Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - SackResident

Pages: [1]
1
Article in the Hackensack Chronicle:

3 city officers set to sue police chief
(by Mark J. Bonamo - June 04, 2009)

Three Hackensack police officers have informed city authorities that they intend to file lawsuits against Police Chief Charles “Ken” Zisa. The officers allege that Zisa abused his power by retaliating against them for their political views and for not making large enough donations to his political campaign.

The notices of tort claims, which were received by the city on May 12, were filed by officers Anthony Ferraioli, Aldrin Lamboy and Scott Sybel.

Sybel, a city police officer since 1992, also alleges in a letter addressed to Chief Zisa and attached to his notice of tort claim that he was not paid for extensive construction and repair work Sybel did when off duty for the chief and for Deputy Chief Frank Zisa, the chief’s brother. According to the letter, the work, dating from 1996 to 2007, included framing a basement, building decks, replacing windows, fixing roof leaks and installing a hot tub. Sybel also states in the letter that he performed work at the former Dog House Grill restaurant building on River Street, a property partially owned by Chief Zisa.

“Chief Zisa abused his official position and powers to cause Officer Sybel [sic] to perform extensive labor and services for Chief Zisa’s personal enrichment,” the claim states.

Sybel is seeking damages of over $300,000.

Officers allege pattern of harassment

All three officers allege a pattern of retaliation and harassment by Chief Zisa surrounding political activities. Sybel maintains in the notice of tort claim that after he refused to donate more than $75 to Zisa’s assemblyman election fund in 2007, he was transferred out of the Narcotics Division to patrol. Sybel further alleges that Officer Kevin Toomey was illegally soliciting funds in the workplace for the election fund.

“Officer Toomey told Officer Sybel [sic] that his check was missing a “0” on the end of it,” states the notice of tort claim.

Officers Ferraioli and Lamboy claim that because they backed a different candidate than the one supported by Zisa in last year’s Policemen’s Benevolent Association (PBA) election, Zisa retaliated by demoting them and by making them walk foot patrol beats.

Ferraioli was a candidate for president in the May 29 PBA Local 9 election; Lamboy was the vice presidential candidate. The two men lost their leadership bid to incumbents president Philip Carroll and vice president Tina Clouse, with Ferraioli losing the presidential vote by a 50-47 margin. Lamboy was suspended from duty on the same day as the election.

A source who closely observed the election, who wished not to be named, stated that the election results would be appealed to the local, county and state PBA union authorities on the basis of the alleged violation of union bylaws and alleged voter intimidation.

An alleged physical altercation at an April 22 PBA Local 9 meeting between Toomey and retired Hackensack police officer Thomas Aiellos was reportedly related to the PBA leadership struggle.

Involved parties comment

Although Chief Zisa declined to answer questions about specific issues mentioned in the notices of tort claims because of potential litigation, he generally refuted the allegations made in the notices in previously published comments.

“The allegations contained in these letters are false, and that eventually will be borne out by whatever litigation ensues with this,” he said.

City Attorney Joseph Zisa, the chief’s cousin, declined comment about Ferraioli’s and Lamboy’s notices. However, he stated in previously published comments that he fails to understand why Sybel’s allegations should involve the city.

“His claims against the chief are all his business dealings privately with the chief…and why they are even noticing the city on this makes no sense to me,” City Attorney Zisa said.

“If he feels like he didn’t get treated properly by his other partners, which is frequently allegations between partnerships, then he should access the courts like everybody else does instead of trying to make it a public forum,” he added.

Lamboy and Sybel could not be reached by press time. Ferraioli deferred all questions to his attorneys, Ty Hyderally and John J. Zidziunas. Zidziunas is also representing Sybel.

Hyderally, who is representing Ferraioli and Lamboy together with Zidziunas, noted that the two lawyers filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court in Newark on June 2 regarding Ferraioli and Lamboy’s allegation that Chief Zisa had used intimidation in a June 2008 PBA election to achieve results favorable to him.

“It’s a situation quite frankly that is sad to see happening,” said Hyderally. “It would appear that Chief Zisa does not respect the freedom of the ballot box. He abused his power to micromanage the election results in order to achieve his personal interests.”

Issues raised about real estate venture

In the letter appended to his notice of tort claim, Sybel made additional allegations about a real estate venture involving both Chief Zisa and City Attorney Zisa.

Sybel claims that in early 2003, Artie Mento, a retired Hackensack police officer, approached him, his brother Douglas and another business partner, John Schianchi, to discuss building a house on Berry Street. According to the letter, Mento would provide the funds, while Sybel and his partners would perform the construction. Sybel maintains that the men agreed that after the house was built, it would be sold immediately. Mento would receive the money he invested back, and the men would split the remaining proceeds evenly. 

But later that year, Sybel claims that the deal changed when Mento informed him that Chief Zisa wanted in on the arrangement.

“Artie further said that if I said no or opposed your demands, my career would be finished and that I would be out of narcotics and back to patrol,” Sybel writes in the letter to Chief Zisa. “We had no choice. We had to let you in.

You came in, despite spending no money or labor.”

Mento could not be reached for comment by press time.

Property records indicate that Mento purchased the Berry Street property for $64,000 in July 2002, and that the four other men involved in the deal, including Zisa, bought into the property in March 2004. According to property records, the partners then sold the Berry Street property later that year for $435,000. Sybel claims in the letter that he received $18,000 when the sale was concluded.

“I objected to this and told you that I felt robbed,” Sybel’s letter to Zisa states.

City Attorney Zisa represented Chief Zisa, Mento, Schianchi and the Sybels when the partners sold the Berry Street property. In previously published comments, the city attorney said that upon conclusion of the sale, $317,000 went to pay the mortgage remaining on the property, and that after closing costs and additional fees were paid, the partners received $91,800. The city attorney also stated that a part of that money went toward legal fees.

According to property records, in 2004 the five partners registered a company, Cranberry Associates, LLC, with the state. The company proceeded to buy several lots in Paterson that same year. Cranberry Associates then built three houses on part of the property, selling them last year. However, Sybel alleges in the letter that he “never saw any money” from the Paterson house sales.

In previously published comments, City Attorney Zisa said that he represented Cranberry Associates in some of the sale closings but could not remember exactly how many. The city attorney also stated that he did not know how the profits were split between the partners.

“What the partners do with their money, they do with their money,” City Attorney Zisa said.

Recent legal controversies swirl around chief

Chief Zisa has been at the center of several legal controversies in recent months.

In February, Hackensack police officer Alessandra Viola leveled harassment allegations against the city police department that were allegedly related to the termination of a romantic relationship with Deputy Chief Zisa and that included allegations that Chief Zisa had attempted to intimidate Hackensack police officers as they voted in a PBA election. Viola also claimed that Chief Zisa reacted to her complaints by directing administrative charges against her.

In the same month, Chief Zisa filed a defamation lawsuit against Deborah Labrosse, a city resident and wife of Councilman-elect John Labrosse, for allegedly writing defamatory statements about him on NJ.com’s Hackensack forum. Deborah Labrosse subsequently countersued Zisa, alleging that Zisa “tampered” with her NJ.com postings, and that she has and will experience “intentional improper surveillance of her person and premises by reason of the activity” of Zisa.

E-mail: bonamo@northjersey.com



2
Peanut,
 
He doesn't have an answer.  He believes that anybody that says anything different from the current council is wrong.  It is disturbing that he would go out of his way to reveal the identity of a poster (who hadn't even posted yet). 

And for the record.  Maybe Eyeonhack would have posted their identity.  That is up to them to decide, not you Mr. Dib.  Another poor decision by someone who supports this current councils poor decisions.

3
I can definitely agree that some things are not what they appear.  The Bergen Record is showing us that on a daily basis.  I think it's pretty ironic that you are accusing the challengers of "exploiting" this.  Every time someone writes a fact on here, you try and spin it in the current council's favor.  Only $500.00 was reported as of yet.  The incumbants still have time to release the rest of their "donations". 

Also, why is it that certain people involved with Citizens for Change were denied access to this "unbiased" forum? 

4
Hackensack Discussion / Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« on: April 25, 2009, 04:12:57 PM »
I find it hard to believe that someone with your inteligence could not figure out the ties of your endorsed Bd of Ed candidates to the MHF council ticket. Wow, even their literature used the same mailing permit. Go figure. It is ok to pick sides just don't pretend not too. People will like you better if they know you are not dancing around an issue, especially as an editor of a blog. Back to this big building on Summit. I went online and checked campaign contributions to the encumbants ticket. I find it very disturbing that Joe Basrallian (attorney for the applicant) has donated a large chunk of money to them this year already with possibly more to come. He also donated a large sum when they ran last time. At that time I believe he was doing a project for the hospital. NO special interest there? Wake up folks. Most of thier campaign money came from outside of Hackensack.

5
Hackensack Discussion / Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« on: April 22, 2009, 09:21:35 PM »
swapcatsr

1)They did so as the mayor and council and were introduced as the Mayor an Council at the zoning Bd. meeting. They were acting as the City Council.
2)Only the zoning bd. attorney was impartial. The City attorney was there and he was not impartial. By the way the City attorney reviews alot of the zoning Board attorneys work. Isn't that a contradiction of staying impartial.
3)This case is still in litigation and under appeal. Could go on for years at a huge expense. There are better ideas out there.
4)Is minimizing the impact and getting the most from the developer a good thing? I say it is if the building is going up.
5)You CANNOT PETITION the City of Hackensack "It's the law" The current council enforced it in 2008 "1600 signatures"
6)He already owns the property. don't you remember the term they used was captured.
 
Now I know Mr. Editor will be all over me but oh well. Each thing I listed is true and factual. By the way haw can someone say they are not political on this forum and openly endorse a slate of Bd. of Ed candidates. His statement, though it may be factual is a political endorsement just as my factual statements are not a political endoresement.
 

6
Hackensack Discussion / Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« on: April 21, 2009, 06:45:53 AM »
I encourage you and all city residents to ask a lawyer about this and I'm sure they will get the same response.  Wake up Hackensack.  Inquire about this issue.

7
Hackensack Discussion / Re: 24-story tower for Summit Avenue
« on: April 20, 2009, 06:05:08 PM »
Editor,

What facts am I light on?   I know most citizens that I have spoken to are against this building going up, as am I.  The fact that the current council may have "dropped the ball" is the issue, not the fact that I am voting for Citizens for Change(1-5).  Do you think they handled the situation correctly? 

8
Hackensack Discussion / Intersesting!
« on: April 20, 2009, 12:25:51 AM »
Spoke to some friends of mine over the weekend who are legal eagles. They had some very interesting information on this acute care center going up. They pointed out to me that it was very strange for a City Council to come out and show their opposition to a project such as this before the application was in. They knew all about the two meetings we had and the fact that the council spoke at the zoning board meeting prior to the application being presented. I thought this was a good thing as being a condo owner in town I don't want this thing going up in my nieghborhood. They told me it was anything but good and the city may have caused some serious damage in the attempt to stop the project. They explained to me that by coming out against the building before the application was presented they showed extreme prejudice against the applicant. By doing so the applicants attorney can use this against us and could very well get this application through. I was dumbfounded to think our attorneys could have dropped the ball on this. I told them there was no way seasoned attorneys could have let that happen and thats when I really got surprised. They told me that since the applicant had already secured the properties and has met the State requirements and the fact they could show inherrant need the building was most likely going to go up. He said the City most likey knew this and these meetings were nothing more than political grandstanding for the upcoming election. I am disheartened if this is the case. If this nonsense about showing prejudice against the applicant is true then why else would they go ahead and do it. I feel we may have been had and another building that we did not want is going up. As we know the attorney for these guys is the same guy who represents the hospital on many of their development projects. I have read some of the previous post about signing a petition and I thought back to this EMS issue we jsut had recently. The folks supporting the EMT's gathered over 1200 or so signatures and were told by the council that the city does not acknowledge pettions due to the type of government we have here in Hackensack. If that is true why are they telling us to get a petition together. We need to check this out. Can someone find out if the city can be petioned or not? Thanks

9
Hackensack Discussion / Re: 2009 Hackensack City Election
« on: March 12, 2009, 03:58:11 PM »
When will we know who will be challenging the current council.  I voted for the current council, but after some things that have happened over the past 4 years I am hoping for some change.  Can anyone provide me with information on the candidates. 


On another note I think it is horrible that the Chief of Police is suing a first grade teacher over some comments that questioned him.  I have read those comments and the were not derogatory whatsoever.  I wish Mrs. Labrosse all the luck in the world.

Pages: [1]