the Planning Board."
Although the store owners had not raised any objections during the hearings leading to the Planning Board’s approval of Montgomery Promenade, Mr. Schneider argued that they still had the right to file suit.
Mr. Hall said another reason for revealing the mysterious entity was the presence of a new public relations offensive calling for Montgomery citizens to rally against the development.
"In addition, there has sprung up a public relations effort that is not typical of a bagel store or a pizza place," said Mr. Hall. "It is however, typical of a supermarket operator, a real party of interest, and not a group of straw people."
Fliers distributed in the township have called for citizen action against the township and have included a phone number to call. After the filing of certification, Judge Accurso set a tentative trial date of Oct. 12.
"I can’t wait for the time when we actually get to talk to your clients," said Mr. Hall at the beginning of the conference.
Madison Marquette’s counsel had previously said the company wanted to have the lawsuit declared "frivolous," which would have caused the plaintiffs to pay for the legal costs of the suit despite their attempt at withdrawal.
The three previous plaintiffs who attempted to withdraw were allowed to officially withdraw from the suit Friday. They are Montgomery Eye Care, Alfonso’s Pizza and Mrs. B’s Cleaners.