Riker Danzig prevailed as amicus counsel for the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority in Borough of Seaside Park v. Shree Jyoti, LLC, decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court on August 10, 2026. The case presented a question of first impression: whether a municipality must specify, within the ordinance authorizing a taking, the particular public use intended for the property. Seaside Park adopted an ordinance authorizing condemnation of an oceanfront motel, reciting that the acquisition furthered a public use and purpose without designating the public purpose. Seaside only identified the use—a public parking lot with electric vehicle charging infrastructure—in an amended complaint months later, which the owner argued was a fatal defect. We argued for the CRDA that neither the Eminent Domain Act nor the Local Lands and Buildings Law imposes any requirement that a municipal ordinance authorizing condemnation specify the intended public use, that the statutory language was clear and unambiguous, and that courts should not read into those statutes requirements that were not expressly included by the Legislature. We further argued that the practical realities of public development and redevelopment projects require that condemning authorities be permitted to articulate the intended public use with sufficient generality to allow for adjustments to accommodate changing circumstances and public needs. Six of the seven Justices agreed, finding both statutes unambiguous in their silence and affirming the Appellate Division, while advising municipalities to identify the intended public use as early as practicable. Stuart M. Lederman, Rudy Randazzo, and Michael Antzoulis briefed the matter for the CRDA.
Riker Danzig appears regularly as amicus counsel in New Jersey’s appellate courts, where a well-placed institutional perspective can shape the rule that emerges. We recently announced a fixed-fee arrangement for amicus representation; contact anyone in our Appellate Law Strategies Group if you believe your organization may have a stake in a pending appeal.
Read the full case here: Borough of Seaside Park v. Shree Jyoti, LLC.
