By Nick Norlen, Staff Writer
The attorney for a Hightstown resident said a Princeton landlord “stole her dream” by illegally renting her a property and then refusing to refund the approximately $20,000 she spent on renovations.
Alicia Barrita of Hightstown was using the Franklin Township property as a residence and was planning a food distribution business at the building. However, she was evicted by the township because the site was not zoned for either use.
Princeton attorney Roger Martindell, who is also a Princeton Borough councilman, announced the lawsuit at his office Monday.
The 13-count civil complaint, filed in the Superior Court in Trenton, includes charges of racketeering and consumer fraud for Princeton landlord Sanford Zeitler, a Princeton Township resident, as well as related charges for Peter Aldrich, Roy Whitemore and Birch Realty, Co., a corporation controlled by Mr. Zeitler.
Mr. Martindell said it has since been learned that Mr. Whitemore is deceased, and noted that he has not been able to locate Mr. Aldrich, whose last known address was in East Windsor.
The complaint charges all parties with violating the state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
Mr. Martindell said the RICO-related charges are a result of what he said is Mr. Zeitler’s pattern of defrauding his Latino clients, many of whom rent Mr. Zeitler’s Princeton properties and are listed in the complaint document.
In Ms. Barrita’s case, Mr. Martindell alleges that Mr. Zeitler rented her the property on Route 27 and Raymond Road in 2005 and then referred her to Mr. Aldrich and Mr. Whitemore to make renovations to the structure, despite the fact that he knew the property was not zoned for commercial or residential purposes and did not have a certificate of occupancy for either use.
When Ms. Barrita applied to Franklin Township for a permit to open her business she was denied and evicted by municipal authorities in July 2005.
Mr. Zeitler’s attorney, George Dougherty, called the case “half-baked.”
He said that Ms. Barrita did in fact sign a commercial lease and “agreed that she would bear all the responsibility for making sure that she would use the property the way she intended to use it” — not as a residence.
Ms. Barrita, who is originally from Mexico City, Mexico, and now lives in a different residence in Hightstown, said she was recently divorced at the time and was “trying to build” a new life for her and her daughters by starting a wholesale Mexican food distribution business.
She said she has since had to put those plans on hold.
”I invested all my money in there because I thought it was a really good location for a business,” she said. “Now I’m struggling because he left me no money.”
But Mr. Dougherty rejected the characterization of Ms. Barrita as a victim.
”She’s a businessperson, not a person who seems to be a babe in the woods looking for help and being mistreated by the cruel world,” he said.
Nevertheless, Mr. Martindell said that many of Mr. Zeitler’s Latino tenants in Princeton have been victims of what he said is a pattern of refusing to refund security deposits — often after rental units are revealed to be illegal — and even charging more for claimed damages for which no documentation is provided as a way of scaring off his former clients.
One of the more “poignant” examples, Mr. Martindell said, is that of Princeton resident Johnny Perez, who had to leave his apartment on Christmas Eve last year after finding it was an illegal rental situation.
Mr. Perez said Monday that he had to spend Christmas Day — and the next four days — living in his car, while Mr. Zeitler refused to refund the $700 security deposit he had paid.
However, an attorney for Mr. Zeitler settled with Mr. Perez for $3,000 in May.
Mr. Perez said he believes others may have experienced similar treatment, but said they may be afraid to come forward because of their legal status.
But Mr. Dougherty said there is no connection to Ms. Barrita’s case, which he said is that of a commercial tenant.
Although he noted that he is relatively new to the case, which was previously handled by attorney Joseph Mooney, Mr. Dougherty said he is unaware of any other complaints against his client involving lost security deposits.
”I don’t think he’s concerned about what he’s done in his practice as a landlord,” he said. “He’s has many, many tenants and very few complaints by comparison.”
However, it’s not the first time Mr. Zeitler has faced problems with his properties.
In 2005, he pleaded guilty to charges involving overcrowding at a John Street residence that he owned.
Still, Mr. Dougherty dismissed Mr. Martindell’s claim that Mr. Zeitler has formed a “pattern of practice” that warrants the RICO charges.
”We have some really disingenuous statements about patterns and this RICO allegation, which is pasted on to give the case some glamour, when it has no business being in this case whatsoever,” he said.
Though he admitted the RICO charges were unusual for a civil suit, Mr. Martindell said they were supported by the “paper trail” left by Mr. Zeitler when he billed his clients for undocumented damages.
Regardless of the outcome, Mr. Martindell said he is not trying to put Mr. Zeitler out of business.
”Sandy Zeitler, for all his shenanigans, does provide a useful service to the Princeton community by providing relatively low-cost housing to folks that need it,” he said. “But what we’re saying here is that he took advantage of the situation and he treated the tenants that he did find inappropriately.”
But Mr. Dougherty questioned why Mr. Martindell would hold a press conference during the discovery process of the case, which he called “one of the most boring phases of its existence.”
He added, “This is not an election campaign, this is litigation.”
However, Mr. Martindell said he waited to announce the lawsuit until after the recent election because he didn’t want it to appear as a campaign tactic in his run for Borough Council.
He said he is now hoping for individuals who have experienced similar scenarios involving Mr. Zeitler to come forward.
Mr. Martindell said he expects the case to go to trial within the next six to eight months.

