Judge tells attorneys to depose Moskovitz
Case involving town and former twp. atty. remains unresolved
BY KATHY BARATTA Staff Writer
T he case of Manalapan vs. Moskovitz moves on. The legal battle that pits Manalapan against a former township attorney was not concluded when the parties appeared in state Superior Court, Freehold, on July 3.

Two motions filed in the case were denied in court that day and the judge instructed attorneys to move forward with depositions.

Attorney Len Garza represented Manalapan before Judge Dennis R. O'Brien in the case against attorney Stuart Moskovitz.

Attorney David Weeks, who has represented Manalapan in this matter on previous court dates, was on vacation.

Attorney Steven Farsiou was present with a motion on behalf of Manalapan Township Committeeman Andrew Lucas, whom Moskovitz is trying to bring personally into the case as a third-party defendant.

Moskovitz represented himself.

O'Brien was upset about having to conduct another hearing seeking to compel compliance in the almost year-old litigation that has Manalapan pursuing a malpractice action against Moskovitz, a former mayor of Manalapan who served as the township attorney in 2005.

The malpractice action filed by Manalapan against Moskovitz centers around a contract of sale that Moskovitz, in his capacity as township attorney, drafted and executed in 2005 for Manalapan's purchase of two private homes on Route 522 across from the municipal complex. Township officials brought the legal action against Moskovitz when it was later determined there was contaminated soil on the grounds that required a statemandated cleanup.

Moskovitz in turn sought to have Lucas brought into the litigation as a third-party defendant because Moskovitz contends Lucas pushed for the malpractice action to be brought against Moskovitz in an effort to derail the election campaign of Susan Cohen, who ran for and won a seat on the Township Committee in 2007.

It is Moskovitz's contention that Lucas pushed for the litigation to be pursued against Moskovitz so that he (Moskovitz) would be prevented from working on Cohen's election campaign.

Farsiou argued that Moskovitz's complaint against Lucas was vague and "like a fishing expedition" due to it being non-specific as to who it was Moskovitz was alleging Lucas conspired with against him and also that Moskovitz refused to provide answers to interrogatory questions.

The judge responded, saying, "That's not completely true. You have answers from him. They're lousy answers. They are thoroughly parsed and they are rather carefully written, I agree with you on that."

O'Brien said it would be a "waste of time" for Farsiou to issue another round of interrogatories saying, "It would be a waste of your (Farsiou) time and my time."

That was why O'Brien said he did not want any more motions to compel and told Farsiou to depose Moskovitz to get the answers he sought.

"Put him under oath and you say, 'who are the other people and what do they know' and then you decide who you want to depose. You put the burden on him under oath," the judge told the attorney.

"When you're sitting there under oath with a court reporter you don't have the opportunity to parse the thing," O'Brien said.

One motion that was denied was brought by Weeks and asked the court to compel Moskovitz to properly comply with answers to interrogatories, maintaining that the answers submitted by Moskovitz were either non-responsive or deliberately evasive.

O'Brien agreed with that charge and told Moskovitz his answers were "Clintonistic," referring to the parsed testimony that became associated with trial testimony from President Bill Clinton during his presidency. The judge also chided Farsiou for making some of the questions in his interrogatories "Clintonistic."

"It looks like you're both trying to put something through the eye of a needle," O'Brien said.

O'Brien said he was getting tired of repeated motions in the matter and told Garza he was not going to put up with any more motions to compel compliance. He told Garza that he should just depose Moskovitz under oath.

"Put Mr. Moskovitz under oath. Take his deposition. Send him any documents you're going to shove under his nose at that deposition a week beforehand so he has an opportunity to review them and not give you a Clintonistic answer saying, 'I haven't been given an opportunity to review these,' " the judge said to Garza.

O'Brien also admonished Moskovitz on several different points raised in the hearing. One point was that Moskovitz had not responded to the court with certifications, but had instead written letters.

Moskovitz has maintained in previous hearings that he does not necessarily have to submit certifications due to the fact that as an attorney he is already a sworn officer of the court and that his signature on any correspondence is tantamount to a certification.

Speaking about the correspondence Moskovitz sent him in lieu of certifications, O'Brien said, "I should not have considered them since I cannot accept them as true, however, as an officer of the court, I have to entertain his representations, at least to some degree."

O'Brien referred to a letter from Moskovitz dated June 26 in which Moskovitz again asserts that other individuals should have been named as defendants with him in Manalapan's legal action relating to the Route 522 properties. Moskovitz claims that the fact that other defendants were not named proves that the litigation the township instituted against him was politically motivated.

O'Brien wanted more than assertions and told Moskovitz, "What I have here is a lawsuit from the township telling me their township attorney committed malpractice in the execution of a land transfer on behalf of the town. Now you're telling me that other people were involved in the actions which resulted in the alleged malpractice or the foul-up, I should say, of the transaction."

O'Brien told Moskovitz that if he (Moskovitz) believes there are other responsible parties and the township has not brought them into the litigation, then Moskovitz ought to take it upon himself, as his own attorney in the matter, to cite or bring these other individuals into the litigation.

"Whether it's politically motivated or not, I don't care. If they're responsible parties, they should be in the case. File the motion," the judge said.

Finally, O'Brien acknowledged there was "politics that affects this entire lawsuit but I don't know why, but frankly I'm not interested in the whys of it." The judge said he is only interested in the facts of the matter since "courts don't get involved in political matters."

O'Brien then directly addressed Moskovitz, telling him, "Mr. Moskovitz, I want to be clear about this. I told you the last time we were here the answers to the interrogatories were a, b, c, through d, and you had to answer each one. I looked at the answers - didn't have that. They were not real clear. So quite frankly, I'm not real happy but I'm not going to bother making you do it again because I think it will be more torturous for you to have to sit through a deposition."

As to the township's motion that sought copies of the correspondence between Moskovitz and his insurance carrier, Hudson Insurance, O'Brien said he was denying that motion due to the fact that the township did not need to know why Hudson Insurance had denied coverage to Moskovitz in this matter.

Garza said the request had been made because the township's attorneys believed they were entitled to know the circumstances that resulted in Moskovitz's carrier denying him coverage in this matter.

"As far as I'm concerned, you're only entitled to the copy of the policy, Mr. Garza. You're not entitled to any correspondence between the carrier and Mr. Moskovitz," the judge said.

O'Brien ordered Moskovitz and Garza to provide each other with their insurance policy declaration pages within 10 days of the July 3 hearing.

O'Brien also said he was no longer going to be "looking kindly on motions based on what I think are petty things." He told the attorneys he expects them to follow the spirit and practices associated with the proper procedures of law.