Hackensack, NJ Community Message Boards
General Category => Hackensack Discussion => Topic started by: Editor on May 08, 2004, 11:43:28 PM
-
As reported by the Record, a developer wants to build a 20-story, 331-unit apartment complex at Prospect Avenue and American Legion Drive that would span a freight line of the New York, Susquehanna and Western Railroad.
The city, however, has safety concerns about a project that would be the first of its kind in Hackensack. It would also be the city's first high-rise apartment construction in a decade.
Click here (http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2NTE4MDA1) to read the full story.
Thanks to Eric for suggesting the poll.
-
I don't like the idea of a new high-rise at that location. Safety issues could be address like they do in NYC, but the traffic becomes the real problem.
Also, the record is wrong about the last high-rise in Hackensack going up was 10 years ago. My brother worked on the last Excelsior 2 about 6 years ago.
-
As a resident of American Legion Drive I find the plans for Excelsior III an outrage. This area is already bombarded with traffic congestion, parking from visitors at all the other hi-rise buldings, parking from people hopping on the 163 or the 162 buses, parking from Hackensack Hospital staff.
To add insult to injury when these people park here they feel free to dump there trash out first before going on their merry way. Now we'll have more of the same.
Its been said that buying air space over railroad area is OK as its alrerady been done in NYC over rails and highways. So is that where we're headed? Let's fill every square foot of land left with a multi family dwelling. People move here to escape the over crowding in NYC. I guess the Hackensack planners are doing their part to keep New Jersey the most densely populated state in the nation.
Wait till the tax payers have to vote for more school construction and teachers to keep up with this population explosion. And on the topic of schools that corner of Prospect and American Legion is already unsafe for kids walking to the High School or Parker. Soon it will be worse.
-
I don't disagree w/the construction of the Excelsior III. But I do disagree w/ it's planned location.
We do not need another hi-rise on Prospect Ave. The city planners need to direct these developers toward the Main Street and State Street area, which will help their revitalization efforts and bring more people within walking distance of Main Street and hopefully the planned light rail.
Why squeeze in another hi rise on Prospect when there is need for re development in other areas of our city.
-
I agree with Jerry! Let's get the developers to build in the Hudson, State and Main street areas. They could have retail space on the first floor, very similar to "The Restaurant" at the Excelsior! This would be good for everyone!! Main Street needs to be addressed, I feel for the retailers! If I didn't want to support Hackensack Shops I would NEVER shop there. What would attract out of towners to Main Street? Hackensacks Main Street was the pride of Bergen County at one time! Now it's the embarrasment!
-
To the last post, here are some links you may wish to explore with respect to Main Street (Requires free registration with The Record- Click on any story to register):
City getting down to business (http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2NTM1OTg4)
Hackensack planners OK another Commerce Bank branch (http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkyJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2NTI5MDc3)
Hackensack's Record King vows to rock on (http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkyJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2NTI1OTk3)
No-nonsense leader steers plan to revitalize Hackensack (http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2NTIxMzYy)
Rail link hailed as economic engine (http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2NTIwMTQ0)
Hackensack bottleneck is now a distant memory (http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkyJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2NTE5MzAz)
Questions, foes could derail high-rise apartment plan (http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2NTE4MDA1)
City names a new head of the Hackensack Economic Development Commission (http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2NTEzNjk0) (Scroll down to "Hackensack")
Generally speaking, I think the prospect for a successful redevelopment of Main Street and the surrounding area is good. Look at other stories in Citizen News Articles on the homepage (http://www.hackensacknow.com) for information about new residential development in that area. Let's hope the momentum holds.
-
Any word on the planned development of the Excelsior III?
-
Excelsior is on the next Zoning Board Docket (http://www.hackensack.org/filestorage/46/136/ZoningDocket021605.doc).
-
When the Susquehanna rail line was also a commuter line, there was a train station along American Legion Drive about 100 feet east of Prospect. In fact, the concrete foundation of the stairs leading down to the tracks is still there.
(http://www.hackensacknow.com/images/bridge.jpg)
There are plans now to re-institute commuter trains on the Susquehanna, and guess where the transit experts want to make a train station --- Prospect and American Legion. No surprise, of course. Logically, it makes the most sense to put a train station where there is the highest density of people and buildings. I would imagine there would be sidwalks along the tracks leading down to Second Street, so that BOTH Prospect Avenue and the Carver Park neighborhood will experience the economic prosperity that all properties gain if they are within an easy walk of this train station. Locating the train station on the west side of Prospect is not desired for two reasons (1) It would mean there is much less pedestrian access from Overlook Avenue and from the Carver Park area, and (2) it would also become a long-term planning threat to Summit Avenue by encouraging multi-unit growth there.
Now, THE BIG QUESTION: How will the train station be reopened at the NE corner of Prospect and American Legion Drive if Excelsior III is built there. The answer is it won't. I've read many great reasons why Excelsior III should not be built, on this website, in the Record, and in the County Seat. However, this train station issue should take the front and center stage. It's also a valid reason to seek the involvement of our State Assemblypersons, our State Senator, and our U.S. Congressman Steve Rothman in opposing the construction of Excelsior III.
-
Developer battling for right to build high-rise over tracks (http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk1MSZmZ2JlbDdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5NjY1NDM1NSZ5cmlyeTdmNzE3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTM=)
Zoning Board Meeting Tonight!
-
The Excelsior application was adjourned pending the hiring of an architect/planner to review the plans. Costs to be borne by the applicant.
March 16th unless there is a special meeting. Re-notice may be required.
-
Related website: www.concernforhackensack.org (http://www.concernforhackensack.org)
-
Excelsior III is on the Zoning Board docket for March 16, 2005. Click here for docket (http://www.hackensack.org/filestorage/46/136/ZoningDocket031605.doc).
-
I understand that the Excelsior meeting tonight is mostly "procedural".
Click here for more information: http://www.concernforhackensack.org/ (http://www.concernforhackensack.org/)
-
Position of "Citizens for Change" on the Excelsior III project: Click here (http://www.savehackensack.org/datafiles/Council%20Election-05/PP%20Excelsior%20III.pdf). (.pdf file).
Editor's note: This post should not be construed as an endorsement of any candidate.
-
Latest story: Apartment building developer files suit (http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2NzUzMzUy)
-
The City should continue its "no" position to the building of the Excelsior III over the railroad tracks or anywhere in the vicinage of Prospect Avenue. This area is already overcrowded with limited parking. Additionally, the sewer system has not be udpated to accomodate the units already on Prospect. Water continues to flow down the hill flooding the neighborhoods below. On a rainy day, I invite each of you to visit Third Street to view the waterfall coming from the property located behind Quail Heights and the old Brewster property. The basements of the homes there are being damaged by this continuous overflow which has been brought to the attention of the past administrations but has not been addressed.
-
Latest story: Judge voids Hackensack code barring novel project (http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2OTY2MTQ3)
-
This is more of a "Win" for the city than a loss, not sure why The Record is presenting it that way.
The main aspect of the case was whether the railroad bed (aka: HOLE-IN-THE-GROUND between Summit and Prospect Avenues) can be considered as "open space" for the building lot over the tracks on the east side of Prospect Ave. It's not open space because there is already something there (the railroad), and it's too much of a hole-in-the-ground to be used by the public as open space.
The developer LOST that case. They cannot use that hole/land as part of the density calculations for the main project. This means they will have to reduce the number of units on their site plan by 40-50 percent. That might make the entire project economically infeasible.
I have major concerns regarding any possible BOTTLENECK in the Susquehanna rail corridor. It's potentially vital for the economic health of the metro region to have multiple rail tracks. There used to be two tracks, as a matter of fact. If the foundation of the proposed building permanently limits the Susquehanna to only one track (that's what is there now), I have a problem with that. That's my biggest concern, not the concept of building over the tracks.
The only "win" the developer had was regarding the zoning change from high-rise to 2-family residential. If the project is no longer economically feasible, that's a very hollow victory, isn't it. Looks like the city gets to upgrade it's zoning ordinance ASAP. There were plenty of issues with the June 2005 rewrite that city officials have been mulling over. That whole initiative goes onto the front burner, I would imagine.
-
IMPORTANT UPDATE
For those of you who may not have lived in Hackensack 7 years ago when Bill Noonan rallied then organized the residents of Prospect and Overlook Avenues to oppose PC Air Rights' plan to construct a 23-story hi rise tower (Excelsior III) which would span over the railroad tracks at Prospect and Central Avenues.
PC Air Rights was determined to build this apartment building with retail stores on the lower level floors which we would then drive/walk beneath like the apartment buildings you drive under on the New York side of the George Washington Bridge.
Concern for Hackensack, a coalition of the Prospect/Overlook Avenue hi rise buildings, was comprised of the same vocal Hackensack residents who packed the City Hall auditorium at countless Hackensack Zoning Board Special Meetings. The Mayor and Council listened to those residents and lived up to their campaign promise to support the residents in their fight against the Excelsior III application. See update from Bill:
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill
To: Concern For Hackensack
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 3:36 PM
Subject: Excelisior III
Dear All:
I thought it might be necessary to say more about Excelsior III. The article in the County Seat told most of the story but I believe a little more is needed to clearly state just what the Court said and what it means to our seven year struggle.
After essentially losing about five court battles, this one confirms once and for all that P.C. Air Rights cannot claim that the air space over the railroad tracks from Summit Avenue to Second Street and attempting to combine two lots separated by Prospect Avenue cannot be considered one contiguous lot. It also confirmed that just because the City does not prohibit something in it's codes, does not imply that it is permissible.
Even more importantly the Appellate Court saw no need to send it back to the lower court for any further consideration as it stands.
I could go on further but for now P. C. Air Rights has to start all over again with an entirely new plan, while considering the two large obstacles mentioned above, if they choose to do anything at all.
I personally will never consider the battle to build something in that area over. I do believe that our original battle as we know it, is in a very strong place.
It should also be mentioned that the City Officials did stay firm in their commitment to properly enforce the City building codes and speaking for myself and I'm sure the Coalition as well, we are grateful.
There is really no way I can thank you all sufficiently for a job well done but I will just say it. "Thank you all for your work and efforts and for a job well done".
The Coalition will stay alive and vigilant and I will of course keep you all informed.
Stay tuned and again thank you.
Bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thecountyseat.biz/issues/2010-07-01.pdf
THE COUNTY SEAT
July 1, 2010
City Wins Air Rights Case Again
P.C. Air Rights, a development firm appealing a judge's decision to uphold the City
of Hackensack's rejection of a proposal to build a new high-rise tower along Prospect
Avenue, has once again lost its battle.
"This was a long hard-fought battle," said Joseph Zisa, the city attorney. "The mayor
and council for the last five years have honored their committment to the people of Prospect
Avenue."
This latest appeal was argued by Andrew Fede, representing the developer, and Priscilla
Triolo, representing the City of Hackensack, on Feb. 3 before Appellate Division
Judges Dorothea Wefing, Carmen Messano and Laura LeWinn, who issued their decision
to affirm the trial court's ruling on June 28.
This was the second time both parties appeared before the Appellate Court in connection
with P.C. Air Rights' efforts to construct the high-rise apartment complex.
The developer's plan involves two noncontiguous lots, which are divided by
Prospect Avenue and owned by New York Susquehanna & Western Railway. The sale of
the lots is contingent upon P.C. Air Rights securing development approvals from the city,
which is unwilling to grant them.
The developer first submitted its application to the city in December 2003. The plan
sought approval of a 23-story high-rise on the east side of Prospect. The developer proposed
to erect the building over the railway's right of way, utilizing the air rights. The city's code
enforcement official deemed the site plan application incomplete because it was not
accompanied for requests for use variances and bulk variances. P.C. Air Rights appealed
to the Hackensack Zoning Board of Adjustment, contending no variances were required.
The board upheld the code officer's decision.
While P.C. Air Rights appealed the board's decision, the city amended its zoning ordinance,
which affected the development site. After the zoning board upheld the previous
determination, P.C. Air Rights filed its action. Following a bench trial, the court concluded
that the rezoning constituted impermissible spot zoning by the city. It also set aside the
remainder of the zoning amendments on procedural grounds but granted the city the
opportunity to correct those defects. P.C. Air Rights appealed the court's judgment. After
disposing of each challenge, the Appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial court.
Following another defeat at trial court, P.C.Air Rights appealed once again earlier this
year, but to no avail.
http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=innjco20100628236
PC AIR RIGHTS, L.L.C. v. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF CITY OF HACKENSACK
PC AIR RIGHTS, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HACKENSACK, THE CITY OF HACKENSACK, and THE HACKENSACK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, Defendants-Respondents.
No. A-2905-08T1.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Argued February 3, 2010.
Decided June 28, 2010.
Andrew T. Fede argued the cause for appellant (Herten, Burstein, Sheridan, Cevasco, Bottinelli, Litt & Harz, attorneys; Mr. Fede, of counsel and on the brief).
Priscilla J. Triolo argued the cause for respondent Hackensack Board of Adjustment (Law Offices of Richard Malagiere, attorney; Ms. Triolo and Richard Malagiere, on the brief).
Respondents Mayor and Council of the City of Hackensack and the City of Hackensack have not filed a brief.
Before Judges Wefing, Messano and LeWinn.
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered by the trial court in January 2009 following the conclusion of remand proceedings we ordered. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.
This appeal is the second time these parties have been before this court in connection with plaintiff's efforts to construct a high-rise apartment building in Hackensack. On each occasion, plaintiff has appealed from determinations of the trial court that impeded those development efforts.
We give the following brief summary of plaintiff's development efforts. Plaintiff is the contract purchaser of Lots 9 and 10 in Block 627 in Hackensack. The contract seller is New York Susquehanna and Western Railway Corporation; closing of the contract is contingent upon plaintiff securing the necessary development approvals. Lots 9 and 10 are not contiguous but are divided by Prospect Avenue, a north-south dedicated public thoroughfare. Lot 9, which is on the east side of Prospect, is the larger of the two; it consists of 151,940 square feet while Lot 10, on the west side of Prospect, has 49,595 square feet. Combined, the two lots total 201,535 square feet.
The contract of sale between plaintiff and the railway divided the two lots into three separate tracts, A, B, and C. It defined Tract A as "the fee of air space plus the easement for support and access over the [railway's] line" between Prospect Avenue and Summit Avenue. Summit parallels Prospect and lies one block to the west. Tract A occupies Lot 10. Tracts B and C are on Lot 9; Tract B runs between Prospect Avenue and Overlook Terrace and Tract C runs between Overlook Terrace and Second Street.
At the time plaintiff initially submitted its development application, in December 2003, Lot 10 was divided into two zoning districts, R-1, single family dwellings; and R-3, which permitted both single-family and multi-family dwellings while Lot 9 was divided into three zoning districts, R-3; R-2A, which permitted one and two family dwellings and garden apartments; and R-3B, which permitted professional office buildings as well as those uses permitted in R-2A.
Plaintiff sought approval for the construction of a twenty-three story high-rise apartment building, with associated appurtenances, all of which were to be located on the east side of Prospect Avenue, on Lot 9. Plaintiff proposed to erect this building over the railway's right of way, utilizing the air rights it proposed to purchase. Plaintiff's site plan application, however, utilized both Lot 9 and Lot 10 to satisfy requirements of the Hackensack zoning code. The City's code enforcement official deemed the site plan application incomplete because it was not accompanied by requests for use and bulk variances. Plaintiff appealed that determination to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (the "Zoning Board"), contending no variances were required. The Board, however, upheld the determination of the code enforcement officer in this regard.
While plaintiff's appeal was pending before the Zoning Board, the City amended its zoning ordinance in several regards, one of which was that that portion of Lot 9 which had been zoned R-3B was changed to R-2. After the Zoning Board passed its resolution upholding the determination with respect to the need for variance relief, plaintiff filed an action in lieu of prerogative writs seeking various forms of relief. Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that the rezoning to R-2 constituted impermissible spot zoning. It also set aside the remainder of the zoning amendments on procedural grounds but granted the City the opportunity to correct those procedural defects. Further, it concluded that the fact that Lots 9 and 10 were not contiguous prevented the use of Lot 10 being included in the calculations for the development of Lot 9.
Plaintiff appealed the trial court's judgment to this court. After considering and disposing of each of plaintiff's challenges, we remanded the matter to the trial court for consideration of whether the City's zoning ordinance permitted the aggrandizement of non-contiguous lots for purposes of calculating compliance with the zoning code and whether the lot coverage restrictions contained in the City's zoning code were calculated on a per lot basis. We deemed that remand necessary in light of the fact that none of the parties had presented to us the relevant portions of the City's zoning ordinance. We also directed the trial court to consider, based upon its answers to those questions, whether plaintiff was required to seek variance relief to proceed with its proposed project. Plaintiff has appealed from the trial court's judgment that such aggrandizement of lots is not permitted under Hackensack's zoning ordinance and that the ordinance requires that the calculations to compute maximum coverage restrictions be done on a per lot basis.
We are satisfied the trial court was entirely correct in this regard. We note first that we are reviewing the trial court's interpretation of the City's zoning ordinance, and are thus dealing with a question of law. Our review, in consequence, is de novo. Mountain Hill, L.L.C. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Middletown, 403 N.J. Super. 210, 234-35 (App. Div. 2008) (stating, "[w]hen the sole issue before us is the meaning of language in an ordinance, the trial judge's determination is not entitled to any special deference because the issue is one of law which is always subject to review de novo."), certif. denied, 197 N.J. 475 (2009); Bubis v. Kassin, 184 N.J. 612, 627 (2005) (noting that "the meaning of an ordinance's language is a question of law that we review de novo").
In determining the meaning of an ordinance, the court should adhere to principles of statutory construction. Id. at 626. A court should construe an ordinance based upon the Legislature's intent and in a manner that is reasonable. Place v. Bd. of Adjustment of Saddle River, 42 N.J. 324, 328 (1964).
The issue that was before the trial court and is now before us is not, as plaintiff frames it, whether two lots that are not contiguous can be included in the same site plan. Rather, the question is whether Hackensack's ordinance allows for aggrandizement of two non-contiguous lots when considering the area, yard and bulk requirements of a proposed site plan.
Various provisions within the City's zoning ordinance indicate that the intent of the City was to use "lot" in the singular as the appropriate measure. Section 175-1.4 of the City's ordinance, for instance, states that one of its purposes is:
To regulate the intensity of use of zoning lots and to determine the areas of open spaces surrounding buildings necessary to provide adequate light and air, privacy and convenience of access to property owners and City emergency services[.]
[Hackensack, N.J., Zoning Ordinance and Map § 175-1.4 (May 10, 2005).]
The ordinance defines a "lot" as "[a] designated parcel, tract or area of land established by a plat or otherwise as permitted by law and to be used, developed or built upon as a unit." Id. at § 175-2.2. Lot coverage is "[t]hat portion of a lot which is occupied by buildings and accessory buildings but not including other areas of impervious surfaces such as walkways, driveways, patios and open parking lots." Ibid. A parcel is "[a] lot or a tract of land" while a "site is "[a]ny plot or parcel of land or combination of contiguous lots or parcels of land." Ibid. The ordinance further defines a site plan as:
[a] development plan of one or more lots on which is shown (1) the existing and proposed condition of the lot, including but not necessarily limited to topography, vegetation, drainage, flood plains, marshes and waterways, (2) the location of all existing and proposed buildings, drives, parking spaces, landscaping, structures and signs, lighting, screening devices, and (3) any other information that may be reasonably required in order to make an informed determination.
[Ibid.]
Clearly, Lots 9 and 10 cannot be deemed a "site" under the Hackensack ordinance since they are indisputably not contiguous.
Other portions of the ordinance's definitions also bolster our conclusion that the trial court correctly determined that Hackensack does not permit aggrandizement of non-contiguous lots to satisfy bulk and lot line requirements of the zoning ordinance. The ordinance defines on-site as being "[l]ocated on the lot in question" and off-site as "[l]ocated outside the lot lines of the lot in question but within the property (of which the lot is a part) which is the subject of a development application or within a contiguous portion of a street or right-of-way." Ibid.
We agree with the trial court that there is no support for plaintiff's contention that it should be permitted to aggrandize these two lots because there is no provision within the City's ordinance which specifically prohibits such aggrandizement. Aggrandizement is clearly contrary to the entire thrust of the ordinance and, moreover, has the clear capacity to permit a developer to evade long-settled bulk restrictions, to the detriment of adjoining owners and good planning.
We have considered whether the matter should again be remanded to the trial court in light of the trial court's failure to consider what variances plaintiff would have to seek in light of its decision with respect to aggrandizement. We have determined that no remand is necessary. Plaintiff submitted its application to the Board nearly five and one-half years ago. Much has occurred in the interim that could have a significant effect on the viability of plaintiff's proposal as it is currently framed and affect whether plaintiff wishes to revise its proposal if, indeed, it still wishes to pursue it at all. Those practical decisions will bear upon the question of variance relief, if plaintiff opts to go forward.
The order under review is affirmed.
-
NORTHJERSEY.COM
Apartment complex must pay $7.4M in DWI crash
Saturday, November 20, 2010
BY KIBRET MARKOS
THE RECORD
STAFF WRITER
A jury slammed the Excelsior Apartments complex in Hackensack with a $7.4 million judgment on Friday, finding that an underage man was allowed to drink at a party there before causing a car crash that severely injured a prominent cardiologist.
"This verdict just shows you that people have no tolerance for those who serve alcohol to minors," said attorney Rosemarie Arnold, who represented the doctor, Henry Lau, in the trial in Superior Court in Hackensack.
Lau, who was a chief cardiologist at Hackensack University Medical Center, was walking his dog in the early morning hours of Dec. 27, 2006, when a speeding car hit him on Clinton Place in Hackensack and fled the scene.
The crash broke both of Lau's legs, his pelvis, back and several ribs. He also suffered severe facial injuries. He remained in the hospital and in rehabilitation for six months and underwent multiple operations, according to testimony at trial.
The driver, 20-year-old David Figueroa of Maywood, was later arrested and charged with assault-by-auto and leaving the scene of an accident. He was sentenced in May 2008 to two months in jail and five years of probation, along with 180 hours of community service.
Lau then sued the Excelsior Apartments, a pair of luxury high-rise towers on Prospect Avenue. Lau said in his lawsuit that building employees contributed to the crash by hosting a pool party where Figueroa was allowed to drink shortly before the crash.
The lawsuit also named a 21-year-old doorman, Gabriel Ortiz, alleging that he gave permission for the party to take place and allowed Figueroa to drink.
The issue before the jury was whether Ortiz was responsible for Lau's injuries because he permitted a pool party in the building.
Jurors also were asked to decide whether the Excelsior, as Ortiz's employer, was responsible for Ortiz's actions.
Jurors found liability in both cases, assigning 55 percent of the responsibility to Excelsior, 25 percent to Figueroa and 20 percent to Ortiz.
The Excelsior, however, will be responsible for the payment of the entire damages. Under a state law on "joint and several liability," a defendant who is assigned a large majority of the responsibility can be required to pay 100 percent of the damages.
Bruce Habian, the attorney who represented the Excelsior, did not return three phone messages.
The jurors awarded $5 million to Lau for pain and suffering, more than $1.7 million in compensation for lost wages and hundreds of thousands of dollars for medical expenses.
Joseph Tacopina, another one of Lau's attorneys, said Lau, who is now 66, will continue to incur medical costs.
"He is going to need a cane for the rest of his life, and he will have to sleep on a special kind of mattress because of his injuries," Tacopina said.
The jury also awarded $350,000 to Lau's wife for "loss of services." A person whose spouse is injured in such cases can sue under state law for "loss of services," a broad category that covers enjoyment lost by one spouse as a result of the other's injury.
E-mail: markos@northjersey.com