Owners of a four-unit condominium building in Jersey City's Van Vorst Park Historic District have filed a lawsuit against both Jersey City and Hoboken, alleging that years of approved construction work were suddenly upended by a planning board denial and a vacate order that followed within days. Claudia Case and Michael Case, who own the property at 87 Bright Street, filed the three-count complaint in Hudson County Superior Court on September 10.
A Building Approved, Then Suddenly Not
According to Hudson County View, the Jersey City Planning Board denied a site plan amendment application for 87 Bright Street on June 30, and Hoboken issued an order to vacate the building just over a week later, on July 8. The Cases, represented by attorneys Gregory Castano Jr. and Schuyler Abbott, argue the building had already been approved and constructed under prior project plans. Castano is the founder of the Castano Quigley Cherami law firm, and Abbott is an associate there, per the same outlet's report.
The property itself has a layered history. As Hudson County View reported in July, 87 Bright Street originally operated as a two-story commercial building housing the Pulaski Beverage Company before receiving preliminary approval for rehabilitation into a four-story, four-unit residential condominium. The Cases purchased the property on November 6, 2017, and hired architect James Cornell that same day, according to the lawsuit as reported by the outlet.
Why Hoboken Was Even Involved
The reason a neighboring city ended up inspecting a Jersey City building traces back to a conflict-of-interest issue. Cornell is married to Annisia Cialone, director of the Jersey City Department of Housing, Economic Development and Commerce, and the Hoboken Building Department was brought in specifically to avoid that conflict, the lawsuit states. The arrangement involved plan review and inspections under New Jersey's Uniform Construction Code, according to the New Jersey Legislature.
Hoboken inspected and approved a rear fire escape at the property on April 16, 2024, and the Cases' company, 87 Bright JC LLC, filed a site plan amendment application on April 29, 2024. Jersey City then issued a temporary certificate of occupancy pending commission and board approval on May 6, 2024, according to the lawsuit. All four units sold within the week after that temporary certificate was issued, including a 2,600-square-foot penthouse with a private elevator and outdoor deck that closed for $2,550,000 on May 10, 2024, according to Zillow listing records.
The Fire Escape Fight and a Reconstituted Board
The approved fire escape did not sit well with everyone. The Jersey City Board of Education contested the Hoboken-approved structure on December 10, 2024, amid allegations it encroached on a shared passageway serving nearby school facilities, a dispute discussed in local Reddit threads on the matter from April 2025. The Van Vorst Neighborhood Association also hired land-use attorney Anne Studholme to oppose the site plan amendment, presenting testimony that the built structure deviated from original approvals, per the same discussion thread.
The planning board's review dragged on. The board carried the 87 Bright Street application to a June 30 hearing after 87 Bright JC LLC completed direct testimony on April 14, ultimately delaying the application by roughly 11 months, according to the lawsuit as covered by Hudson County View. When the board finally denied the amendment on June 30, it cited purported misrepresentations and health and safety issues — but the lawsuit alleges the board's own record contained no evidence that the building presented any such health or safety issues.
New Committee, New Objections
The lawsuit leans heavily on the timing of political changes at City Hall. Mayor James Solomon unveiled a Housing and Economic Development co-governance committee in January 2026, adding neighborhood activist Cecilia “Ceci” DeLeon and Thomas Ogorzalek to the group. DeLeon has said Solomon asked her and Ogorzalek to join, telling constituents, “Mayor Solomon asked Tom and I to be on their Housing and Economic Development co-governance group,” according to the complaint as reported by Hudson County View.
DeLeon sent an email to the planning board attorney, board planner and zoning officer on January 30, and followed up with a letter reiterating her concerns about the 87 Bright Street amendment on January 26, per the lawsuit's timeline. Days later, on February 9, Jersey City Zoning Officer Tanya Marione rescinded the temporary certificate of occupancy at 87 Bright Street, according to the lawsuit's account of events. Marione then issued a summons at the request of the Van Vorst Neighborhood Association on February 11, the complaint states. The planning board itself was reconstituted with four new members by the time of the June 30 hearing.
Vacate Order Without a Written Resolution
Perhaps the most striking allegation involves the sequence between the denial and the vacate order. The lawsuit alleges that a Jersey City zoning officer instructed Hoboken to issue an order to vacate the very morning after the June 30 denial — July 1 — despite no memorialized board resolution existing yet. Hoboken issued that vacate order on July 8, again despite the absence of a written board resolution, according to the complaint. Notably, the Hoboken Zoning Board of Adjustment has ruled that it lacks jurisdiction over its own code official, leaving the vacate order in a jurisdictional gray zone described in the filing.
Hoboken has continued to issue violations against the property since then, adding another one on August 8. Meanwhile, 87 Bright JC LLC has appealed the violations to the Hudson County Construction Board of Appeals, where filings remain pending.
Owners Push Back With New Evidence
The Cases haven't stood still procedurally either. On August 25, the planning board reportedly received evidence that the basement was built as approved, and 87 Bright JC LLC requested reconsideration of the amended application the same day. As of the lawsuit's filing, the planning board had not responded to that reconsideration request, according to the complaint.
Jersey City spokesman Nathaniel Styer and Hoboken spokeswoman Marilyn Baer both declined to comment on the pending litigation, per Hudson County View's reporting.
Broader Enforcement Climate
The dispute lands amid a citywide push for tighter code compliance under the Solomon administration. As Hoodline reported this month, the mayor's administration launched a digitized audit in September mapping more than 1,700 residential properties and 20,000 units while mandating heightened municipal code enforcement penalties citywide, part of a broader tightening of land-use and housing regulation across the city.
What the Cases Are Asking the Court to Do
The lawsuit alleges arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable action by Jersey City officials, along with violations of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act and claims of federal due process and equal protection violations. The Cases are seeking restraints preventing enforcement of the vacate order, reversal of the planning board's denial, a declaration that the denial and related enforcement actions were illegal, a stay of enforcement pending resolution, and compensatory damages plus attorneys' fees.
With appeals still pending before the Hudson County Construction Board of Appeals and no response yet from the planning board on the reconsideration request, the case leaves open how a Superior Court judge will weigh the owners' civil rights claims against the two cities' competing zoning and construction determinations — and whether residents could face displacement while those parallel proceedings continue.
