Manalapan wants to end Moskovitz case
Township Committee has sought damages from former township attorney
BY MARK ROSMAN Staff Writer
The Manalapan Township Committee has taken action to initiate the end of a lawsuit against attorney Stuart Moskovitz, but it remains unclear whether ending the legal action will be a simple matter.

Moskovitz, who served as Manalapan's township attorney in 2005, was sued by Manalapan's elected officials in 2007 over his role in the municipality's purchase of two pieces of property on Route 522.

The malpractice lawsuit alleges that Moskovitz, who was the township attorney when the real estate deal closed in 2005, did not provide Manalapan with all of the necessary protections as the purchaser of the property.

Contaminated soil was later discovered on one of the two properties the township had purchased.

Moskovitz was the only person named in the township's lawsuit. Manalapan officials did not seek damages from the Dreyer family, which owned the property that was found to be contaminated, any engineers who inspected the Dreyer property prior to its purchase by Manalapan, or the township attorney who negotiated the land purchase agreement with the Dreyer family in 2004.

Manalapan's purchase of the Dreyer property was memorialized in a 2004 court order because the agreement had arisen out of a separate lawsuit between the Dreyer family and Manalapan.

The township attorney changed from 2004 to 2005, and Moskovitz closed the deal in 2005 that Donald Lomurro, who was the township attorney in 2004, had negotiated on behalf of Manalapan.

Mayor Richard Klauber said at the committee's June 24 meeting that the $100,000 Manalapan spent to clean the soil contamination on the Dreyer property includes the engineering fees, testing and cleanup of the contaminated property. He said the township has spent $7,000 on the Manalapan v. Moskovitz case.

At the end of that evening's meeting, Klauber and committee members Michelle Roth and Don Holland voted to instruct attorney David Weeks, who has handled the Moskovitz case for Manalapan, to draw up a stipulation of agreement that would dismiss the case.

Committeeman Andrew Lucas stepped down from the dais for this matter because he has been named as a third-party defendant in an action filed by Moskovitz.

Moskovitz also named the Dreyer family and Greg Valesi, the township's engineer, as third-party defendants. The action against Lucas, Valesi and the Dreyer family remains open, according to Moskovitz.

Moskovitz also named attorney Daniel McCarthy, who was a special counsel to Manalapan, attorney Leon Piechta, who represented an insurance company working on behalf of Manalapan, and Lomurro as thirdparty defendants.

Moskovitz said state Superior Court Judge Dennis R. O'Brien dismissed the third-party complaint against McCarthy, Piechta and Lomurro without prejudice. Moskovitz said the judge ruled that he (Moskovitz) cannot bring those parties into the case, but the township can.

According to Township Attorney Ron Cucchiaro, who explained the matter during the June 24 committee meeting but is not the attorney of record in this case, Moskovitz will be asked to sign off on the stipulation of agreement to be drawn up by Weeks. He said if Moskovitz signs the agreement, the case will end. He said if Moskovitz does not sign the agreement, the case will continue.

However, Moskovitz said Manalapan's representatives can go to court and voluntarily ask the judge to dismiss the case without his approval of any agreement.

Cucchiaro said that is true, but he said that township officials want to ask Moskovitz to agree to end the matter.

Moskovitz said what Manalapan's elected officials want him to do is to sign an agreement giving up his right to sue Manalapan for malicious prosecution. He said he will not sign any such agreement until municipal officials publicly acknowledge that he did not commit legal malpractice.

"This case is frivolous, a malicious political vendetta, and an inexcusable waste of a substantial amount of taxpayer money. There never was any malpractice committed by me, and this matter will not end until there is an unequivocal acknowledgement of same by the township or there is a judgment so establishing," Moskovitz said. "They don't need me to agree to their ending this case. They can simply ask the court for a voluntary dismissal, which would be granted immediately. What they need from me is an agreement not to sue them, which they only need if their case wasn't frivolous or malicious. Why should they spend 5 cents more to dismiss this case? Why don't they just go to court and dismiss it?"

Moskovitz said Manalapan's legal expenses in the case exceed the $7,000 cited by Klauber. He said the township has paid $6,600 to one attorney, plus several thousand dollars to an attorney representing Lucas in the third party action, plus unknown amounts paid to two other former township attorneys, Caroline Casagrande (in 2007) and Kevin Kennedy (in 2008).

One issue that has come up during the case is that Moskovitz did not report the legal action that Manalapan instituted against him to his malpractice insurance company.

Cucchiaro, who reiterated that he is not the attorney of record in this matter, acknowledged on behalf of the Township Committee that Moskovitz had and has malpractice insurance.

In remarks during the June 24 meeting, Klauber, who is an attorney, said that given the fact there is no insurance company involved in this matter, municipal officials do not know if they would be able to collect a judgment from Moskovitz if Manalapan wins its case against him.

To reach the point of securing a judgment against Moskovitz, i.e., winning the case in court, the township would have had to incur additional expenses during the discovery phase and for other legal requirements, Klauber said.

In the end, the risk of an additional cost to taxpayers was not worth the possibility of recovering damages from Moskovitz, the committee members said.

"It was distasteful for me as an attorney to commence this case against another attorney," Klauber said. "It is now in the best interests of the township to not go forward."

Roth said, "This was always a case of malpractice committed by Stuart Moskovitz. He failed to include proper safeguards for environmental contingencies in the purchase contract of the Herbert and Dreyer houses.

"We acted on the advice of numerous township attorneys to move forward with this suit. We had bipartisan support to initiate this suit and bipartisan advice from various attorneys. We also have an affidavit of merit on this case from a legal malpractice expert.

"We were forced to create a 'black box' on this case because of the multitude of leaks out of executive session where Stuart Moskovitz received communication from sitting township committee people who, in my opinion, were derelict in their duties," Roth continued.

"Let me make this clear. Stuart Moskovitz never reported this claim to his malpractice insurance carrier. Therefore, he left himself with no coverage on this litigation and fully exposed personally, which leads me to my last point. Going forward, the township does not know if Stuart Moskovitz has any money personally and whether we could ever collect a judgment against him," Roth said at the June 24 meeting.

In response to Klauber and Roth's comments, Moskovitz said, "It is absurd to suggest that they are afraid they may not collect a judgment (from him) when the entire cleanup is $10,000."

To clarify one point that has been mentioned, Cucchiaro said Weeks, who is working for Manalapan on a contingency basis, did file a motion to leave the case, but said that motion has not been decided. He said Weeks is still working on the case.

Evidence of that is the committee's June 24 resolution asking Weeks to draw up the stipulation of agreement which will be forwarded to Moskovitz.

Contact Mark Rosman at gmntnews@gmnews.com.