NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0671-13T1

COMMITTEE TO STOP MAHWAH MALL,

an unincorporated association

of Mahwah homeowners, JOEY

BOURG-HOLTZER, MICHAEL RICHARDS,

MARGUERITE THORNTON and ROBERT

MURKIN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

TOWNSHIP OF MAHWAH; the MAYOR

AND TOWNSHIP COUNCIL OF THE

TOWNSHIP OF MAHWAH, KATHRINE

G. COLETTA, Mahwah Municipal

Clerk, and CROSSROADS DEVELOPERS

ASSOCIATES, LLC,

Defendants-Respondents.

___________________________________

Argued November 19, 2014 - Decided

Before Judges Fuentes, Ashrafi and O'Connor.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-

4292-11.

Michael B. Kates argued the cause for

appellants (Kates Nussman Rapone Ellis &

Farhi, L.L.P., attorneys; Mr. Kates, on the

brief).

Andrew T. Fede argued the cause for

respondents Township of Mahwah, Mayor and

Council of the Township of Mahwah, and

Kathrine G. Coletta (Archer & Greiner, P.C.,

July 20, 2015

A-0671-13T1 2

attorneys; Mr. Fede, of counsel and on the

brief).

James E. Jaworski argued the cause for

respondent Crossroad Developers Associates

L.L.C. (Wells, Jaworski & Liebman, L.L.P.,

attorneys; Mr. Jaworski, of counsel; Darrell

M. Felsenstein, Andrew S. Kohut, and Spencer

J. Rothwell, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

The Committee to Stop Mahwah Mall, an unincorporated

association of residents of the Township of Mahwah, and Joey

Bourg-Holtzer, Michael Richards, Marguerite Thornton and Robert

Murkin, acting as individual residents of Mahwah, filed an

action in lieu of prerogative writs challenging the validity of

Mahwah Ordinance No. 1684, which created an overlay zone

permitting a 140-acre tract of land owned by defendant

Crossroads Developers Associates, L.L.C. (Crossroads), to be

developed for retail and commercial uses. The ordinance

included a provision enabling the construction of a recreational

field on six acres of the 140-acre site to be used by the

Township.

Plaintiffs argue the trial court erred in failing to

invalidate Ordinance No. 1684 because the Township Council

President's wife is the director of the Township's recreation

department and the ordinance includes the creation of a

recreational field. Plaintiffs argue this created an

A-0671-13T1 3

insurmountable conflict of interest that required the Council

President to disqualify himself and abstain from participating

in the Council's legislative process that led to the adoption of

Ordinance No. 1684. Independent of this conflict of interest,

plaintiffs also claim the adoption of the ordinance was tainted

by an appearance of impropriety created by Crossroad's history

of making substantial financial contributions to the Mahwah

Schools Foundation, an organization in which the Council

President is a founding member and serves as a trustee.

The Township of Mahwah, its Mayor and Governing Council,

and Kathrine G. Coletta, in her capacity as Township Clerk,

argue plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption of validity

that Ordinance No. 1684 carries as duly enacted municipal

legislation. Defendants maintain the trial court correctly

determined the Council President/Mayor did not have a conflict

of interest based on his wife's position as director of

recreation and consequently was not barred from participating in

the legislative process that led to the adoption of Ordinance

No. 1684. Although not addressed by the trial judge, defendants

argue there was no basis to support plaintiffs' argument

impugning the Council President/Mayor's impartiality based on

his involvement with the Mahwah Schools Foundation and the

financial support the Foundation received from Crossroads.

A-0671-13T1 4

After reviewing the record developed before the trial court

and mindful of our standard of review, we affirm. The following

facts will inform our legal analysis.

I

On February 10, 2011, Mahwah's Township Council adopted on

first reading Ordinance No. 1684, officially entitled "An

Ordinance Amending Chapter XXIV of the Code of the Township of

Mahwah to Create a New Section 24-19 entitled 'Crossroads Town

Center Overlay Zone' for Block 26, Lots 2, 10 and 11 and Block

183, Lot 1[.]" The ordinance was introduced by council member

Alderisio and seconded by council member Roth.1

The minutes of

the Township Council meeting reflect that prior to the vote, a

Mahwah resident asked the Township attorney whether there was a

potential conflict of interest "for Mr. Williams who is Chairman

of the Recreation Committee and Mr. [John] DaPuzzo whose wife is

[the Township's Recreation] Director" to vote on an ordinance

that would amend the Code to propose the creation of a

recreational field.

The minutes reflect the Township attorney responded that

"the only time . . . a conflict of interest would occur is if

1

The official minutes of the Mahwah Township Council do not

include the first names of the council members. We include the

first names of these elected officials if available in other

documents or if disclosed in the appellate briefs.

A-0671-13T1 5

[the two council members] would have a personal or financial

gain." The ordinance was adopted by a vote of four to three.

The council members' votes were recorded in the minutes as

follows: "Alderisio, yes; DiGiulio, no; Larson, yes; Roth, yes;

Spiech, no; Williams, no; DaPuzzo, yes."

Ordinance No. 1684 established a "zoning alternative for

land located at the junction of Interstate Route 287 and NJ

Route 17." It provides:

[T]he land situated at the junction of the

aforementioned highways totals in excess of

100 acres and has the potential to provide a

variety of uses to complement the existing

hotel and office development, known as

International Crossroads, and . . . the

Township has determined that commercial uses

and retail development will complement the

existing land use pattern in the area and

such use is not currently permitted per the

existing zoning for the site[.]

It amended Chapter XXIV of the Township's Zoning Ordinance to

create a new section § 24-19 entitled "Crossroads Town Center

Overlay Zone." Section 24-19 provides, in relevant part:

The intent of the Crossroads Town Center

Zone is to provide a zoning overlay

encompassing Block 26 Lots 2, 10 and 11 and

Block 183 Lot 1 in the OP-200 Office Park

Zone, in order to facilitate a comprehensive

integrated redevelopment of the

International Crossroads site, and provision

for open space and recreational amenities.

. . . .

A-0671-13T1 6

The purpose of the ordinance is to provide

for a mixed-use commercial development

involving a combination of compatible retail

and service commercial uses, offices, as

well as complementary related activities,

public spaces and amenities to create a

pedestrian friendly environment that affirms

a strong sense of place for the community.

The ordinance is also designed to create a

passive and active open space amenity

encompassing significant portions of the

area identified as Block 183 Lot 1 and Block

26 Lots 2, 10 and 11.

. . . .

At the discretion of the approving

authority, a minimum of six (6) acres

contiguous to the passive open space shall

be developed with active recreation with

fields and/or indoor sports and recreation

which may include but shall not necessarily

be limited to ice skating or rollerblading,

soccer, lacrosse, baseball, football, tennis

and related improvements.

The Township Council held a public hearing on Ordinance No.

1684, as well as related ordinances 1686 and 1687, on March 31,

2011. Although John DaPuzzo's tenure as Council President was

from 2010 to 2011, it is undisputed that at the time of this

public hearing DaPuzzo had left the office of Council President

to assume the position of Mayor due to the death of the

Township's former mayor. After Crossroads' attorney presented

the plan for the site's development, the meeting was opened to

the public. The minutes show several residents expressed their

concerns about Ordinance No. 1684's potential adverse

A-0671-13T1 7

environmental impact on the Ramapo River, the proximity of the

proposed mall to schools, increased vehicular traffic, and other

issues.

At the conclusion of the public comment session, the

Council voted four to two in favor of passage. The minutes

record the vote as follows: "Alderisio, yes; DiGiulio, no;

Larson, yes; Spiech, no; Williams, yes; Roth, yes." Because

DaPuzzo was serving as Mayor, he did not vote. DaPuzzo was also

not involved in discussions preceding its adoption.

II

Before he was Council President and Mayor, John DaPuzzo

served on the Township's planning board from 1997 to 2000, as

council member from 2000 to 2004, and 2006 to 2011. His wife

Dawn DaPuzzo has held the position of recreation director since

2005. She began as a volunteer and was thereafter hired as a

temporary employee. She was hired as recreation director and

confirmed by the Township Council at a time when her husband was

not a council member. As John DaPuzzo explained in his

deposition, as a Township employee, his wife was entitled to

statutory salary increases. However, she did not accept salary

increases during his tenure as Mayor of Mahwah.

John DaPuzzo gave the following explanation for

incorporating a recreation field into Ordinance No. 1684:

A-0671-13T1 8

Q. So the public component is simply the

athletic field and perhaps accessory parking

for that field?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. And I see from the configuration it

looks like a soccer field. Am I right about

that?

A. It's basically just a field put in

there, whether it's a soccer field or a

baseball field or whatever. It was never

set up exactly. That will be done in front

of the planning board.

Q. Do you know how the overlay zoning

ordinance came to incorporate the six-acre

site for mixed recreational uses?

A. I don't know if it was requested of the

council or it was offered by the developer.

I'm not sure.

Q. But it wasn't your initiative?

A. No, it was not my initiative. If I'm

remembering right, I know something came

from Harry Williams.2

But whether it was

offered already and then Harry, you know,

pushed it to actually make sure it got

included, I don't remember.

. . . .

Q. The question is whether there was

anyone advocating for municipal recreational

space on this site.

2

Harry Williams was a council member at the time the ordinance

was adopted. The minutes of the February 10, 2011 council

meeting reflect Williams voted against adoption of the ordinance

on first reading. He voted in favor of adoption at the second

and final council meeting.

A-0671-13T1 9

A. On this site? Okay. No.

The Mahwah Schools Foundation was founded in 2000. John

DaPuzzo described himself as a founding member and trustee.

He serves on the audit committee and has also served on the "5K

Run" committee. Around 2008 or 2009, DaPuzzo also served on the

corporate development committee. His service on this committee

lasted approximately one year. However, he did not attend any

of the corporate development committee's meetings.

The Foundation was established to provide funding for

educational programs in Mahwah's public school system that are

not otherwise funded by the local board of education. The

Foundation gets its funding through monetary donations from

private individuals and business organizations. Crossroads

donated $5000 per year to the Foundation from 2003 to 2006, and

in 2008. Crossroads donated $10,000 to the Foundation in 2010.

In the course of his deposition taken on February 14, 2012,

DaPuzzo gave the following description of how Crossroads made

its donations to the Foundation:

A: Mahwah Schools Foundation sent them a

packet and they sent the check.

Q. How Much?

A. I think for a few years it was $5,000 a

year. I don't think they've been in it the

last couple of years, though. I think they

stopped in like '09, '08, somewhere in that

area.

A-0671-13T1 10

Q. Is your name on the solicitation letter?

A. I don't know that.

Dawn DaPuzzo was also deposed on February 14, 2012. At the

time her annual salary as Mahwah’s recreation director was

$42,000. She does not receive any benefits, such as health

insurance or pension plan, because the municipality classifies

the position as part-time. She also does not have regular

hours. When asked to describe her work schedule, Mrs. DaPuzzo

responded, "[w]hatever it takes to get my job done." Her duties

include preparing the schedule for the use and maintenance of

all athletic fields and organizing local holiday events. She

reports directly to her supervisor, Brian Campion.

Although the DaPuzzos are both involved in the activities

of the Township, she testified that she and her husband do not

discuss Township issues during their private times as husband

and wife. She became aware of the possibility of a recreational

field included in the plan for the Crossroads project at the

public meeting when it was adopted on second reading. She

described the possibility of having a recreational field as

something that "would be nice to have, but it's not something we

need."

A-0671-13T1 11

III

When the case came to trial before the Law Division, the

parties stipulated to the admission of certain exhibits into

evidence, including references to testimonial evidence provided

in discovery depositions, in lieu of presenting live testimony.

Based on this stipulated record, the trial judge issued an order

declaring Ordinance No. 1684 valid and entered judgment in favor

of defendants.3

In his written opinion, the trial judge only

addressed the potential conflict arising from John DaPuzzo's

spousal relationship with the Township's recreational director.

He did not discuss DaPuzzo's involvement with the Mahwah Schools

Foundation.

Crossroads points out that the potential conflict arising

from DaPuzzo's position at the Foundation was not pled by

plaintiffs, and that the exhibits attached to plaintiffs'

appendix concerning this claim were not provided during pre-

trial discovery. The record shows, however, that plaintiffs'

counsel argued before the trial judge that in addition to

DaPuzzo's spousal relationship, DaPuzzo also had a conflict of

interest due to Crossroads' contributions to the Mahwah Schools

3

As part of this order, the court also voided Ordinance No.

1689 and upheld the validity of Ordinance Nos. 1686 and 1687.

Because this part of the trial judge’s ruling was not challenged

in this appeal, we express no opinion as to its validity.

A-0671-13T1 12

Foundation. Plaintiffs argued Crossroads' contributions to the

Mahwah Schools Foundation constituted an indirect personal

interest.

Addressing the potential conflict related to Dawn DaPuzzo's

employment as recreation director, the trial judge found:

[I]t is notable that Mrs. DaPuzzo was hired

by former Mayor Richard Martel at a time

when Mr. DaPuzzo was not a public official.

Additionally, the responsibilities of Mrs.

DaPuzzo's job include only the scheduling of

fields for athletic events, and do not

include legislative or policy making

components. Mrs. DaPuzzo is a part-time

employee with no set hours, and her salary

is dictated by ordinance. Mrs. DaPuzzo

reports to the Town Administrator and has no

contact with the Township Council; she is

also not part of the Township of Mahwah

Recreation Committee. Mrs. DaPuzzo was

unaware of any recreational component to

Ordinance No. 1684 until it was discussed at

a public meeting she attended when the

Ordinance was adopted on its final reading.

John DaPuzzo, then Council President, took

no part in the vote on the final reading.

Based on these facts, the judge concluded there was

no cognizable conflict of interest which

would serve to invalidate the adoption of

the ordinance. There is no suggestion that

the adoption of the Ordinance would in any

way benefit Mrs. DaPuzzo's employment status

as the Recreation Director of the Township

of Mahwah, and the circumstances presented

are remote and speculative which do not

serve as a disqualification of Mr. DaPuzzo.

As an appellate court, we will "not disturb the factual

findings and legal conclusions of the trial judge unless

A-0671-13T1 13

convinced that those findings and conclusions were so manifestly

unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and

reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of

justice." Griepenburg v. Twp. of Ocean, 220 N.J. 239, 254

(2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

However, we will review de novo the trial court's conclusions of

law. Ibid. (citing Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm., 140

N.J. 366, 378 (1995)).

Conflict of Interest

At common law, public officials are "disqualified from

participating in judicial or quasi[-]judicial proceedings in

which the official has a conflicting interest that may interfere

with the impartial performance of his [or her] duties as a

member of the public body." Wyzykowski v. Rizas, 132 N.J. 509,

523 (1993) (quoting Scotch Plains-Fanwood Bd. of Educ. v.

Syvertsen, 251 N.J. Super. 566, 568 (App. Div. 1991)). "An

actual conflict of interest is not the decisive factor, nor is

'whether the public servant succumbs to the temptation,' but

rather whether there is a potential for conflict." Id. at 524

(quoting Griggs v. Borough of Princeton, 33 N.J. 207, 219

(1960)). A conflict exists "when the public official has an

interest not shared in common with the other members of the

public." Ibid.

A-0671-13T1 14

There are four types of conflicts warranting

disqualification of a public official in voting:

(1) "Direct pecuniary interests," when an

official votes on a matter benefitting the

official's own property or affording a

direct financial gain; (2) "Indirect

pecuniary interests," when an official votes

on a matter that financially benefits one

closely tied to the official, such as an

employer, or family member; (3) "Direct

personal interest," when an official votes

on a matter that benefits a blood relative

or close friend in a non-financial way, but

a matter of great importance, as in the case

of a councilman's mother being in the

nursing home subject to the zoning issue;

and (4) "Indirect Personal Interest," when

an official votes on a matter in which an

individual's judgment may be affected

because of membership in some organization

and a desire to help that organization

further its policies.

[Id. at 525-26.]

"[I]t is the mere existence of the interest, not its actual

effect, which requires the official action to be invalidated."

Randolph v. City of Brigantine Planning Bd., 405 N.J. Super.

215, 226 (App. Div. 2009) (citation omitted) (internal quotation

marks omitted). The evaluation of whether an interest is

sufficient to disqualify a public official

is a factual determination that depends on

the circumstances of the particular case;

"[t]he question will always be whether the

circumstances could reasonably be

interpreted to show that they had the likely

capacity to tempt the official to depart

from his sworn public duty."

A-0671-13T1 15

[Ibid. (quoting Van Itallie v. Franklin

Lakes, 28 N.J. 258, 268 (1958)).]

Disqualification is appropriate even if only the appearance of a

conflict exists. Id. at 226-27.

In Wyzykowski, supra, our Supreme Court acknowledged that

the common law doctrines governing public officials "will be

influenced by . . . the Local Government Ethics Law, N.J.S.A.

40A:9-22.1 to -22.5[.]" 132 N.J. at 529. The Ethics Law

provides that "[w]henever the public perceives a conflict

between the private interests and the public duties of a

government officer or employee, that confidence is imperiled[.]"

N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.2(c). However, the "appearance of impropriety

must be 'something more than a fanciful possibility. It must

have some reasonable basis.'" Randolph, supra, 405 N.J. Super.

at 227 (quoting Higgins v. Advisory Comm. on Prof'l Ethics of

the Supreme Court of N.J., 73 N.J. 123, 129 (1977)). Otherwise,

"[l]ocal governments would be seriously handicapped if every

possible interest, no matter how remote and speculative, would

serve as disqualification of an official." Ibid. (quoting Van

Itallie, supra, 28 N.J. at 269) (internal quotation marks

omitted)).

Our Supreme Court revisited the appearance of impropriety

standard applicable to municipal governing bodies performing

quasi-judicial functions in Kane Props., L.L.C. v. City of

A-0671-13T1 16

Hoboken, 214 N.J. 199 (2013).4

Writing for the Court, Justice

Hoens explained:

Our traditional explanation of the

appearance of impropriety standard

recognized that "[t]o maintain public

confidence in the bar it is necessary that

the appearance of, as well as actual,

wrongdoing be avoided." In particular, we

have commented that "[w]hen representation

of public bodies is involved, the appearance

of impropriety assumes an added dimension

[because positions] of public trust call for

even more circumspect conduct." As our

Appellate Division has observed, when an

"office calls for the service of an attorney

in areas where the public interest is

involved, the possible areas of conflict of

interest are subject to even closer scrutiny

and more stringent limitation."

[Id. at 221 (internal citations omitted).]

Additionally,

No local government officer or employee

shall act in his official capacity in any

matter where he, a member of his immediate

family, or a business organization in which

he has an interest, has a direct or indirect

financial or personal involvement that might

reasonably be expected to impair his

objectivity or independence of judgment[.]

[N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.5(d).]

An official's "immediate family" includes the individual's

spouse or dependent child. N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.3(i).

4

We note that DaPuzzo was performing a legislative function when

he voted in favor of adopting the ordinance on first reading.

However, we discern no legal or public policy basis not to

impose the “appearance of impropriety” standard in this case.

A-0671-13T1 17

The Township of Mahwah also has a local code of ethics,

which provides:

No member of the governing body or any other

Township official shall vote for the

adoption or defeat of any legislation or for

the payment or nonpayment of any

indebtedness owing or allegedly owing by the

Township in which he has any financial or

other personal interest, direct or indirect;

nor shall any official or employee recommend

or lobby for the adoption or defeat of any

legislation or for the institution or

defense of any legal or quasi-legal action

whatever in which he has nor may have a

financial or other personal interest, direct

or indirect.

[Township of Mahwah, Code of Ethics § 2-

24.2(i).]

"'If a personal interest requiring disqualification exists,

neither the failure to object nor the existence of sufficient

votes absent that member's vote would change the requirement

that the entire proceeding would be voidable.'" Meyer v. MW Red

Bank, L.L.C., 401 N.J. Super. 482, 495 (App. Div. 2008) (quoting

Sugarman v. Twp. of Teaneck, 272 N.J. Super. 162, 169 (App. Div.

1994)).

Plaintiffs argue the trial court applied the incorrect

standard in evaluating whether a conflict of interest existed.

Plaintiffs contend the judge should have applied the "appearance

of impropriety" standard, set forth in Wyzykowski, supra.

Crossroads argues that even though the trial judge did not use

A-0671-13T1 18

the phrase "appearance of impropriety" in his written opinion,

he still engaged in the proper analysis. Specifically,

Crossroads argues the judge recognized that an actual conflict

need not exist, but rather only the potential existence of a

conflict is necessary for disqualification.

The trial judge set forth the following standard governing

conflicts of interest:

[T]he appropriate inquiry is whether an

impartial and concerned citizen, intelligent

and apprised of all facts in the situation,

could reasonably find for the potential non-

objectivity of the member of the board.

Randolph v. City of Brigantine Planning

Board, 405 N.J. Super. 215, 227 (2009)

[sic]. The circumstances must be such that

they can be reasonably interpreted to show

that they had the likely capacity to tempt

the member of the board to depart from his

sworn public duty. Mountain Hill, L.L.C. v.

Township Committee of the Township of

Middletown, et al., 403 N.J. Super. 146

(App. Div. 2008). Where there does not exist

realistically any contradictory desires that

tug the official in opposite directions,

there is no conflict of interest. Van

Itallie v. Borough of Franklin Lakes, 28

N.J. 258, 268 (1958). Additionally, where

circumstances alleged amount to "remote,"

"speculative" or "fanciful" interests, this

does not rise to the level of

disqualification of public officials from

performing their duties. Barret v. Union

Twp. Comm., 230 N.J. Super. 195, 201 (App.

Div. 1989).

Although the judge did not specifically use the phrase

"appearance of impropriety," the standard set forth in the

A-0671-13T1 19

memorandum of opinion adequately describes the appropriate legal

rule. The judge made clear that plaintiffs bear the burden to

establish the existence of a potential, rather than actual

conflict, by reference to Randolph, supra, and Mountain Hill,

L.L.C., supra. We are satisfied the trial court applied the

correct standard for determining whether a potential conflict of

interest existed.

Although the trial judge did not address this issue

directly in his memorandum of opinion, applying the standard to

the facts in this case, the evidence stipulated by the parties

shows DaPuzzo's relationship with the Foundation did not provide

a rational basis for the public to perceive a conflict between

his private eleemosynary interests and his public duties as a

member of the Township governing council. DaPuzzo's involvement

as trustee, founder, and member of the corporate development

committee of the Mahwah Schools Foundation for a term of one

year is too attenuated from the adoption of Ordinance No. 1684

to constitute a conflict of interest warranting

disqualification.

Although Crossroads made yearly contributions to the

Foundation from 2000 to 2010, the Foundation was not an

interested party in the passage of the Ordinance. DaPuzzo's

service as a member of the corporate development committee for

A-0671-13T1 20

one year does not per se indicate he solicited or was directly

involved with the solicitation of funds from Crossroads during

that period. A far closer nexus must exist between the voting

member and the organization. Plaintiffs have not presented

evidence showing DaPuzzo's ties to the Foundation influenced his

decision-making as a council member. No objectively reasonable

member of the public could conclude DaPuzzo's involvement in

this philanthropic endeavor cast a cloud of corruption or

impropriety during his tenure on the Township's Council.

Conflict Arising from Spouse's Employment

Plaintiffs argue they met their burden to show a direct

personal conflict of interest stemming from John DaPuzzo's

spousal relationship with the Township's Recreation Director.

A direct personal interest is defined in Wyzykowski, supra, as

"when an official votes on a matter that benefits a blood

relative or close friend in a non-financial way[.]" 132 N.J. at

525. Regarding disqualification in the context of familial

relationships, "the pivotal issue is not the degree of

relationship to the board member, but, rather, the type of

association the relative had with the interested organization

and the amount of interest the relative had in the official's

actions." Meyer, supra, 401 N.J. Super. at 492 (citation

omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

A-0671-13T1 21

Here, the trial judge found "Mrs. DaPuzzo was hired by

former Mayor Richard Martel at a time when Mr. DaPuzzo was not a

public official"; her job responsibilities were limited to

"scheduling of fields for athletic events, and do not include

legislative or policy making components;" her salary is set by

ordinance; she "reports to the Town Administrator and has no

contact with the Township Council"; and she was "unaware of any

recreational component to Ordinance No. 1684 until it was

discussed at a public meeting she attended when the Ordinance

was adopted on its final reading." Based on these findings, the

judge concluded that "[t]here is no suggestion that the adoption

of the Ordinance would in any way benefit Mrs. DaPuzzo's

employment status as the Recreation Director of the Township of

Mahwah, and the circumstances presented are remote and

speculative which do not serve as a disqualification of Mr.

DaPuzzo."

The evidence before the trial judge also shows plaintiffs

did not meet their burden to establish that John DaPuzzo's vote

benefited his wife in a non-financial way. Not only did Dawn

DaPuzzo testify that she was unaware of the recreational aspect

of the project until its final vote, there is no evidence that

she discussed Crossroads’ application with her husband or that

A-0671-13T1 22

she would derive even an indirect benefit from the passage of

the ordinance.

As recreation director, Dawn DaPuzzo's responsibilities are

limited to scheduling recreational activities and planning town

events. She testified that the Township did not require an

additional recreational field, and plaintiffs did not produce

evidence establishing that the addition of a recreational field

would trigger a salary increase, prestige, or any other tangible

benefit upon Dawn DaPuzzo. The fact that she holds the position

of Recreation Director in the Township is not sufficient to

establish a potential conflict of interest warranting

disqualification of John DaPuzzo's vote for the introduction of

the ordinance. Therefore, the trial court did not err in

concluding that there was no conflict of interest arising from

John DaPuzzo's spousal relationship.

Affirmed.