discussion - new jersey legislature · ohsp does not ask the status of individuals unless it is for...

Department of Law and Public Safety FY 2018-2019

Discussion Points

1

1. Federal enactments and budget proposals often significantly impact State programs

and fiscal resources. The Department of Law and Public Safety anticipates receiving $210

million in federal funds in FY 2019, which is a decrease of $12.1 million from the anticipated

FY 2018 federal funding of $222.1 million. Federal funding allocated to the department

seems to be trending downward. Actual expenditures of Federal funds totaled about $350

million in FY 2015, about $256 million in FY 2016, and about $248 million in FY 2017.

• Question: What are the principal reasons for the decline in Federal funds

since FY 2015? Please evaluate the impacts that these changes have had on

programs operated by the department. How have the clients served by these

programs been affected? To what extent has the department’s monitoring,

regulatory, and administrative activities, including those measured by

performance metrics, been affected?

The decrease can be attributed to the decline of Victim Assistance Grants funds from $63

million to $50 million. There has been a trend in the types of programs funded, with

available funding to now focus on research and evaluation. The Federal government is

steering away from continuously funding programs that have been around for more than a

decade, but are evaluating the success of existing programs and researching ways to address

the same problems using new approaches.

It is difficult to assess the impact of the reduction of federal funding for law enforcement

programs without a comprehensive review of the various programs previously funded.

• Question: What specific new or revised federal mandates or matching

requirements are expected in FY 2019? Were there any federal grants that the

State did not receive in FY 2017 or FY 2018 due to a decrease or elimination of a

federal grant program that negatively impacted the State?

The Department is unaware of any new federal mandates or matching requirements for FY

2019.

The U.S. Department of Justice has not yet awarded the FY 2017 Justice Assistance Grant

(JAG) to the Attorney General’s Office. The potential for the loss of funds associated with the

FY 2017 JAG award is expected to have a negative impact at the State and local levels. JAG

funds contribute to the salary expenses of County Prosecutor Gangs, Gun and Narcotics Task

Force. In addition, these funds aid in County Megan’s Law implementations. Without

funding in place, potential award recipients, including the Counties, would have to dedicate

their own dollars to these programs.

On April 17, the U.S. Department of Justice provided guidance to potential FY 2017 JAG

recipients, including the Attorney General’s Office, regarding the reimbursement of FY 2017


Discussion Points (Cont’d)

2

JAG funds. This guidance explained that the Department of Justice may allow recipients to

obligate and expend their own funds on otherwise allowable JAG projects and then

reimburse themselves with FY 2017 JAG funds when awarded. The Attorney General’s Office

is currently reviewing this guidance.

2. The Department of Law and Public Safety annually outsources cases and

assignments, retaining outside counsel for various reasons. The department also enters into

client service agreements with other State departments to handle legal cases through

outside counsel. During the FY 2018 legislative budget review process, the department

provided documentation that State agencies paid approximately $28.5 million to outside

counsel in calendar year 2016.

• Question: Please provide a list of cases and assignments for which outside

counsel was retained, including the amount paid per case for calendar years

2017 and 2018 to date. What percentage of outside counsel costs represents

legal fees paid on a contingency basis? Which specific cases involve outside

counsel retained pursuant to a contingency fee arrangement? Although it is

understood that the number and types of cases may vary, what amount is

budgeted in FY 2019 for the services of outside counsel?

See the attachment A for the 2017 Approved Matters by Firm and Attachment B for the 2018

(through March 29, 2018) Approved Matters by Firm.

The Department does not track contingency fees paid to outside counsel in our outside

counsel billing system, CounselLink. Contingency fees generally result in a one-time

payment to counsel at the conclusion of a matter rather than a series of payments for legal

services performed during the course of the matter. Additionally, payment to counsel in

contingency fee cases generally result from a recovery collected by an entity other than the

State. In other words, contingency fee cases are not paid via State revenues.

Typically, cases in which we have retained outside counsel on a contingency fee basis have

been those involving False Claims Act and Qui Tam matters.

We are not able to predict the number of defensive matters that may be brought against the

State. Nor are we able to predict which of these possible future matters may require the

services of outside counsel. Therefore, no amount has been budgeted in FY 2019 for the

services of outside counsel.

3. Executive Order 13768, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,”

was issued by the President on January 25, 2017. The order stated that "sanctuary

jurisdictions," including "sanctuary cities," who refuse to comply with immigration

enforcement measures would not be "eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed



3

necessary for law enforcement purposes" by the U.S. Attorney General or Secretary of

Homeland Security.

On November 21, 2017, section 9(a) of the executive order was declared unconstitutional by

Judge William Orrick III, who issued a nationwide, permanent injunction against its

implementation.

The Division of State Police personnel are governed by Attorney General Law Enforcement

Directive 2007-3, which requires that all law enforcement officers in New Jersey inquire

about a person’s citizenship, nationality, and immigration status during the booking process

for any indictable crime or driving while intoxicated offense, and to notify Immigration and

Customs Enforcement if there is reason to believe that a person may not be lawfully present

in the United States.

• Question: How will the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety in

general and the Division of State Police and Office of Homeland Security and

Preparedness in particular, work with the federal government and local law

enforcement to ensure New Jersey protects its citizens by not harboring illegal

immigrants who pose a threat to public safety and security, while ensuring

illegal immigrants and their families are treated fairly?

AG Law Enforcement Directive No. 2007-3 aims to “establish the manner in which local,

county, and State law enforcement agencies and officers shall interact with federal

immigration authorities.” The Directive recognizes that “enforcement of immigration laws is

primarily a federal responsibility,” and that “the overriding mission of New Jersey law

enforcement officers … is to enforce the State’s criminal laws and to protect the community

that they serve.” It also acknowledges that “this requires the cooperation of, and positive

relationships with, all members of the community.” If immigrants who witness crimes are

afraid to contact local police officers because they fear being detained or deported, they will

not report crimes, serve as witnesses, or cooperate with police. That makes communities less

safe.

Due to technological advances and changes in federal immigration enforcement priorities

since 2007, some of Directive’s particulars have been rendered less effective in “establishing

the manner in which local, county, and State law enforcement agencies and officers shall

interact with federal immigration authorities.” The Attorney General’s Office has carefully

reviewed the Directive, and is currently in the process of developing updated guidance on

how local, county, and State law enforcement agencies and officers shall interact with federal

immigration authorities. As with any policy of this importance, the Department is consulting

with law enforcement leaders and community leaders in crafting the policy. The process is

anticipated to be completed within the next few months.



4

In terms of Executive Order 13768, it has been permanently enjoined by a federal judge in

California. The federal government appealed that ruling, and the Ninth Circuit heard oral

arguments on the case on April 11th.

New Jersey does not harbor illegal immigrants who pose a threat to public safety. It is the

mission of the Attorney General’s Office, and all New Jersey law enforcement agencies, to

prosecute serious and violent criminals, regardless of the immigration status.

In addition, New Jersey complies with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which prohibits States from

“prohibiting, or in any way restricting, any government entity or official from” sharing with

the “Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or

immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”

Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness detectives are bound by the parameters set

forth by Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive No. 2007-3, as is all of the Department

of Law and Public Safety. OHSP does not ask the status of individuals unless it is for the

processing of indictable offenses.

However, if OHSP receives information via tip line or confidential sources that an individual

is engaged in criminal activity and is undocumented, then it will inquire into the status as a

matter of a complete investigative process. If discovered that the individual is

undocumented, OHSP will forward such information to ICE for appropriate action. At times,

if OHSP becomes aware of undocumented individuals who are not engaged in criminal

activity, the Office may assist these individuals in dealing with ICE such as providing them

with a name or contact of OHSP partners who may provide assistance.

4a. Law enforcement may currently confiscate money or property used in the

commission of a crime, or property acquired from the proceeds of a crime from an individual

or business suspected of committing an illegal act. As forfeiture is legal action against

property, the individual or business may be required by the court to forfeit the confiscated

money or property in question to a prosecuting law enforcement agency (federal, State, or

local). The money and cash derived from the property forfeited are considered forfeiture

funds.

Governor Christie conditionally vetoed Senate Bill No. 2267 of 2017, which would have

required county and State prosecutors to publish information concerning seized assets and

the use of forfeited funds. The bill would have required prosecutors to disclose to the

Attorney General each forfeiture, the circumstances of the property seized, and the law

enforcement purpose for which it was used. The Attorney General would be required to

compile this information and then publish an annual report. In his conditional veto

message, the Governor recommended a quarterly report, and revised the content required

to be included in the report.



5

In reviewing State statutes, annual State appropriations acts, and guidance from Standard

Operating Procedures (SOPs) issued by the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General, it

appears that forfeiture money is not to be used to pay for salaries or other fixed costs.

Over the years, Attorney Generals have utilized forfeiture funds for various law enforcement

priorities including, but not limited to, gun buyback programs, body camera grant programs,

upgrading case management computer systems, new license plate readers, updated

breathalyzer systems, and law enforcement training.

The department’s responses to an FY 2018 OLS discussion point indicated that in FY 2015

and FY 2016, $14.4 million was expended from forfeiture funds to support fugitive safe

surrender initiatives, community youth programs, crime suppression programs, law

enforcement training, assorted Division of Criminal Justice initiatives including equipment

and vehicles, Division of State Police (DSP) improvements, new license plate readers, and a

new breathalyzer system, as well as other smaller equipment and information technology

needs. The department noted that DSP also uses the funds for confidential, undercover, and

witness protection needs. The department also noted that $2 million of these funds were

being allocated to the General Fund and about $159,000 were allocated to the Department

of Health.

The FY 2019 Governor’s recommended budget anticipates $4.25 million in revenues from

forfeitures in FY 2018 and FY 2019.

• Question: Since the practice of civil asset forfeiture is increasingly

scrutinized, will the Attorney General's Guidelines for Forfeiture be revised in

the near future?

• Question: Please provide an accounting of State forfeiture proceeds for the

last two completed fiscal years, FY 2016 and FY 2017, including: opening

balance, amounts received by the type of asset seized; the purposes for which

funds were allocated and the amounts allocated; and year-end closing balance

amounts. What are the anticipated spending plans for forfeiture funds

collected in FY 2018 and in FY 2019?

The Office of the Attorney General has begun reviewing a number of previously issued

guidelines and directives for appropriate updates and revisions.

Forfeiture funds are prioritized for law enforcement purposes as needs arise and based

upon the availability of funds. The State Forfeiture Administration Program Standard

Operating Procedures prohibit the commitment of funds before they are

received. Forfeiture funds also support the Division of State Police (DSP), and the

Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) confidential, undercover and witness protection needs,



6

as well as DCJ equipment and law enforcement training and supports both the

Computer Crimes and Electronic Surveillance Units.

Please see attachment C regarding forfeiture spending in FY 2016 and FY 2017.

4b. The Attorney General's Guidelines for Forfeiture, issued in October 1992, states that

in the case of proceeds from illegal activity, the limit of the forfeiture remedy is defined by

the prosecuting agency's ability to prove the nexus between illegal activity and the

confiscated proceeds from, or instrumentalities used for, criminal activity. The degree to

which the instrumentality is employed in any criminal transaction or enterprise, the

importance of the instrumentality to accomplishing the illegal end, and the nature and

seriousness of the illegal activities should all be evaluated in determining whether the

forfeiture remedy should be employed to its full limit.

These guidelines for forfeiture were issued more than 25 years ago. Digital and virtual

currencies, also referred to as cryptocurrencies, are now valuable global assets with highly

volatile and fluctuating prices. The daily value of cryptocurrency changes enormously.

• Question: What guidance, if any, has the Attorney General provided as to

whether cryptocurrency and digital assets are subject to seizure? Has the

State or any county capitalized on seizing and selling cryptocurrency? How is

the Attorney General advising prosecutors to report or capitalize on digital

assets, including cryptocurrency?

Currently, there is no formal guidance from this office regarding the seizure of

cryptocurrency and digital assets. The office is, however, a member of the recently formed

Virtual Currency Working Group, whose ultimate goal is to update forfeiture standard

operating procedures to account for assets such as cryptocurrency. The Virtual Currency

Working Group is working towards the completion of a revised SOP in the near future. The

working group has identified two primary challenges moving forward:

1. Determining when digital assets should be converted to U.S. currency. Because of

their highly volatile nature and fluctuating prices, the daily value of digital assets

changes substantially. We are investigating processes to avoid arbitrary and

inconsistent decision-making when converting the digital assets to U.S. currency.

2. Selecting a vendor for the currency exchange. Vendors are currently limited in the

ability to exchange currencies due to the number of cryptocurrencies on the market.

The Division of Criminal Justice has not yet seized digital assets, but within the last few

weeks the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office has done so.



7

The Attorney General currently has SOPs establishing requirements for forfeiture reporting

by county Prosecutors’ Offices. While the Attorney General has not advised prosecutors

specifically about the reporting of their seizure or forfeiture of digital assets, the reporting

requirements contained within the current SOPs apply to non-digital and digital assets alike.

We anticipate that the findings of the Virtual Currency Working Group will make

recommendations on the advice needed for prosecutors regarding cryptocurrency.

Note: As a general policy matter, this office recommends against the use of the term

“capitalized,” as it suggests that the State or counties are taking advantage of or exploiting

the forfeiture process through the seizure and/or selling of cryptocurrency.

5. The FY 2019 Governor’s Recommended Budget reflects the elimination of a $1

million appropriation for the New Jersey Nonprofit Security Grant Pilot Program, added as a

legislative initiative.

P.L.2017, c. 246 was approved December 27, 2017, establishing a three-year “New Jersey

Nonprofit Security Grant Pilot Program” administered by the Office of Homeland Security

and Preparedness. The $1 million was to support eligible nonprofit organizations, up to a

maximum grant of $10,000 per approved application, to hire permanent or temporary

security personnel limited to federal, State, county, or municipal law enforcement officers,

special law enforcement officers appointed pursuant to P.L.1985, c.439 (C.40A:14-146.8 et

seq.), or security officers registered pursuant to P.L.2004, c.134 (C.45:19A-1 et seq.). The

director has up to three years to submit a report to the Governor, and to the Legislature,

containing an evaluation of the pilot program, including a recommendation if the program

should be continued. A public notice for this funding was released on March 5, 2018.

In addition, according to the State accounting system, it appears that the OHSP issued

another set of grants during the summer of 2017 to support non-profit security needs, using

unspent funds for critical homeland security infrastructure. The program was a slightly

different program as noted in response to a FY 2018 OLS discussion point. This program

also had planned to provide $1 million in grants for nonprofit and religious institutions in

nine counties to improve security: Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland,

Gloucester, Mercer, Salem, and Warren.

Eligible nonprofit organizations were described as organizations under section 501(c)(3) of

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which have been determined by the New Jersey Director

of Homeland Security and Preparedness (OSHP) to be at high risk of terrorist attack and are

located in the aforementioned nine counties. Approved applicants were eligible for an

award not to exceed $50,000 and matching funds were not required to receive the grant.

The grants would reimburse awardees for allowable costs for the acquisition and installation

of security equipment, such as physical security enhancement equipment and inspection and



8

screening systems, specifically to prevent and protect against terrorism. Personnel costs

were ineligible under this grant.

Nonprofit organizations in New Jersey’s other 12 counties already are eligible to receive

similar security funding through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Nonprofit

Security Grant Program, which OHSP also administers, as these counties are in the federal

Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) designated urban areas.

• Question: Please provide an overview of the allocation of these grants,

including a list of grantees, the amounts granted, and the intended use of the

funds. Please explain why the FY 2019 funding for the Nonprofit Security Grant

Pilot Program is not provided even though it is a statutorily authorized three

year program. Should the Legislature be concerned that without FY 2019

funding the program will be interrupted to the detriment of the security needs

of grant recipients?

The Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness is currently administering both the

Security Enhancements Countering Unmitigated Risk in New Jersey (SECUR-NJ) and the New

Jersey Nonprofit Security Grant Pilot Program (NJ NSGPP). Both state grant programs, each

funded with $1 million, are currently active.

The SECUR-NJ was made available to eligible nonprofit organizations from regions of the

state that are not eligible for the federal NSGP program that has been in existence for over a

decade. OHSP observed an increase in threats against nonprofit organizations, particularly

those that are faith-based. Given this increase, many organizations within the (9) identified

counties remained vulnerable to attacks. This funding is specifically used to support physical

security enhancements for those organizations deemed to be at the greatest risk. Of the

(76) original application submissions, there are (24) nonprofit recipients who have been

awarded a maximum of $50,000. The Grants Management Bureau has awarded these

recipients and is currently monitoring grant management activities.

List of grantees below:



9

This is the first year for this grant program and there is no state funding appropriated to

administer this program in future years.

As for the NJ NSGPP, OHSP is currently in the Applications Phase of this state funded

program. This funding is specifically designed to support the expenses of security personnel

during times when an eligible nonprofit organization is deemed at the greatest risk of an

attack. Within this competitive grant program, an applicant may apply for a maximum of

$10,000. The application period is currently open and will remain so until May 4, 2018. The



10

program will run for a period of (12) months. The results of this grant program will be

compiled and analyzed throughout the grant period.

6. Pursuant to New Jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C. 6A:16-5.1), all school districts in

New Jersey are required to have a school safety and security plan that meets minimum State

requirements for both elementary and secondary public schools. Each plan must be

designed locally with the help of law enforcement, emergency management, public health

officials and all other key stakeholders. All plans must be reviewed and updated on an

annual basis. These plans are required to include procedures to respond to critical incidents

ranging from bomb threats, fires and gas leaks, to an active shooter situation.

On February 20, 2018 the Attorney General, joined by Governor Murphy, the New Jersey

Department of Homeland Security Director Jared Maples, acting Commissioner of Education

Lamont Repollet, acting Commissioner of Children and Families Christine Norbut Beyer,

State Senate President Steve Sweeney, and Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin, spoke at a

press conference geared toward school safety. The Attorney General noted that in areas

patrolled by the Division of State Police, troopers would be making regular, unannounced

stops at local schools to build relations with staff and students.

• Question: What is the Attorney General’s position on how our State can best

protect its students while in school, and the role envisioned for the Division of

State Police in that regard? Does the department have adequate funding to

support our school districts in maximizing school safety?

The threat of active shooters in schoolhouses has become too familiar across the country

and we are taking appropriate action in the Attorney General’s Office to combat it.

In March 2018, Attorney General Gurbir S. Grewal issued a statewide law enforcement

directive to clarify that when local law enforcement agencies receive tips about suspicious

activity related to terrorism or threatened acts of violence, including violence directed at

schools, they must immediately notify both their County Terrorism Coordinators and the

Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness (OHSP), which, in turn, shall immediately

share such reports with the FBI. The new directive updates and replaces Attorney General

Directive 2016-7. The 2016 directive focused more narrowly on “suspicious activity with a

possible nexus to terrorism” and required law enforcement to report such activity to OHSP

“within 24 hours.” The new directive issued by Attorney General Grewal first expands the

definition of suspicious activities to better reflect the current threat landscape to now

include “any and all threats of violence generally to any public location or mass gathering

area” and “threats of violence specifically to any school, workplace, or house of worship, or

other criminal activity related to terrorism.”



11

Second, the new directive mandates that law enforcement agencies make notifications

concerning such activity “immediately” – not within 24 hours – to both the Counterterrorism

Watch Section (“CT Watch”) of OHSP and their County Terrorism Coordinator, a position

maintained within each County Prosecutor’s office. Third, the new directive requires OHSP to

immediately share information it receives concerning suspicious activity with the FBI’s Joint

Terrorism Task Forces and all 21 County Terrorism Coordinators.

Through collaborative efforts by and between the New Jersey State Police, Office of

Homeland Security and Preparedness, and other partner agencies across the State, we are

committed to dedicating resources that will help prevent the next active shooter and to

implement preparedness efforts to mitigate a shooter’s effects. The New Jersey State Police

will assume a signature role in this effort.

NJSP Field Operations Troopers assigned to stations throughout the State have received

additional training and certifications and may be assigned to be school resource troopers for

nine regional high schools. The school resource troopers have the ability to immediately

respond to various threats, including active shooters, while providing instruction to students

on a variety of topics and lessons at the school administration’s request. The trooper’s

presence also acts as a visible deterrent effect, and also bolsters public and community trust

in law enforcement. NJSP has also encouraged all enlisted members to visit schools where

NJSP is the sole provider of law enforcement services. These visits, designed to be

unannounced, take place while the member is traversing the State during the course of their

day or en-route to and from their primary work assignment. It is important to note,

however, that NJSP provides primary law enforcement services only in a limited number of

municipalities. Although areas where NJSP provides primary police services include 117

individual schools, the vast majority of school security efforts will fall on local municipalities

to implement.

With that in mind, NJSP has also developed partnerships with public and private entities so

to prevent, protect, and respond to threats that specifically target our schools. To better

serve these partnerships, NJSP re-launched its School Safety & Outreach Unit within the

Recruiting & Employee Development Bureau, and that Unit is principally responsible for

school safety and community outreach programs. The Unit has established a partnership

with the Department of Education’s Office of School Preparedness and Emergency Planning,

where the School Safety & Outreach Unit members have participated and supported school

safety and security planning efforts, including “Unannounced Visits / Drills”, instructing in

anti-bullying and anti-violence programs, and instructing in drug prevention programs (such

as, Law Enforcement Against Drugs – L.E.A.D.).

These unannounced visits provide technical assistance and support to schools in their

preparedness efforts and share best practices from other districts. The evaluation of the drill

is informational and an opportunity for collegial collaboration. In presenting and instructing



12

anti-bullying, anti-violence, and drug prevention programs, NJSP has the opportunity to

address several concerns at once. One clear benefit is to establish relationships and trust

between the communities and schools with law enforcement officials. And these programs

provide NJSP with the opportunity to display a visible deterrence for those who may pose a

threat or intend to inflict harm on our communities and in our schools. Lastly, having

troopers instruct in the L.E.A.D. program, proves that NJSP is committed to protecting our

youth and communities from the proliferation of drugs, drug related crimes, peer to

peer/cyber bullying, and violence.

NJSP has also partnered with the OHSP to develop “Active Shooter Exercises,” which test an

agency’s ability to respond effectively and efficiently to active shooter threats within

communities and schools. NJSP and OHSP anticipate updating the current active shooter

tactics to adopt new protocols and response techniques.

NJSP’s efforts to increase security at schools are accomplished by leveraging the resources

already available—Troopers providing law enforcement services in a particular area—and

through increased collaboration with state and local partner agencies.

7. The FY 2019 Governor’s Recommended Budget reflects an increase in cyber incident

reports received through Public-Private Partnerships. Budget evaluation data indicates 124

actual reports were received in FY 2017 and an anticipated 250 reports in both FY 2018 and

FY 2019 (page D-251).

Cyber-attacks on companies which retain personal information have become increasingly

common. Under section 12 of P.L.2005, c.226 (C.56:8-163), a business is required to disclose

to its New Jersey customers a breach of security of records that include personal

information. In advance of this disclosure, a business is required to report the breach to the

Division of State Police, which may refer the handling or investigation of the breach to other

appropriate law enforcement entities. The law specifically provides that the “disclosure to a

customer shall be made in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable

delay,” but does not identify a specific amount of time in which a report is to be made.

• Question: Please comment on the length of time businesses are taking to

report security breaches to the Division of State Police after discovery. Is there

evidence that undue delays have occurred that resulted in harm to customers?

Should the law be revised to set a specific reporting period that is more

protective of customers’ interests?

Although New Jersey’s data breach reporting law does not mandate a particular time period

for companies to report breaches, NJSP observes that most notifications are made within 90

days of the date that the incident was discovered. This time period includes the length of

time that it takes for reporting parties to confirm that a network incident involving the



13

compromise of personal information took place, whether the incident triggers data breach

notification under state law, determining an action plan to remedy the initial network

incident, making necessary internal notifications, and preparing to make arrangements to

offer services to protect the involved persons from Identity Theft and to safeguard the

victim's breached information.

This office supports a disclosure to an affected customer in the most expedient time possible

and without unreasonable delay.

• Question: How long did it take for Equifax, Uber, and other major

companies that uncovered a security breach to report it to the Division of State

Police? Has any report of a breach been made to the Division of State Police

that has (or appears to have) been delayed unreasonably? If so, what penalties,

if any, were imposed on the company?

Uber provided notification for a data breach on November 21, 2017. The notification

referenced that the data breach occurred between October 13, 2016 and November 15,

2016. This notification is currently under review. Equifax’s identified a data breach on July

29, 2017. They reported the data breach to the NJSP Cyber Crimes Unit on September 7,

2017, and included an update on October 12, 2017. This notification is currently under

review.

8. The Division of State Police (DSP) has many duties and missions to fulfill: forensic

services, air ambulance, marine and highway safety, homeland security, and general police

protection services, to name only a few.

The Division of State Police annually recruits to ensure adequate staffing to fulfill these

missions. The Governor’s Budget in Brief indicates the FY 2019 year will commence with

2,680 troopers and end with 2,760 troopers (page 16). It further notes that the budget will

provide support for the 159th recruit class. In response to an OLS discussion point during the

FY 2018 budget process, the department indicated the 159th class is projected to commence

January 2019 with 200 recruits and graduate June 2019 with an estimate 130 recruits.

Budget evaluation data (page D-255) confirms that this is still the plan for this recruit class.

A DSP media release stated that the 158th State Police Recruit Class commenced on January

29, 2018 with more than 200 recruits. The class is expected to graduate in June of 2018 with

an estimated 130 recruits, according to FY 2019 Budget evaluation data.

The department’s responses to the OLS 2018 discussion point questions indicated that there

were 74 troopers eligible to retire by the end of FY 2017, 61 eligible in FY 2018 and zero

eligible in FY 2019. Although these troopers are eligible to retire, they may delay their

retirement date past the year of eligibility.



14

• Question: Please provide an update on the 157th, 158th, and 159th recruit

classes. How many persons applied for each recruit class? How many qualified

applicants resigned their commission due to the lapse in time between applying

and the class commencing? Have the projected commencement and graduation

dates for the 158th and 159th recruit class been revised? What is the enrollment

target for each class? Were there sufficient applicants to fill the 158th recruit

class? When will the DSP recruit selection process begin for the 159th recruit

class? What were the minority and gender percentages of the three most recent

classes – the 156th, 157th, and 158th? Is the department satisfied that it is

improving the diversity of recruit class enrollees without reducing the aptitude

of the recruits? How has each of these DSP recruit classes contributed to the

minority membership of the DSP?

The 157th Class was part of the 156th Selection Process, which included the 156th and 157th

Recruit Classes. The 156th Selection Process resulted in a total of 2,434 eligible applicants, all

of whom passed both the physical qualification and written examinations. There were 143

applicants who withdrew from the selection process for various reasons. The State Police

does not maintain statistics on the reasons qualified applicants withdraw, resign, or fail to

respond to invitations to participate during the time between application and

commencement of the class.

The 156th Recruit Class graduated the Academy on January 29, 2016, with a total of 134

recruits. Of those, 33.58% (45) were minorities of all races, and 8% (11) were women. A total

of 66 Recruits, or 33% of the Class, resigned, were terminated, or otherwise separated from

the Class for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to: not being physically or

mentally prepared, personal reasons, financial hardship, medical separations, and dismissals.

The race/gender breakdown of the graduates of the 156th Recruit Class is as follows:

White: 89 (81 male/8 female)

Hispanic: 27 (24 male/3 female)

African American: 9

Asian: 3

Two or more races: 2

Race not reported: 4

For the 157th Recruit Class, 741 applicants were selected to undergo a comprehensive

background investigation, but only 570 agreed to participate. Of those, 202 applicants

attended Academy Awareness Weekend but only 191 applicants reported for the 157th

Recruit Class on January 9, 2017.

The Class graduated on June 23, 2017 with a total of 148 recruits. Of those, 42% (62) were

minorities of all races, and 2% (3) were women. A total of 43 Recruits, or 22.5% of the Class



15

resigned, were terminated, or otherwise separated from the Class for reasons similar to the

156th Recruit Class. The race/gender breakdown of the graduates of the 157th Recruit Class is

as follows:


Hawaiian Native: 2

Hispanic: 41

African American: 14 (13 male/1 female)

American Indian: 2

Two or more races: 1


The 158th Selection Process, from which the 158th, 159th, and possibly the 160th Classes will

be chosen, commenced on February 13, 2017. A total of 7,072 applicants were eligible to

participate in the physical qualification test (PQT). Only 57% (4,025) of the eligible applicants

participated in the PQT and of those, 3,043 (76%) passed and were eligible to take the

written exam. 2,728 applicants took the written exam, 2,003 (73%) passed. Of those, 703

applicants were invited to participate in the background investigation phase of the selection

process for the 158th Recruit Class. 118 applicants invited to participate failed to respond for

unknown reasons. 303 applicants passed the background investigation. After the medical

examination, 282 were eligible to enter the Academy for the 158th Recruit Class.

The 158th Recruit Class commenced on January 29, 2018 with 213 recruits. The Class will

graduate on July 13, 2018. The Class includes 42.72% (91) minorities of all races, and 10.8%

(23) women. The race/gender breakdown of the recruits entering the 158th Recruit Class is

as follows:


Hispanic: 54 (46 male/ 8 female)

African American: 21 (20 male/1 female)

Asian: 8

Two or more races: 5 (4 male/1 female)


The 159th Recruit Class is expected to commence in January 2019 and graduate in July 2019.

The target enrollment for the Class is 200 recruits. The background investigation process for

the 159th Recruit Class applicants is scheduled to commence on April 30, 2018.

While the State Police is generally pleased with the overall percentage of minorities in the

156th through 158th Recruit Classes, there remains much work to do to realize the goal of

having the State Police reflect the diversity of the citizens of New Jersey.



16

Overall, the percentage of minorities in the Division remains less than we would like,

currently at 21.36% without consideration of the recruits currently in the Academy. This is a

slight increase from the overall percentage of minorities in 2015, which stood at 20.4%,

before the inclusion of the graduates of the 156th Recruit Class. During this same time

period, the State Police saw significant attrition due to mandatory retirement. The State

Police will continue to take affirmative steps to increase diversity among its ranks while

ensuring the high standards of the Division and the Department.

• Question: Please provide a breakout of DSP staffing allocations, by division

and unit, and also indicate the number of civilian staff in each division or unit.

Please provide an update on the number of troopers eligible for retirement in

the next 10 years, per year. For the period between 2015 and 2019, please

indicate, by year, the number of troopers who were eligible to retire, the

number who actually retired, and the length of time that elapsed between

retirement eligibility and actual retirement for each retiree. How do past and

future retirements affect the minority ratios? Please provide a statistical

overview by gender and ethnicity within the DSP as of the close of FY 2017.

Please provide a gender breakdown, by rank, for the DSP.

Please refer to attachment D for DSP staffing allocations.

DSP 10 year retirement

eligibility Fiscal

Year Eligible to

retire Notes FY 2018 45 * FY 2019 0 ** FY 2020 164 FY 2021 70 FY 2022 0 ** FY 2023 101 FY 2024 130 FY 2025 0 ** FY 2026 152 FY 2027 200 FY 2028 77

*Projected remaining eligible as of 4/13/18 ** There were no graduating State Police Recruit classes that occurred 25 years prior.

The projected eligible enlisted to retire in these years, based on enrollment date, is zero.

This chart does not project eligible enlisted that may delay retirement.



17

DSP Enlisted staff eligibility

Fiscal

Year

Number of

Enlisted

Eligible for

Retirement

Fiscal Year

Eligible

Enlisted

Separations

Elapsed

Years

Between

Elig.and

Retirement

2015 237 96 2.1

2016 139 58 3.3

2017 74 33 4.5

2018 68 61 1.6

Analysis based on 25 years of Enlisted service.

FY 2018 eligible separations are as of 3/31/18.

Using the basis of 25 years of service time, in FY 2015 there were 237 Enlisted members

eligible for retirement. Of that number, there were 96 separations with an elapsed

timeframe of 2.1 years between eligibility and actual retirement.

For FY 2016, there were 139 Enlisted members eligible for retirement with 58 actual

separations. The elapsed timeframe was 3.3 years between eligibility and retirement.

For FY 2017, there were 74 Enlisted members eligible for retirement. Of that number, there

were 33 separations with an elapsed timeframe of 4.5 years between eligibility and

retirement.

In FY 2018, there are 68 Enlisted members eligible for retirement with 61 separations to date.

The elapsed timeframe is 1.6 years. Note: The above analysis does NOT include Enlisted

members who have retired with less than 25 years of service time.

In an effort to continue to increase the minority population within the DSP, the DSP has

recently placed more concentrated efforts on minority recruitment. It is expected that as the

DSP places a higher emphasis on minority recruitment and selection, the minority

graduation rate will ultimately increase.

Please refer to attachment E for breakdown of gender and ethnicity within the DSP as of the

close of FY 2017.

Question: Please provide the annual amount of overtime the DSP paid to staff,

separated by civilian and enlisted staff in fiscal years 2015-2017.



18

DSP Enlisted and Civilian Overtime History FY 2015-FY 2017

BFY Enlisted Civilian Total

2015 $21,616,620 $4,637,596 $26,254,216

2016 $21,757,804 $4,375,808 $26,133,613

2017 $26,590,506 $5,041,752 $31,632,258

9. On February 28, 2018, the Attorney General announced a new policy that would

make body and dashboard-mounted camera videos of police deadly force incidents subject

to public release, following a formal request, once the initial investigation of the incident is

substantially complete. It was cited that release would typically occur within 20 days of the

incident.

In FY 2016 the department commenced a $4 million statewide body worn camera (BWC)

initiative to fully equip all New Jersey State Police troopers in the field with the devices. A

grant program to provide funding for local police departments to acquire BWCs on a

voluntary basis was also instituted. To be eligible, a local applicant had to employ

permanent, regular police officers with a funding cap, per BWC, of the greater of actual costs

or $500.

In response to an OLS FY 2018 discussion point, the department reported that a total of 213

local, county, and campus police agencies received funding to purchase over 6,100 BWCs.

The department further noted that as of February 2017, approximately 30 local and campus

police departments have purchased BWCs without State funding offered through the Office

of the Attorney General.

According to recent reports, three stations of State troopers began wearing the devices, after

receiving federal funds provided to the DSP for the purchase of cameras for 1,575 officers.

• Question: To date, how many State troopers have been equipped with

BWC’s? If the DSP has not equipped all State troopers at this point, what are

the plans to equip the entire force (about 2,600)? Please explain the benefits to

the DSP of this new technology and please observe any disadvantages. Has

there been any change in the requirements regarding records retention or

secure disposal of digital images and records? How has camera footage

affected internal discipline of State troopers? Has camera footage had any

impact on success in prosecuting criminal cases? To what extent has camera

footage led to exoneration of individuals accused of criminal behavior?



19

There are currently 1,027 State Troopers who are trained in the use of and who wear the

BWC while performing those duty functions involving contact with the general public.

NJSP will maintain a supply of BWCs at specified locations for the use of its members in

appropriate job functions. This equipment will remain in the possession of NJSP, which will

facilitate quality control for maintenance and prevent unintentional recordings on off duty

time.

NJSP has deployed BWC units to the Northern, Central and Southern New Jersey Troops.

These troops provide police services to interstate roadways, the Atlantic City Expressway,

other State highways, and municipalities for which NJSP provides police services. Troopers

that patrol the Turnpike and Garden State Parkway expect to train and outfit personnel with

BWCs this year.

The Department is not yet able to provide data collection and analysis that demonstrates the

impact of the use of BWCs on internal discipline, prosecutions, exonerations or other

applications, as BWCs have been utilized by DSP for a relatively short time period. Positive

benefits that have been observed in other police departments that have deployed BWC’s are

anticipated.

These benefits include the following: the reduction of Use of Force situations (Orlando, FL,

among others, reports a 75% reduction); increased public confidence in police encounters

and assurance of appropriate interactions as footage may be available to explain various

encounters; and the reduction of citizen complaints and the availability of probative,

objection evidence enabling effective handling of criminal acts and evaluation and resolution

of citizen complaints The current record retention policy that applies to in-car video footage

applies to the BWCs.

The BWC footage has allowed Internal Affairs investigators increased insight in certain

investigations. The BWC has made it possible for a more thorough review of complaints

made against troopers. As the use of this technology is relatively new, DSP has not had the

opportunity for sufficient data collection and analysis to evaluate the efficacy of the impact

of this additional evidence. Reports from other large departments appear very promising in

this regard.

DSP has not had the opportunity for sufficient data collection and analysis to determine if

camera footage has had an impact on success in prosecuting criminal cases. A study in

Phoenix AZ and the Essex (UK) has revealed enhanced outcomes in Domestic Violence Cases.

Those venues report increases in charges filed, guilty pleas and guilty verdicts at trial. DSP

has not determined the impact BWC footage may have with respect to the exoneration of

individuals accused of criminal behavior.



20

10a. New Jersey State Police were sent to Washington, D.C. in 2017 to assist local police

with security for the inauguration of the President. New reports indicated that at least 57

troopers were scheduled to support the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department

and that the State would be reimbursed for travel and salary costs.

• Question: Please describe in detail the support provided by the Department

of Law and Public Safety for the inauguration of President Trump. How many

members of the Division of State Police, including troopers, were deployed?

What were the dates of the deployments? What was the cost of this mission to

the State of New Jersey? If reimbursement was received, how much was

received and from whom?

The Metropolitan D.C. Police Department requested assistance from NJSP to provide a law

enforcement contingent of state troopers to support security functions at the 2017

Presidential Inauguration in Washington D.C. The NJSP deployed a 57-member law

enforcement task force to support this request:

Schedule of Events:

Monday, January 16, 2017 and Tuesday January 17, 2017:

The contingent completed administrative and logistical activities in preparation for the

deployment.

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

This task force departed for Washington D.C. via bus transportation from New Jersey.

Thursday, January 19, 2017

The task force attended a mandatory multi-agency briefing where NJSP troopers were all

sworn and deputized to provide law enforcement services in Washington, D.C.

Friday, January 20, 2017

The NJSP contingent was positioned along the Parade Route and worked an 18-hour

operational period.

Saturday, January 21, 2017

The task force demobilized and returned to New Jersey via bus.

Reimbursements for actual costs:

1. Inauguration reimbursement was $154,188.

2. Security grant reimbursement $281,821.



21

10b. During the Fall of 2017, hurricanes Maria and Irma devastated Puerto Rico, a U.S.

island territory. In the aftermath of the storms, the New Jersey State Police sent members

starting on September 29, 2017 and ending in December to San Juan, Puerto Rico, to lend

support to help with post-hurricane recovery.

Based on New Jersey news reports, the officers directed traffic, delivered food and water,

and checked on the welfare of people on the island. It was reported that New Jersey State

Police took 19 cruisers to use while on the island. It was further reported that the vehicles

were left to support the local police departments.

• Question: Please describe in detail the support provided by the Department

of Law and Public Safety to Puerto Rico. How many members of the Division of

State Police, including troopers, were deployed? What were the dates of the

deployments? What was the cost of this mission to the State of New Jersey? If

reimbursement was received, how much was received and from whom? If

vehicles were transported to the island and not returned back to New Jersey,

what is the cost of the loss to the State? As there still appears a need for

support in Puerto Rico, will members of the State Police be deploying again on

this mission?

The Division of State Police led a law enforcement task force deployment to Puerto Rico to

assist with security and traffic posts in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria. 352 personnel from

over 50 NJ agencies deployed over the course of 9 weeks in support of this mission.

After an advance team deployed to determine the needs of the territory, the remaining

personnel deployed in four waves (two weeks long each) of approximately 98 people per

wave. Personnel worked directly with Puerto Rico Police to establish strategic security and

traffic posts. 205 State Police members, including troopers, were deployed from September

29, 2017 through December 2, 2017, at an estimated cost to the State of New Jersey of $6

million.

Puerto Rico has yet to reimburse the State for these deployments. The value of State Police

vehicles transported to the island and not returned to New Jersey is $38,354. Finally, while

there is the potential for future Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC)

requests from Puerto Rico, there are no current EMAC requests to date for State Police

personnel.

10c. Bedminster, N.J., the Somerset County municipality where President Trump has spent

weekends at his golf course, has received a designation by the Secret Service so it may be

reimbursed by the federal government for security costs. The federal government has made

$41 million available to cover costs incurred between the President’s January 20, 2017

inauguration and October 1, 2017. The President’s residences in New York and Florida have



22

similar designations. A separate $20 million fund was made available for the period between

the election and inauguration.

Bedminster, about 40 miles from New York City with roughly 9,000 residents, has a 16-

member police force. It reportedly spent about $9,000 in police overtime combined for two

trips by President Trump in May and June, according to information provided to the

Associated Press in response to a public records request.

• Question: Please describe in detail any support provided by the Department

of Law and Public Safety related to the President’s presence in New Jersey.

What was the cost of these missions, if any, to the State? If reimbursement was

received, how much was received and from whom?

The New Jersey State Police (NJSP) has been identified as the lead law enforcement agency

to assist the United States Secret Service (USSS) with all movements of the President of the

United States that take place within the State of New Jersey. This includes, and is not limited

to, motorcade operations, physical posts along the motorcade route, Command Post

operations and Special Operations assets (Aviation & TEAMS).

It is anticipated that the President will be visiting the State throughout the spring and

summer months of 2018 and will utilize various means of transportation and routes for each

visit. Details on these visits are security sensitive. For instance, there are a number of

variables that the President can utilize for each visit including multiple route options,

numerous airport preferences and varying lengths of motorcade operations. While this

response is focused on capturing the accrued primary operating costs for each visit, it should

be noted that this is strictly for Operations and does not take into account the hours of

planning for each event.

Currently, the New Jersey State Police will be responsible for all motorcade movements as

well as security along the motorcade route with the assistance of numerous County and

Local allied partners. County assets will assist the USSS with site security at the Presidential

residence at Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster and the local departments will assist

with intermittent road closures and traffic posts while the President is within the venue.

As future Presidential visits occur, it is anticipated that the State Police’s responsibilities may

increase for planning and operational needs. For the purpose of this response, NJSP staffing

numbers are based upon each Incident Action Plan (IAP) per visit. The IAP serves as a

complete operational plan including specific staffing numbers and post delineation. Fiscal

calculations are strictly for State Police assets and do not include involvement by federal,

county, or local agencies.



23

Projected expenses do not take into account ancillary items including the use of tactical

equipment (e.g., helicopters, vessels, etc.). As a point of reference, the hourly cost for a

helicopter is $2,487.42.

The following limitations could not be taken into account for this response due to unknown

variables that will evolve as the planning and operational process progresses:

Operational periods have been determined but are subject to change. These operational

periods are addressed after each visit.

Personnel assignments have not been broken down by specific units, e.g., canine, bomb,

etc. that will be utilized for each movement. Core, bulk numbers have been utilized.

Planning hours to date have not been factored into any total calculations.

Inclusion of federal, county, and local assets has not been determined at the identified

sites.

2017 PRESIDENTIAL VISITS

NJ State Police Costs

Detail date Vehicle cost Straight Time Overtime Total

5/4/2017 $1,620.48 $15,908.32 $23,864.00 $41,392.80

5/7/2017 $1,569.84 $15,908.32 $23,864.00 $41,342.16

6/9/2017 $2,126.88 $19,676.08 $29,516.00 $51,318.96

6/11/2017 $1,316.64 $12,977.84 $19,468.00 $33,762.48

11. The Executive Protection Unit (EPU) is a division within the State Governmental

Security Bureau of the Special Operations Section of the Division of State Police. According

to the State website, the EPU specializes in providing security for the state’s Chief Executive

and Attorney General. Other responsibilities include residential security at the Governor’s

Mansion (Drumthwacket) and the Governor’s private home as well as providing security for

visiting dignitaries. The size of the unit is based on the number of New Jersey State officials

which have requested protection.

As set forth in the July 27, 2007 Executive Protection Panel Report, “the primary mission of `

the director of the Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness.” OLS assumes that the Lt.

Governor also receives an EPU detail.



24

The report notes further that former Governor’s received EPU details: “…the Unit (EPU) has

provided protection details for foreign and domestic dignitaries who are visiting the State

and to former governors.” Asbury Press reporter Bob Jordan cited in a recent article that

“New Jersey ex-governors are allowed one state trooper to accompany them for six months

after they leave office.”

• Question: Please provide the annual State budget allocated specifically for

the Division of State Police Executive Protection Unit from 2005 to 2017, by

year. Please explain if the EPU receives any reimbursement of costs and under

what circumstances. Are costs reimbursed by a non-governmental entity if

travel was completed for non-State related purposes or was for political

purposes?

The Office of Executive Protection does not have an annual budget allocated specifically for

the unit. Costs are reimbursed irrespective of whether the travel is considered to be for non-

state or state purpose, as the Governor is required to be protected at all times regardless of

the purpose of the travel.

• Question: Please confirm if former Governors receive EPU details after

leaving office. If so, what was the estimated duration of EPU details after

leaving office? What is the estimated cost of EPU details after leaving office?

How is the expense for EPU details allocated after a Governor completes a term

of office, or vacates the office prior to the expiration of a term?

Former Governors are allowed one Trooper per day, 7 days a week for up to 6 months after

leaving office. These expenses are paid directly out of state funding. However, details are

determined on an individual basis or as the Governor requests. Some security details may

last the duration, and others do not require the detail.

12a. As of July 1, 2016, the operations of the SouthSTAR MedEvac ceased after 28 years of

service and an estimated 25,000 missions. NorthSTAR MedEvac continues to provide service.

Since 1988, the State funded the air medical services team for trauma situations at little to

no cost to those requiring the service. The Department of Health provides medical staffing

through contracts with hospitals and the Division of State Police maintains the helicopters

and provides the pilots.

A $3 surcharge continues to be imposed on motor vehicle registrations, which are statutorily

dedicated to MedEvac services and equipment pursuant to section 1 of P.L.1992, c.87

(C.39:3-8.2). Budget language allows this funding to also be used for the State Police

general aviation program and for other State Police purposes unrelated to MedEvac services.



25

• Question: Please provide a spending plan for MedEvac services in FY 2018

and FY 2019, showing the allocation of resources in the New Jersey Emergency

Medical Service Helicopter Response Program Fund in each fiscal year between

the Department of Health and the Division of State Police. Also, please provide

a spending plan for resources from the fund allocated to the State Police

general aviation program. What specific activities and functions comprise the

general aviation program in the current fiscal year and in FY 2019?

The projected spending plan for MedEvac services for FY 2018 and FY 2019 is as follows:

Medevac FY 2018 FY 2019*

DSP - Aviation $18.1m $11m

DOH $2.5m $2.5m

Total $20.6m $13.5m

*Final helicopter line of credit payment for $8.1 million made in FY18.

The projected spending plan for the Division of State Police Aviation program is below:

DSP Medevac FY 2018 FY 2019

Salary, Cash in lieu and fringe $4.3m $4.9m

Materials and Supplies $1.3m $1.3m

Services other than Personal $940k $940k

Maintenance and Fixed Charges $3.5m $3.9m

Helicopter Line of Credit payment $8.1m $0

Total: $18.1m $11m

The Aviation Bureau of the section is mandated by statute to provide emergency medical

evacuations (Medevac) transportation of seriously injured victims of motor vehicle, industrial,

and recreational accidents, etc. to trauma centers. It also provides air support for the various

commands within the Division of State Police, as well as other law enforcement agencies that

request assistance, in accomplishing numerous police and Homeland Security activities.

The Aviation Bureau is responsible to maintain its fleet of aircraft in compliance with all

applicable Federal Aviation regulations, airworthiness directives, manufacturer's service

bulletins, and Aviation Maintenance Manual procedures, and ensure that all Aviation Bureau

maintenance technicians are properly trained and certified to maintain bureau aircraft in an

airworthy condition at all times. The Aviation Bureau trains its pilots through the Aviation

Bureau’s Operations Manual. In addition, all pilots meet F.A.A. recency of experience

requirements with regard to night operation, instrument currency, and flight reviews.



26

12b. In response to an OLS FY 2018 discussion point, the department indicated that the

New Jersey State Police Aviation Bureau manages and operates a fleet of eight helicopters:

Five Agusta AW139s, two Bell 206 LongRangers, and one OH-58 helicopter.

Evaluation data in the FY 2019 Governor’s budget (p. D-254) reports the number of State

Police Aviation Bureau inter-hospital and on-scene pickup flights. The total of these flights

is projected to remain stable at 260 in FY 2019.

• Question: What is the current size of the Division of State Police helicopter

fleet? What is the age of each helicopter? Are the payments for the helicopter

fleet complete? If not, please provide a payment plan. How many flights

occurred in FY 2017 and how many are projected to occur in FY 2018 and FY

2019, respectively? In each year what proportion of those flights are MedEvac

flights and general aviation flights, respectively? Please provide the number of

days in FY 2017 and thus far in FY 2018 that each aircraft in the fleet was

grounded for maintenance and repair. What was the cost of fleet maintenance

in FY 2017? What is the estimated annual FY 2018 and FY 2019 maintenance

cost? What is the average cost per flight?

The New Jersey State Police Aviation Bureau manages and operates a fleet of eight (8)

helicopters:

Five (5) Agusta AW139s,

Two (2) Bell 206 LongRangers, and

One (1) OH-58 Military Surplus helicopter (similar to the Bell 206 JetRanger)

The age of each helicopter is as follows:

Tail Number Type Registration

Year

N1NJ AW139 2011

N3NJ AW139 2012

N5NJ AW139 2011

N7NJ AW139 2011

N9NJ AW139 2011

N2NJ Bell 206L3 1985

N4NJ* OH–58A 1970

N6NJ Bell 206L4 1995



27

* N4NJ is a military surplus aircraft. It must be operated under ‘Public Use’ guidelines as

prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Department of Defense

(DoD). It has no resale value and must be returned to the DoD if we choose not to maintain

and/or operate it.

The line of credit payments for the helicopter fleet were completed in FY18.

Fiscal Year Missions / Flights

FY 2017 Actual 2,370 missions

FY 2018 YTD / Projected 2,100 missions

FY 2019 Projected 2,500 missions

Total missions/flights will reflect differently from specific categories as numerous details are

usually completed during a mission/flight.

Estimated # of days an aircraft is grounded for maintenance or repairs

Fiscal Year AW139s Bell 206s OH-58

1NJ 3NJ 5NJ 7NJ 9NJ 2NJ 6NJ 4NJ

FY 17 40 22 90 45 60 50 71 70

FY18 YTD 68 75 86 140 25 25 92 30

Fiscal Year

Aircraft Maintenance

Costs

FY17 Actual $3.1 million

FY18 Projected $3.1 million

FY19 Projected $3.5 million

The average cost per flight hour for the AW139s is $2,500 and $500 per flight hour for the

Bell aircraft.

13. The department’s responses to FY 2018 OLS discussion points indicated that the

Division of State Police (DSP) had 2,485 vehicles within their fleet. In FY 2018 it was

anticipated that 300 vehicles would be purchased to offset the retirement of a similar

number of vehicles.



28

Language in the FY 2019 Governor’s budget (p. D-259) continues to provide funds from the

“New Jersey Emergency Medical Service Helicopter Response Act” (C.39:3-8.2), not to exceed

$8.105 million for State Police vehicles.

• Question: How many vehicles, marked and unmarked, make up the Division

of State Police fleet. Please explain the DSP policy for assignment of vehicles to

enlisted members and civilian staff. Please explain the guidelines for use of a

State Police vehicle, including marked and unmarked vehicles, for commutation

purposes. How does the DSP determine when to retire a vehicle? How many

vehicles were retired annually from FY 2012 to FY 2017, by year? What is the

process to retire a vehicle from the fleet? How many State Police vehicles will

be purchased in FY 2019? How many are expected to be retired?

The NJSP currently has 2,510 vehicles in its fleet. Of those, 674 are marked, 1,573 are

unmarked, and 263 are undercover. DSP vehicles are officially assigned to sections and

troops, not to individuals. The emergency nature of State Police operations requires

personnel to be available for duty at all times and therefore vehicles are assigned as

appropriate to meet this requirement. Civilian use of vehicles is permitted based on the

individual’s functional duties.

As indicated above, vehicles are utilized by enlisted members predicated by the fact that

they are required to be available for duty at all times. Accordingly, the concept of

commutation is not applicable to the use of NJSP vehicles, as enlisted members are required

by the nature of their employment to be available 24/7 to respond to calls for duty.

Members operate police certified vehicles with emergency lighting and communication.

They provide backup protection for station troopers on stops, provide safety to disabled

vehicles if first on site, and may initiate a law enforcement stop.

Replacement is based on a worst/first basis, and vehicles are replaced once new vehicles are

received. The process to retire a vehicle involves removing all police equipment and

markings from the vehicles and sending them to the Department of Treasury, Purchase and

Property Distribution Center for Auctioning.

During 2012 – 2017, State Police retired approximately 1500 vehicles from the fleet.

The FY 2019 preliminary vehicle purchase plan includes the purchase of approximately 300

vehicles, while retiring a similar number of vehicles.

14a. There is a growing concern about the erosion of trust between law enforcement

officers and agencies and the communities they serve. A recent Asbury Park Press article

“Protecting the Shield” was released early this year as an investigative series examining the

price the public pays when “bad cops” remain on local police forces.



29

Governor Murphy’s Law and Justice Transition Advisory Committee report (January 1, 2018)

noted that the Department of Law and Public Safety instituted a community policing award

program to encourage community policing efforts and share best practices. The transition

report also observed that:

…public safety requires strong relationships of mutual trust

between police and the communities they serve. Policing is

effective only when community members work with the police

to address the problems of crime in their neighborhoods.

Police must see themselves as a part of the community they

serve, and local government officials and members of the

community must recognize their own responsibility to

collaborate with police to address crime and its underlying

causes.

The transition report recommended the establishment by the Attorney General of an “Office

of Community Policing” to implement the following actions to benefit the residents of New

Jersey to build trust between the community and law enforcement:

Evaluate ways to promote the diversity of law

enforcement so that the staffs of police agencies reflect the

composition of the communities they protect;

Assess existing training rules and requirements

(including Attorney General Directive 2016-5) and make

recommendations to improve and enhance training statewide,

including on implicit bias, cultural awareness, mental health,

and individuals with autism and disabilities;

Review existing policies on matters such as body

cameras and use of force;

Examine how actions of police officers are reviewed

and evaluate whether there should be statewide consistency

regarding fairness and transparency;

Work with local police departments and other

government agencies to recognize that some behavioral

problems, such as disorderly conduct and loitering, can better

be handled through social services rather than through the

criminal justice system; and

Encourage all police departments to embrace the

principles of community policing, and serve as a resource for

those departments to share best practices.



30

To date, Attorney General Grewal has issued two directives that focused on improving

relations between the community and law enforcement agencies by ensuring that law

enforcement provides the highest level of service to the public, and that all officers have the

physical and mental capacity to perform their duties safely and effectively.

Attorney General Directive 2018-2 institutes the required drug testing of law enforcement

officers in New Jersey for illegal drug use. Although a drug testing policy was established in

1986 and the policy has been reviewed and updated regularly over the years since its

issuance, the policy has encouraged, but not required, compliance. To ensure that all law

enforcement agencies are employing random drug testing consistently, the directive

establishes a uniform policy requiring that all law enforcement agencies Statewide conduct

mandatory random drug testing of all sworn officers.

Attorney General Directive 2018-3 institutes an Early Warning System (EWS) to detect

patterns and trends in police conduct before the conduct escalates. The directive asserts

that “an effective EWS will assist a law enforcement agency in identifying and remediating

problematic officer conduct that poses a potential risk to the public, to the agency, and to

the officer.”

• Question: Will the Attorney General implement the transition report

recommendations to establish an Office of Community Policing? Does the

Attorney General agree that the department should promote diversity among

all New Jersey law enforcement agencies? How will the department assist in

the creating of advancement steps for women and persons of color who may

have been marginalized in the typically male, caucasian law enforcement field?

Please elaborate on the plans to ensure Statewide training of law enforcement

officers in implicit bias and cultural awareness, as well as how to interact with

and recognize individuals with mental health, autism, and other disabilities.

Please elaborate on any additional initiatives, including AG Directives 2018-2

and 2018-3, that this administration will implement, to examine law

enforcement officers who have a history as “bad actors” to ensure Statewide

consistency regarding fairness and transparency? What funds are anticipated

to be allocated toward these initiatives in FY 2018 and FY 2019?

OAG/LPS COMMITMENT TO DIVERSITY

The people of New Jersey will be better served if our law enforcement agencies reflect and

value the diversity of our communities. This is certainly true for all law enforcement,

including those who are under direct supervision of the Office of the Attorney General.

Promoting diversity throughout the State Police and within our prosecutors and sworn law

enforcement officers within the Division of Criminal Justice is one of the top priorities of the

Office of the Attorney General. We are committed to a heightened focus on developing the



31

pipeline of highly qualified applicants for all roles within the Department from all

backgrounds as well as implementing thoughtful policies that encourage diversity in the

hiring, retention and promotion of our personnel.

To that end, we are further strengthening our commitment to diversity and inclusion (D&I)

throughout the Department. Notably, the Department has a Chief Diversity Officer (CDO) in

place that is responsible for developing and overseeing the implementation of policies and

practices that recognize, respect and leverage the diversity of the agency’s workforce and

the community it serves. The CDO provides leadership, expertise and vision for the

Department’s diversity and inclusion programs and initiatives, and serves in a collaborative

and coordinating role with all of the Divisions – including the Division of State Police and the

Division of Criminal Justice. As a result of this dedicated resource and focus, a number of

training initiatives have been developed and have been deployed within our law

enforcement community. Our current Department-wide D&I initiatives include two training

programs of particular note, given their impact on law enforcement.

Diversity & Inclusion Training

A mandatory Department-wide employee training program has been developed and was

launched in 2017, comprised of a 3-hour session on basic principles of diversity and

inclusion. To date, approximately 1,000 of the Department’s employees have received this

training. Personnel within the Division of Criminal Justice – including prosecutors, detectives

and investigators – have been among the first wave of employees to be trained.

Implicit Bias Training

In recent years, law enforcement agencies across the country have integrated implicit bias

education into their training programs. These trainings are particularly useful for prosecutors

and law enforcement officers, since they reinforce skills that so many of our investigators

and attorneys already possess—including an ability to look past extraneous information and

a willingness to question one’s core assumptions. The Department’s D&I team has

developed a one-hour training on the subject of Implicit Bias – unconscious associations that

influence decision-making and behavior, which has already been delivered to select groups

within the Department, including to approximately 500 enlisted members of the State Police

who were selected to perform the background investigations required for all candidates for

the State Police Academy, as well as members of the 20 Candidate Review Boards, whose

responsibility it was to scrutinize the candidates’ application packages and conduct

interviews with the candidates. Additionally, this Implicit Bias training has been delivered to

certain managers and supervisors within the Division of Criminal Justice, including

prosecutors and sworn officers. Going forward, our goal is that all NJSP law enforcement

officers, all prosecutors employed by the Division of Criminal Justice and our 21 County

Prosecutors, and all members of the Attorney General’s executive leadership team receive

implicit bias training.



32

Employee Resource Groups

The Department has recently launched an effort to establish and support Employee

Resource Groups (“ERGs”) – voluntary and employee-led groups that form around shared

interests, characteristics or a common background or bond. The Department is creating its

ERG program to help connect employees, promote a culture of inclusion, awareness and

respect in the workplace, and support personal and professional development. ERGs have

formed in connection with the following groups: Asian, Black, Latina, LGBTQIA and Women.

Although in their early organizational stages, these groups have already had an impact. The

Black ERG held a Black History Month program in February 2018; the Women’s ERG held a

Women’s History Month event in March 2018 and is planning a panel discussion on “Women

in Law Enforcement” for May 2018, and the Asian ERG is planning a joint program with the

Administrative Office of the Courts for Asian Pacific Islander Heritage Month in May.

Law Enforcement Training

The Department mandates certain training that is specifically directed to law enforcement as

discussed below.

CLEAR Institute

In October 2016, the Office of the Attorney General established a continuing education

institute to serve as the centerpiece of a new system of continuing education for New Jersey

law enforcement officers. The Community-Law Enforcement Affirmative Relations (CLEAR)

Continuing Education Institute, was established under Attorney General Law Enforcement

Directive No. 2016-5 (see, Appendix A ), to provide enhanced training in critical areas such

as cultural awareness, community policing, and de-escalating encounters before deadly

force is needed. The CLEAR Institute – which promotes the development of new training

courses and expands access to the best existing courses – is one of the ongoing efforts by

the Attorney General’s Office to promote trust between police and the community. The

CLEAR Institute’s mission includes, without limitation, identifying or developing cultural

diversity training course materials as required by New Jersey law. (N.J.S.A. 52:17B-77-13, see,

Appendix B).

Under Directive 2016-5, all law enforcement officers in New Jersey were required to

complete five credit hours of qualifying continuing education by Dec. 1, 2017, and are

required to complete at least three credit hours of qualifying training during each year

thereafter. A three-hour course entitled Cultural Diversity, De-Escalation and Bias Reporting

has been developed and all law enforcements officers are required to complete it by the

end of 2018 (See Appendix C for summary of the curriculum for this course).



33

State Police – Mandatory Training

All enlisted members of the Division of State Police are required to complete a number of

mandatory in-service trainings as administered by the New Jersey State Police Academy (the

“Academy”). The following topics are among those requiring mandatory annual training:

Bias based Policing; Mental Illness; Use of Force; Domestic Violence. Additionally, training

received by all recruits in the Academy includes topics related to diversity and inclusion.

COMMUNITY POLICING

The strengthening of police-community relations in New Jersey is a top priority for the

Attorney General. We know that divides exist in some instances between law enforcement

and the communities they serve. In certain cases, these divides have been created by

misunderstandings rooted in past events, and in other cases, they are based on

misperceptions about law enforcement. The Attorney General’s executive staff, the Division

of Criminal Justice and the New Jersey State Police is all engaged in identifying ways to

strengthen police-community relations. We will undertake a review to determine whether

establishing an actual Office of Community Policing further achieves these goals. A number

of new and existing initiatives are in effect to cultivate awareness and understanding and

bridge these divides.

21/21 Project

Attorney General Grewal recently announced a new initiative: the 21-County, 21st Century

Community Policing Project, or the “21/21 Project.” It is designed to promote stronger

police-community relations by bringing law enforcement and community stakeholders

together in every county, at a minimum four times each year, for town hall meetings,

roundtable discussions and other outreach events addressing vital issues of mutual concern.

Under the new initiative, each county prosecutor will be responsible for organizing and

hosting a public meeting with community leaders once a quarter. Although the meetings

will be open to the public, the county prosecutors will be asked to extend invitations to a

broad range of stakeholders and local community leaders. Each quarter, the meetings will

focus on specific issues relevant to both law enforcement and the broader community:

Spring 2018 (March-May) – Investigations of Officer-Involved Shootings

Summer 2018 (June-August) – Opioids

Fall 2018 (September-November) – Immigration Enforcement

Winter 2018-19 (December-February) – Bias Crimes



34

The Attorney General will be attending at least one meeting in each of the 21 counties,

averaging five to six meetings per quarter, and will invite elected and community leaders to

join him.

Safe Stop Initiative

In addition to the various steps taken by the Office of the Attorney General that are directed

at law enforcement, the “Safe Stop” initiative takes the next step by providing information

for the general public about what to do, and what not to do, during a traffic stop, to ensure

that all stops are safe and fair. The Safe Stop Initiative is a two-pronged approach to

improve interactions between citizens and law enforcement officers during traffic stops that

involves training for law enforcement and education for the community. Featuring a public

service announcement by Detective Kim Nelson Edwards of the Montclair Police

Department, the Safe Stop page of the OAG website (accessible at

http://nj.gov/oag/safestopnj/) also includes celebrity endorsements from Shaquille O’Neal

and Jessie Armstead and video messages from our partners from throughout New Jersey.

OAG Community Committees

OAG regularly seeks the input and perspectives of our invaluable community partners. Our

Division of Criminal Justice regularly consults a Law Enforcement/Community Advisory

Committee, seeking and receiving invaluable assistance on issues such as body worn

cameras, shooting response and cultural competency in law enforcement training. The

Attorney General and members of the senior staff conducted meetings throughout the year

with the Muslim Outreach Committee and participated in discussions with the Interfaith

Advisory Council convened by the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and

Preparedness.

Recent Attorney General Directives

Attorney General Directive No. 2018-2: Random Drug Testing, establishes a uniform policy

requiring all law enforcement agencies to conduct mandatory random drug testing of all

sworn officers. Officers who test positive for drug use must be suspended immediately from

all duties pending termination of employment.

Attorney General Directive No. 2018-3: Early Warning Systems, establishes a uniform policy

requiring all law enforcement agencies to establish early warning systems to detect

problematic patterns in police conduct before that conduct escalates. The systems are

designed to identify officers at risk for harmful behavior and mandate remedial programs.

Early warning systems are intended to increase public safety and public confidence while

allowing for early intervention for law enforcement officers. The systems are designed to

monitor officer conduct using objective measures that indicate a potentially escalating risk

of harm to the public, the agency, and/or the officer. The Directive mandates the adoption of

http://nj.gov/oag/safestopnj/



35

certain performance indicators, but individual agencies may adopt additional performance

indicators tailored to that agency and their community.

List of AG Directives:

Additional relevant Directives previously issued by the Attorney General include:

AG Directive 2018-1

Law Enforcement Directive concerning Public Release of Video Recordings

Depicting Police Deadly Force Incidents. Instructs that, in any case involving police

use of deadly force as defined in Attorney General Directive 2006-5, law enforcement

agencies presumptively will make available, upon formal request by the media or

other public requestor, video footage captured by body-worn cameras and patrol

vehicle dashboard-mounted cameras once the initial investigation of the use-of-

force incident is substantially complete.

http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/directives/ag-directive-2018-1.pdf

AG Directive 2018-2

Statewide Mandatory Random Drug Testing. Directing all state, county and

municipal law enforcement agencies to adopt and/or revise their existing drug

testing policies with regard to random drug testing, which shall be conducted at least

once in the current calendar year and at least twice in each subsequent year for at

least 10 percent of the total number of sworn officers within an agency.


AG Directive 2018-3

Statewide mandatory early warning system (EWS). Directing all law enforcement

and prosecuting agencies operating under the laws of the State to adopt and/or

revise their existing EWS policies, and mandating the inclusion of the following

performance indicators:

1. Internal affairs complaints against the officer, whether initiated by another officer

or by a member of the public;

2. Civil actions filed against the officer;

3. Criminal investigations of or criminal complaints against the officer;

4. Any use of force by the officer that is formally determined or adjudicated (for

example, by internal affairs or a grand jury) to have been excessive, unjustified, or

unreasonable;

5. Domestic violence investigations in which the officer is an alleged subject;

6. An arrest of the officer, including on a driving under the influence charge;

7. Sexual harassment claims against the officer;

8. Vehicular collisions involving the officer that are formally determined to have

been the fault of the officer;

9. A positive drug test by the officer;

10. Cases or arrests by the officer that are rejected or dismissed by a court;





36

11. Cases in which evidence obtained by an officer is suppressed by a court;

12. Insubordination by the officer;

13. Neglect of duty by the officer

14. Unexcused absences by the officer; and

15. Any other indicators, as determined by the agency's chief executive


AG Directive 2015-1

Law Enforcement Directive Regarding Police Body Worn Cameras (BWCs) and

Stored BWC Recordings. Directing that every law enforcement agency having

equipped its officers with BWCs to promulgate and enforce a policy, standard

operating procedure, directive or order that must comply with the policies, standards

and requirements set forth in this Directive, including without limitation: those

relating to authorized use of BWCs, duty to inspect and report malfunctions; notice

to the public of the use of BWCs; standards governing the activation of BWCs,

requirements for continuous recording pending completion of encounters; retention,

storage and accessibility of BWC recordings; restriction on access to, use, and

dissemination of BWC recordings and public disclosure of BWC recordings.

http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/directives/2015-1_BWC.pdf

AG Directive 2006-5 (As supplemented 07/28/2015)

Law Enforcement Directive Regarding Uniform Statewide Procedures and Best

Practices for Conducting Police-Use-of-Force Investigations. Establishing the

basic process by which incidents are investigated when a police officer uses force

against a civilian. The Directive further provides that investigations to determine the

lawfulness of police use of force are not conducted by police agencies, but rather are

conducted by and under the direct supervision of a County Prosecutor or the

Division of Criminal Justice. The Directive further provides that critical decisions are

subject to multiple levels of independent review, which in the case of investigations

conducted by the County Prosecutor, that there is a comprehensive conflicts inquiry

to inform supersession/recusal decisions. The Directive also establishes authorization

requirements that must be met prior to sharing or providing information to any law

enforcement or civilian witness to the use-of-force event, including a principal of the

investigation, in order to prevent contaminating a witness’s personal recollection of

events. Additionally, the Directive established procedures to ensure investigations

are conducted independently from the agency whose officer(s) employed force, and

procedures relating to the decision to present to a grand jury. To enhance

transparency in conducting use-of-force investigations, in any instance where the

matter is not presented to a grand jury for its review, or where the matter is

presented to a grand jury and the grand jury returns a "no bill" (i.e., declines to issue

an indictment), the County Prosecutor, or the Director in matters investigated by the


http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/directives/2015-1_BWC.pdf



37

Attorney General Shooting Response Team, is required to prepare a statement for

public dissemination, and such statement must include certain findings and

statements as specified in the Directive. The Directive further mandates the

establishment of an Advisory Group to study and enhance police-use-of-force

investigations consisting of members of the community and representatives from law

enforcement, and required each County Prosecutor to report to the Attorney General

on efforts that have been or will be undertaken in his or her jurisdiction to engage

community and faith-based leaders in discussions concerning police use-of force

matters.

http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/directives/2006-5_SRT_OIS.pdf

http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/directives/dir2006_5.pdf

14b. The previous Attorney General established SAFE STOP, an advertisement campaign

to provide tips to the public for safe traffic stops, using $1 million from forfeiture funds to

institute this effort. The advertisement campaign featured prominent members of the New

Jersey community and provided a primer of what a citizen should do and how they should

behave during traffic stops. In addition, the advertisement provided contact information for

citizens to report law enforcement when they wanted to file a complaint.

• Question: Question: Will any further funding be provided to continue

this campaign? Did the hotline receive any complaints regarding traffic stops?

What metrics can the department cite that demonstrate success for this

program? Will the Attorney General expand this method of education and

outreach to strengthen community policing?

The Safe Stop Initiative is a two-pronged approach to improve interactions between citizens

and law enforcement officers during traffic stops. The first component incorporates

mandatory training for law enforcement officers in de-escalation, cultural awareness, and

recognizing implicit bias. In addition, the Attorney General’s Office has mandated protocols

to eliminate conflicts of interest, ensure the reliability of investigations of police officers, and

improve the public’s confidence in the results of those investigations

The second component includes making the public aware of their rights and responsibilities

under the law. The educational component included an advertising campaign, community

events, and the creation of a website that supports the Safe Stop initiative. The website

hosts various videos from law enforcement and community partners that help deliver Safe

Stop messages. In addition, individuals visiting the website can consider taking the Safe Stop

Pledge to receive a vehicle decal that they can display in the rear car window. The intention

of this decal is to alert law enforcement that the driver of the car has an understanding of

basic safe stop techniques.

http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/directives/2006-5_SRT_OIS.pdf

http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/directives/dir2006_5.pdf



38

The front-page of this dedicated website has been visited more than 40,000 times. The

specific page that allows visitors to take the Safe Stop Pledge and receive a vehicle decal has

been visited more than 1,750 times. And the Attorney General’s Office has distributed

approximately 340 pledge stickers. The Pledge component of this program shows the

dedication of the Attorney General’s Office in promoting its products, as it was not part of

the paid advertising campaign and has been exclusively promoted at community events and

through social media. In addition, over 1000 decals have been distributed in student driving

education classes where Safe Stop has been discussed. County Prosecutors and every

school district were also sent information on Safe Stop and asked to help disseminate

information.

While the bulk of the financial investment in the Safe Stop campaign was expended in

November, December 2017 and January 2018, the Safe Stop Campaign continues to be

funded out of the initial investment which totaled over $1 million. This includes recent TV

and radio advertising as well as free social media during “NCAA March Madness,” and

advertising in movie theatres will continue through the end 2018.

Since the beginning of this campaign, the Attorney General’s Office has been contacted by

seven individuals who were seeking assistance with on-going traffic stop investigations.

Other individuals have called asking how to initiate an investigation and with questions

specific to individual traffic stops.

The Office of the Attorney General is poised to re-launch the Safe Stop initiative. This will

include new videos of support by law enforcement, community partners and well-known

personalities from the media and sports worlds. A specific budget for the second phase of

the campaign has not yet been established.

15. Attorney General Grewal recently created an the Office of the New Jersey Coordinator

of Addiction Response and Enforcement Strategies, or NJ CARES, which will oversee addiction-

fighting efforts and create partnerships with other agencies and groups battling the crisis.

In 2016 alone, there were 1,901 deaths linked to opioid overdoses in New Jersey. Law

enforcement has made efforts in New Jersey at the federal and State level through

aggressive prosecutions and significant civil enforcement actions.

According to a recent news article, among the initiatives NJ CARES hopes to launch include

around the clock “Opioid Response Teams,” inter-agency data sharing, and an online portal

for the public, as well as enhancements to the State’s Prescription Monitoring Program.

The FY 2019 recommended budget provides $500,000 for the New Jersey Prescription

Monitoring Program (NJPMP).



39

• Question: Please provide detail on the initiatives of the new NJ Cares office.

Please provide the number of staff dedicated to this new initiative. What

program evaluation tools will be implemented to track and determine the

success rate of this new office? What funds are anticipated to be allocated

toward these initiatives in FY 2018 and FY 2019? To what specific purpose will

the additional funding for the New Jersey Prescription Drug Monitoring

Program (PMP) be allocated?

Through a dedicated office within the Office of the Attorney General, we are taking a

multifaceted approach to New Jersey’s drug crisis, focused on preventing and treating

substance abuse, while strengthening law enforcement efforts to prosecute and deter illegal

drug activity - through the coordination of the efforts of the agencies within the Department

of Law and Public Safety and partnerships with other entities similarly committed to

implementing solutions.

The Attorney General selected Sharon Joyce, a 38-year veteran of the Division of Law, to run

NJ CARES. In the coming months, she will be assessing the need for additional staff and

preparing a budget for future initiatives. We expect that many of the initiatives will be

pursued with existing resources.

We anticipate NJ CARES spearheading the following projects:

Public Awareness: Raise public awareness of the dangers of opioids and the scope

of the problem – by providing weekly data on the NJ CARES website, the increased

use of social media, through community outreach, particularly to students and their

parents, and the dissemination of produced videos.

Diversion Strategies: Offer support to county prosecutor offices using programs,

such as Operation Helping Hand and HART (Heroin Addiction Recovery Team), to get

those with addictions who are engaging in illegal drug activity into treatment, and

provide training to Drug Court personnel and correctional facilities on Medication

Assisted Treatment (MAT).

Health Care Professional Education: Provide continuing education for prescribers

and mental health professionals by developing an on-line, free training at the time of

biennial license renewal, with a focus on risk assessment, techniques to taper use of

opioids and addiction treatment.

PMP Enhancements and Enforcement: Improve the capabilities of the PMP to

better capture and analyze data, disseminate reports concerning patients at risk, and

enforce opioid prescription limits for acute pain, registration requirements and

mandatory look-ups.



40

Insurance Coverage: Improve access to insurance coverage for treatment and risk

assessment, working to eliminate prior authorization and treatment day limits and

pursue enforcement through the federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity

Act.

Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT): Expand the universe of those are eligible to

provide buprenorphine, through reforms to relax limitations at the federal level and

incentivize primary care professionals to participate - in hospitals, prisons and private

practice.

Naloxone: Facilitate naloxone availability, at reasonable costs, through renewal of

the rebate program and publicizing pharmacies with standing orders.

Alternatives to Opioids: Endorse regulatory and legislative efforts that would

authorize alternative therapies, such as medical marijuana and dry needling.

Drug Disposal: Add new sites (to the current 250) for Project Medicine Drop and

develop methods to make disposal products available.

Treatment referrals: Establish Statewide Opioid Response Teams (“ORT”) to provide

law enforcement and EMTs with 24/7 access to recovery specialists and treatment

programs and develop, through NJSP data (which includes known naloxone

deployments) and PMP information, a plan to reach out to those at risk of overdose

to offer treatment.

Information Sharing: Regularize the sharing of data and other information between

agencies within the DLPS, the DEA, and the US Attorney’s Office and identify the

algorithms used by chain pharmacies and manufacturers to identify problematic

prescribers and pharmacies.

Manufacturers and distributors: Reform marketing practices through injunctive

relief in filed actions and ensure that notice of aberrant prescribing or ordering

practices.

Toxicology Findings: Adopt uniform practices to timely identify “hot spots” and

“bad batches” of drugs, and to better measure and compare data.

Penalty Enhancement for Fentanyl Distribution: Endorse legislative efforts to

increase the penalty for illicit trafficking of fentanyl analogs, including rescheduling

as needed.



41

16. The FY 2019 Governor’s recommended budget continues FY 2018 budget language

(p. D-278), to permit the Attorney General to reallocate up to $7 million from the

unexpended appropriation balances of State professional boards, advisory boards, and

committees to other departmental purposes.

According to the department, the reallocation of $7 million authorized in FY 2017 was

anticipated from the following accounts:

Board of Medical Examiners: $4,500,000

Board of Nursing: $1,500,000

Board of Pharmacy: $400,000

Board of Physical Therapy: $200,000

Board of Social Workers: $400,000

According to the department, in FY 2016, the budget authorized the reallocation of $35.5

million anticipated from the unexpended balances from the following Professional Boards:

Board of Accountancy: $475,000

Board of HVAC: $1,620,000

Board of Dentistry: $1,200,000

Board of Architects: $950,000

Board of Professional Engineers: $600,000



Board of Optometry: $300,000


Board of Veterinary Medicine: $700,000

Board of Court Reporting: $100,000

Board of Ophthalmic Dispensers: $1,150,000

Board of Professional Planners: $700,000

Board of Psychological Examiners: $850,000

Board of Master Plumbers: $1,200,000

Board of Marriage & Family Therapy: $1,500,000

Board of Chiropractic Examiners: $500,000

Board of Physical Therapy: $1,200,000

Board of Audiology: $550,000

Board of Real Estate Appraisers: $1,250,000

Board of Respiratory Care: $500,000

Board of Social Workers: $250,000

Board of Occupational Therapy: $700,000

Board of Polysomnography: $200,000



42

According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in 2015 the following boards

were the source of $50 million in FY 2015 transfers, or approximately 50 percent of the

projected FY 2015 unexpended balances:

Board of Medical Examiners: $23.8 million

Board of Nursing: $12.8 million

Board of Dentistry: $2 million

Audiology and Speech Pathology Advisory Committee: $1.6 million

Board of Architects: $1.5 million

Occupational Therapy Advisory Council: $1.5 million

Board of Optometrists: $1.5 million

Real Estate Appraisers Board: $1.5 million

Board of Chiropractic Examiners: $1.4 million

Board of Accountancy: $1 million

Board of Social Work Examiners: $1 million


The OMB further indicated that the FY 2015 budget provided the original language

authorizing the Attorney General to reallocate up to $50 million in unexpended balances

from State professional boards, advisory boards, and committees to offset budget

reductions to the Division of State Police ($25 million) and Criminal Justice ($25 million).

• Question: Please list each board and committee from which balances were

transferred in FY 2018, the amount transferred, and the percentage of total

available resources transferred. As the information provideed from the

department for FY 2017 was anticipated, please provide the actual information

for FY 2017. Please provide how the funds in FY 2017 and 2018 were, or will be,

reallocated within the department.

In FY 2017, the following professional board transfers were all reallocated to the Division of

State Police to offset State Police salary deficits:




Board of Physical Therapy: $200,000

Board of Social Work Examiners: $400,000

The FY 2018 annual appropriations act included language authorizing the transfer of $7

million from the unexpended balances of the professional Boards to various Divisions within

the Department of Law and Public Safety. The plan to transfer these funds is still being



43

developed in consideration of the individual boards’ projected expenditures and available

revenues. As each board has varying license renewal periods, the ability of a board to sustain

transfers of certain amounts need to be carefully evaluated.

17a. According to the New Jersey State Nurses Association during a Legislative hearing in

the fall of 2017, the Board of Nursing personnel shortages have contributed to excessive

wait-times for nursing license applicants. However, the Division of Consumer Affairs

(division), which oversees the board, denies these allegations, claiming that current staffing

levels, coupled with recent reforms, have increased the board’s operational efficiency. In FY

2017, the board spent about $2.4 million on personnel wages and benefits. According to the

former Attorney General, the board employed 29 permanent employees in FY 2016, 30

permanent employees in FY 2017, and anticipated 30 permanent employees in FY 2018. The

director of the division (director) reported that board staffing levels have remained

consistent since at least 2010.

The Board of Nursing operates primarily from the proceeds of nursing licensure and other

fees. In FY2017, total appropriations to the board equaled $12.565 million. Pursuant to

N.J.S.A.18A:65-92.1, however, five percent of board licensing revenue is appropriated to the

Rutgers College of Nursing. Contrary to recent reports, board revenue was not reallocated

to the State General Fund; however, board funds have been transferred to other divisions

within the Department of Law and Public Safety in every year since FY 2015.

In recent years, the annual appropriations act authorized the Attorney General to reallocate

unexpended funds from various State professional boards, advisory boards, and committees

to fund other departmental functions, such as the divisions of the State Police and Criminal

Justice. Associated with these departmental transfers, the following amounts of unexpended

funds have been taken from the Board of Nursing since FY 2015: $12.8 million in FY 2015; $8

million in FY 2016; and $1.5 million in FY 2017. No information is currently available

regarding anticipated FY 2018 transfers. The department’s response to OLS discussion

questions for the FY2018 budget indicates that more funds have been transferred from the

Board of Nursing than any other professional board, except for the Board of Medical

Examiners.

• Question: Please list, by month, the number of pending applications and

work permits for professional nursing issued in 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018

YTD. Please provide the current staffing levels for the Board of Nursing. What

initiatives are being undertaken to ensure quicker resolution of outstanding

applications?



44

RN Licenses Issued

Month 2015 2016 2017 2018 January 344 278 281 488

February 387 367 467 620

March 657 601 621 634

April 541 445 467

May 393 442 387

June 327 469 419

July 684 1,056 485

August 1,232 624 1,406

September 863 864 778

October 581 458 504

November 432 391 400

December 416 342 467

LPN Licenses Issued

Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

January 102 89 96 137

February 110 64 81 98

March 132 61 143 105

April 103 111 102

May 78 103 83

June 63 76 79

July 95 91 58

August 125 57 117

September 146 191 137

October 138 184 162

November 155 108 109

December 139 79 157

APN Licenses Issued

Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

January 47 62 103 71

February 52 60 63 57

March 44 39 78 70

April 69 75 87

May 35 79 56



45

June 63 78 63

July 41 58 79

August 58 90 101

September 63 79 59

October 80 83 113

November 38 71 94

December 71 69 88

Please note that a “pending application” identifies an application that remains in our

licensing system database because a license has not been issued for that individual. Almost

every application that remains in our database from 2015 and 2016 (and for a large part of

2017) are individuals that have failed to follow through with finishing the application for

licensure.

RN Applications Still Pending

Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

January 32 44 72 366

February 53 59 70 431

March 56 78 86 747

April 86 79 91

May 131 68 138

June 160 88 108

July 96 87 78

August 58 55 124

September 57 48 115

October 75 58 153

November 64 65 160

December 60 60 232

LPN Applications Still Pending

Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

January 13 24 37 57

February 10 17 31 72

March 15 23 39 127

April 14 21 26

May 31 16 19

June 18 30 26

July 18 56 33



46

August 21 41 43

September 20 49 16

October 19 66 40

November 19 38 25

December 14 23 34

APN Applications Still Pending Month 2015 2016 2017 2018

January 1 4 11

February 1 2 14

March 0 0 42

April 0 2

May 3 0

June 4 3

July 3 2

August 1 6

September *computer issue 2 2

October 4 5 9

November 3 2 7

December 2 3 6

*Pending apps were mistakenly deleted and re-entered into the system

The majority of applications that are pending may be due to the following reasons:

a) Failed to pass the national licensing exam (NCLEX);

b) Decided to become licensed in another state;

c) Failed to pay the national database (or certain states they are currently licensed)

for confirmation that they are licensees in good standing, and/or;

d) Failed to provide documentation regarding an arrest and/or conviction.

In effect, the work of the Board is complete until documentation or other efforts from the

individual are completed. And thus, while on occasion, an individual from a year or more

ago will complete the application process, many of these applications will continue to

remain “pending” in our system for years to come.

2017 stats – explanation:

1037 Endorsement Applications still pending

323 examination applicants still pending

67 foreign applicants still pending

1427 total pending applications



47

The Board of Nursing currently employs 32 permanent employees and enlists the services of

7 contract/temporary employees to assist with application processing. The Board has

undertaken several measures to resolve issues with outstanding applications over the past 6-

8 months. First, the Board created a dedicated email address for nursing applicants and

licensees to contact the Board about licensing/renewal issues they encounter. The email

inbox is monitored daily by an employee who is usually able to respond to and resolve the

inquiries within 24-48 hours.

Secondly, the Division continues to add functionality to the back-end Board office

application process which utilizes a Microsoft Sharepoint digital workflow system. This has

significantly reduced the processing time for nursing applicants and steps for staff, when

compared to the previous paper-based application. For example, a new filtering feature was

recently developed for the Sharepoint workflow which now allows staff to sort applications

by new methods, allowing them to more rapidly find applications that may have been

waiting in the review queue, resulting in speedier licensure of pending applicants. Lastly, the

Division conducted a thorough analysis on application processing last year which generated

an enhanced focus on priming for the summer influx of applications by reallocating and

augmenting staffing levels during this application period at the Board.

• Question: Of the 187 fulltime employees allocated in FY 2018 to the

Operation of State Professional Boards in the FY 2019 recommended budget

(page D-275), please provide a breakout of how each staff member is allocated

to each board.

Board of Massage Therapy 3

Board of HVACR 2

Board of Accountancy 7

Board of Architects 5

Board of Dentistry 10

Board of Mortuary Science 3

Board of Professional Engineers 8

Board of Medical Examiners 38

Board of Nursing 32

Board of Optometrists 1

Board of Pharmacy 11

Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners 1

Board of Court Reporting 0

Board of Ophthalmic Dispensers 1

Board of Cosmetology & Hairstyling 24

Board of Professional Planners 1

Board of Electrical Contractors 6

Board of Psychological Examiners 4

Board of Master Plumbers 3

Board of Marriage Counselors 6



48

Board of Chiropractic Examiners 2

Board of Physical Therapy 4

Audiology & Speech Pathology Committee 1

Board of Real Estate Appraisers 3

Board of Respiratory Care 2

Board of Social Work 7

Board of Orthotics & Prosthetics 0

Board of Occupational Therapy 2

Cemetery Board 1

Certified Psychoanalyst Advisory Committee 0

Board of Polysomnography 1

PROFESSIONAL BOARDS TOTAL 189

Please note that 2 of the Consumer Affair employees are presently working in the

professional boards unit; thereby showing a number of 189 instead of 187.

17b. At the initiative of the Legislature, $250,000 was provided to the Board of Nursing in

FY 2018 to reduce a backlog of applications for home health aide certifications. The

Legislature’s attempt to add this funding in FY 2017 was vetoed by the Governor. Timely

certification is important to both members of the profession and persons in need of home

health care. The FY 2019 budget eliminates the added FY 2018 funding.

• Question: What is the status of the Board of Nursing’s efforts to eliminate

the home health and application backlog? Can the board process applications

on a timely basis with no backlog, at a reduced level of funding, as

recommended for FY 2019?

The Board of Nursing continues in its efforts to reduce the time required to process certified

homemaker-home health aide (CHHA) applications. Commencing May 1, 2018, a new online

application process will be rolled out to the CHHA community. In consultation with various

outside home care associations, the Division worked with its IT vendor, to develop an online

application that involves employers, training programs, and applicants in order to facilitate

an approach that should substantially ameliorate any application backlog for applicants that

apply properly.

18. The Office of the State Medical Examiner in the Division of Criminal Justice is

responsible for the administration and enforcement of State laws and regulations relating to

the medical examiner system and medicolegal death investigation in New Jersey. The State

Medical Examiner directly supervises the State’s Northern and Southern Regional Medical

Examiner Offices, which provide medicolegal death investigation services to six counties, and

serves in a general supervisory capacity over the remaining county medical examiners and

offices.



49

An August 2010 Office of Legislative Services Audit Report recommended a comprehensive

review of the operations and costs for the northern and southern regional offices and the

State Toxicology Laboratory. The report found the State Toxicology Lab was not self-

supporting, which led to outsourcing to private laboratories, and identified changes to

enable the toxicology lab to be more competitive and better serve its customers. In

response, the office indicated the division reviewed the lab’s operations and costs and stated

that “outsourcing of toxicology services to private labs at a lower cost does not always

guarantee the same quality of testing as a College of American Pathology or other certified

lab,” and “not all counties perform the minimum required testing on toxicology cases in

accordance with the “State Medical Examiner Act” as those performed at the State

Toxicology Laboratory.” The office also expressed a desire to be more competitive and

better serve its clients.

An investigation by NJ Advance Media, published in December 2017, revealed serious

concerns within the medical examiner system. Some of the extreme cases reported include

the disappearance of body parts, an “untold” number of crimes that have gone without

investigation and perhaps led to the imprisonment of potentially innocent people, and

families waiting in agony to learn how their loved ones died, with the report claiming that a

number of deaths are not investigated at all. The NJ Advance Media investigation

highlighted the fact that the northern office lost accreditation with the National Association

of Medical Examiners in 2011 and failed an on-site inspection two years later; the southern

office never earned accreditation.

The FY 2019 budget recommends an increase in funding of $500,000 above current funding

levels, from $12.2 million to $12.7 million (all sources). Total expenditures have increased

from $9.8 million in FY 2015 to about $12 million in FY 2017.

• Question: What improvements in the operations of the State Medical

Examiner are expected to result from the additional funding, a four percent

increase in FY 2018 funding? Will this increase be adequate to improve the

system so that it operates effectively and fulfills its statutory and moral

obligations? Please provide a list of the accreditations that the Regional

Medical Examiner Offices currently possesses, and aspires to attain? What is the

timeline for accreditation of the Regional Medical Examiner Offices? Please

indicate how often each of the attained accreditations are reassessed?

Please note that the State Medical Examiner’s Office provides medical examiner services to

seven counties. The Northern Regional Medical Examiner’s Office provides services to Essex,

Hudson, Passaic, and Somerset Counties. The Southern Regional Medical Examiner’s Office

provides services to Atlantic, Cape May, and Cumberland Counties.



50

The budget increase for the State Medical Examiner’s Office is designed to expand staffing in

order to provide more timely data services, and to support an inspection process of the 14

county offices where the SME does not provide direct services. The total expenditures of

$9.8 million in FY 15 to $12 million in FY 17 account for expenses in the Regional Medical

Examiner’s Office budget, which is separate from the SME budget. Funding for the northern

and southern regional offices is provided on a reimbursement basis by the counties that

receive services from those offices.

The State Toxicology Lab’s Law Enforcement Drug Testing is accredited by the College of

American Pathologists (CAP). The Lab also intends on seeking accreditation from the

American Board of Forensic Toxicologists (ABFT) for its post-mortem testing.

The SME is dedicated to improving case turnaround time and improving infrastructure at the

regional labs. Once the SME is prepared to begin the process to be accredited by the

National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME), the inspection associated with the

accreditation would take approximately six months to complete.

Accreditation from NAME would be for a four year period. The State Toxicology Lab’s

accreditation from CAP is effective for a two year period. The ABFT accreditation would be

for a two year period.

19a. The Governor’s FY 2019 budget does not provide the department direct funding for

projects recommended by the Commission on Capital Budgeting and Planning Commission

(commission) or the other capital requests submitted to the commission by the Department

of Law and Public Safety (DLPS) and the Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC).

The FY 2019 budget recommends $35.6 million for fire and life safety, emergency,

renovation, and IT projects Statewide.

The DLPS requested $8 million for six capital projects. These projects include boiler

replacements, technology updates, and critical repairs. Of the requested amount, $1.8

million was recommended by the commission for the replacement of boiler system in the

Newark Regional Medical Examiner’s Office ($1,270,000) and equipment updates for the

Hamilton 911 Call Center ($500,000).

The JJC requested $18.5 million for 22 capital projects. Of this amount: $9.1 million was for

preservation projects including HVAC and roof replacements, critical repairs, and security

enhancements; $8.4 million was for construction projects including facility renovations

and upgrades; $655,000 was for compliance projects; and $337,000 was for

environmental projects.



51

Of the amount requested, $1.262 million was recommended by the commission for HVAC

and roof replacement over the gym and administration areas of the Juvenile Medium

Security Facility (JMSF) North Building at the Johnstone Campus ($488,000), roof

replacement at the Ocean Residential Community Home ($350,000), and roof replacement of

the vocational building at the Johnstone Campus ($424,000).

• Question: Please provide a list of the capital needs of DLPS, including JJC,

which the department expects will be met in FY 2019 from the referenced

funding sources. For the projects not funded from these sources, how does the

DLPS and the JJC, respectively, intend to meet the capital needs outlined in

their requests to the commission? Please provide a list of all completed DLPS,

including JJC, capital projects completed in FY 2017 and FY 2018.

The Commission on Capital Budgeting and Planning has recommended $1.770 million for FY

2019. Of which, $1.270 million will replace the boiler system at the Newark Regional Medical

Examiner’s Office and $500,000 will be used to update the equipment at the 911 Call center.

In addition, $1.262 million was recommended by the Commission for the Juvenile Justice

Commission in FY 2019. Of which, $488,000 is for HVAC and a roof replacement at the

Johnstone Campus, $350,000 to replace the roof at the Ocean RCH, and $424,000 to replace

the roof of the vocational building at the Johnstone Campus.

See attachment F JJC Capital Projects Completed in FY 2017 & FY 2018.

19b. On January 8, 2018, an announcement was made by former Governor Christie that

the New Jersey Economic Development Authority would issue $162 million in bonds to

finance the reform of New Jersey's secure Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC) facilities.

Specifically, he announced that three new facilities would be built to replace the New Jersey

Training School for Boys, known as Jamesburg, and the female secure care intake facility in

Bordentown, known as Hayes.

• Question: Does the JJC intend to proceed with these plans for the new JJC

facilities? If so, please provide a timetable or schedule for the new JJC facilities

and the planned closure dates for the existing facilities. What will the capacity

of the new facilities be compared to the capacity of the facilities to be replaced?

Has an analysis of the impact of the new facilities on the JJC operating costs

been performed? If so, please provide details of the analysis.

The New Jersey Juvenile Justice Commission is working to transform its operations to

improve outcomes for the youth in its care and custody. The cornerstone of this effort is to

ultimately replace existing large, congregate care secure institutions with smaller, state-of-



52

the art regional facilities that are closer to home, to maximize opportunities for family

participation in the rehabilitative process.

Specifically, the JJC plans to close the New Jersey Training School for Boys in Monroe

Township which has a 300-functional bed capacity. The size, design, and age of this 150-

year-old facility make it difficult to operate in a safe, therapeutic, and cost-effective manner.

The JJC also plans to close the Juvenile Female Secure Care and Intake Facility in Bordentown

which has a 28-functional bed capacity. These facilities will close once the new regional

facilities are built and occupant-ready. Replacing the NJTS and Hayes Institutions will result

in a 36% reduction in secure care functional bed capacity.

The JJC intends to replace these institutions with three smaller (48 bed), state-of-the art

regional facilities. The new facilities should represent best practice in terms of design

features that simultaneously enhance the safety of staff and youth while fostering the

delivery of therapeutic services in a normative, developmentally appropriate environment

that feels non-institutional. Typically projects of this magnitude take 4-5 years to complete.

At present, the best case projected completion of the Southern and Central Region Facilities

is January 2022 while the Northern Facility will not be occupant ready until September 2022.

A preliminary estimate of the cost savings associated with this reform effort was undertaken

which forecast a $20 million in savings and cost avoidance.

20a. The Governor’s 2019 budget projects $3.7 million in FY 2018 supplemental

appropriations to support the New Jersey State Police DNA lab. The Governor’s

recommended FY 2018 budget (p. D-243) indicated that “in response to the mandated

measures outlined in the Bail Reform and Speedy Trial Act” the Division of State Police

would require increased funding for the Office of Forensic Sciences. The FY 2018 budget

anticipated $3.7 million in additional revenue to the Division of State Police from a $1.00

increase in motor vehicle violation surcharges dedicated to the DNA Forensic Laboratory.

Legislation to increase the surcharge was introduced, but not approved by the Legislature.

The FY 2019 budget again anticipates the approval of this surcharge increase, and retains

$1.8 million of the projected FY 2018 supplemental appropriation in the FY 2019 Division of

State Police budget.

Criminal Justice Reform authorized by the Constitution and implemented under P.L.2014,

c.31 became fully operational Statewide on January 1, 2017. The program provides for

pretrial detention of certain criminal defendants; establishes non-monetary bail alternatives

for release; and authorizes the Judiciary to revise fees. Under the program, defendants must

undergo a risk assessment to determine their risk of re-offending. This assessment would

determine which defendants could be released pending trial. Under the statute, defendants

are guaranteed a speedy trial, and if the prosecutor does not adhere to this time frame the

defendant will be released from jail. In response to an OLS FY 2018 discussion point, the



53

department did not identify any specific incremental costs to the Office of Forensic Sciences

(OFS) of implementing P.L.2014, c.31.

The OFS is a section within the New Jersey State Police Investigation Branch. It consists of

four physical laboratory locations across the state of New Jersey. These laboratories are

located in Hamilton (Mercer), Hammonton, Sea Girt, and Little Falls and provide testing and

analysis for drugs, toxicology, and arson (the central lab in Hamilton also performs testing

for arson, trace evidence, and forensic serology). The Office also operates a DNA laboratory

in Hamilton. The four regional crime laboratories and the DNA laboratory are internationally

accredited under ISO 17025 standards by the American Society of Crime Laboratory

Directors-Lab Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB). In addition to the regional laboratories

mentioned above, the OFS also maintains a Forensic Anthropology Laboratory and a Breath

Testing Unit.

• Question: What is the total FY 2018 appropriation, from both budgeted

appropriations and appropriated off-budget revenues, for the Office of

Forensic Sciences? What is the recommended appropriation to the OFS for FY

2019 from all State sources? For what specific purposes, e.g., additional staff,

equipment, is any additional FY 2018 and FY 2019 funding being allocated?

The total appropriation from both budgeted and appropriated off-budgeted revenues for

the Office of Forensic Sciences (OFS) in FY 2018 is $18.7 million. This includes NJ DNA

Forensic Lab revenue, Enhanced DNA Testing (Special Purpose), DNA Laboratory

Enhancement (Special Purpose), Central Lab Operations accounts and State Police salary

accounts. An additional $3.7 million FY18 supplemental appropriation is being used to

support additional salary and equipment costs related to Bail Reform.

The recommended OFS appropriation for FY 2019 for all State sources is $18.7 million.

Based on a proposed fee increase in motor vehicle violation surcharges, an additional $3.7

million will support growth for salary and equipment to address additional testing requests,

backlogs as well as needs related to Bail Reform.

Of the $3.7 million, $3.2 million is for salaries and $500k is for equipment, as described

below:

Office of Forensic Sciences - Bail Reform Equipment

Item Quantity Cost Total

Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer 5 $75,000 $375,000

Gas Chromatograph Headspace 2 $62,500 $125,000

Total $500,000



54

20b. Budget evaluation data (p. D-254) report the number of laboratory cases received

continuing to exceed the number of cases completed, growing from 45,984 in FY 2016 to

48,683 in FY 2017, and 51,000 in both FY 2018 and FY 2019. The data also show the number

of cases completed at 37,598 in FY 2016, 40,008 in FY 2017, and 42,000 in both FY 2018 and

FY 2019. Regarding DNA analysis, budget evaluation data (p. D-254) show cases received

growing from 5,338 in FY 2016 to 5,263 in FY 2017, then declining to 5,200 in FY 2018 and

5,100 in FY 2019. The data further report completed DNA cases of 4,788 in FY 2016, 4,762 in

FY 2017, 5,100 in FY 2018 and 5,500 in FY 2018. In laboratory cases, the data suggest a

growing backlog of uncompleted cases; however, in the DNA related cases there is an

anticipated reduction in backlog. The data suggest that DNA cases are the priority, while an

increased backlog in other cases is acceptable.

In FY 2018, the department noted in response to an OLS discussion point that “approval had

been received to hire 40 new scientists with a majority earmarked to work in the drug units

of each laboratory.”

• Question: Please comment on the management and prioritization of State

Police laboratory cases, including any staffing issues and certification concerns.

Was the hiring target noted above achieved? Should the OFS explore the

potential of using private laboratories to address the non-DNA case backlog?

What amount of additional funding would be needed to achieve a reduction in

non-DNA laboratory cases in the same proportion that the DNA case backlog is

expected to be reduced?

All cases in the Drug and Toxicology units are generally completed in the order they are

received, regardless of complexity or severity of the charge. In the Serology and DNA units,

personal crimes, for example, homicides, sexual assaults, and aggravated assaults, are given

priority over property crimes. However, priority of cases is now impacted by Bail Reform

requests and priority reviews required for investigative purposes. The additional staff has

allowed OFS to address these requests. The OFS works with partner agencies to prioritize the

review of cases to meet prosecutorial deadlines.

The OFS was approved to hire 40 new scientific personnel. The Forensic Scientist 1 test

administered by NJ CSC resulted in a list of 45 potential candidates. OFS administration

interviewed all candidates interested in this entry level position and hired 26 individuals. The

list was exhausted and CSC called another test to generate an additional list of potential

candidates. This second test was administered on March 27th. Once the test is scored and

the list generated, OFS will interview enough candidates to fill the 14 additional approved

positons for hire.



55

In December 2017, the OFS underwent a surveillance visit performed by the accrediting

body. OFS is pleased to report that its national accreditation continues. The current five year

accreditation cycle expires in April of 2019.

The OFS is currently in the midst of a contract with a private vendor, National Medical

Services (NMS) located in Willow Grove, Pa, to outsource approximately 5,000, single item

Marijuana cases. To date 2,750 cases have been submitted to NMS and close to 1,900

completed case reports have been distributed to the submitting agencies.

Outsourcing has assisted the OFS with decreasing the backlog and turnaround times for

pending drug cases. During this period the OFS took the opportunity to train the new

scientific staff hired to work in the drug units within the four regional laboratories of the

OFS. The training is almost complete and these new staff members are currently making an

impact on the pending backlog of cases. At the end of September, 2017 the OFS hit an all-

time high of almost 15,000 backlogged drug cases waiting to be processed. Over the last six

months, due to the concerted efforts of incumbent staff and new hires, the backlog has been

reduced by 33%.

At this time no additional outsourcing is needed.

During the first three months of 2018, the DNA laboratory completed 1,160 DNA reports.

This represents a record number of completed cases for this unit. This is the result of the

installation of robotics and a streamlined process that took an enormous amount of work to

fully implement in 2017. The backlog has been reduced by 30%. The five new analysts hired

in August will soon be completely certified and they will be making an impact on the further

reduction of this backlog.

21. The recent growth in the popularity of craft beer, wines, and distilled spirits reflects

the public’s thirst for local, unique beverages, and New Jerseyans have responded by

establishing and supporting limited breweries, plenary and farm wineries, cideries,

meaderies, and craft distilleries.

In order to brew or manufacturer these craft beverages commercially, a person must have a

manufacturer’s license pursuant to R.S.33:1-10. The enactment of P.L.2012, c.47 revised the

law governing brewery licenses, resulting in a proliferation of limited brewery (craft brewery)

license applicants and increased production of beer.

One of the revisions reduced the State license fee, which enabled more amateur or

enthusiast brewers to consider commercially brewing. More recently, P.L.2017, c.80

established a new Class A manufacturing license, the cidery and meadery license, which

provides cider and mead producers an opportunity to be licensed without the imposition of

certain requirements imposed on winery licensees.



56

• Question: Please explain the application process for limited breweries,

plenary and farm wineries, cideries and meaderies, and craft distilleries. What

documentation is required to accompany the applications for each Class A

license? For each type of license, how many applications for limited breweries,

plenary and farm wineries, cideries and meaderies, and craft distilleries were

received in FY 2018 and how many were approved, rejected, or are pending?

What is the average time frame for issuance of a license from the initial

application for limited breweries, plenary and farm wineries, and craft

distilleries, respectively? Of the Class A license applications received by the

ABC, what percentage required amendments or corrections? What are ABC’s

procedures regarding deficient applications?

All applications for Class A licenses, pursuant to 33:1-10 are manufacturing licenses. These

applications are virtually the same and differ only for the various types of companies that

apply for them. The application process begins online where the applicant provides the

pertinent information regarding their company, what their method of operation will be

within the state, and documentation to support the previous mentioned items as well as

their financial investments, proof of publication, proof of TTB approval (Federal Permit),

proof of state bond, and fingerprinting. When all this information is provided to the

division, the application can be reviewed. This division also notifies the towns in which the

application has been filed as a courtesy to the governing officials. A site inspection is

conducted prior to issuance of license. If statutory requirements are met, the division has

issued Temporary Permits to allow the applicant to begin manufacturing and/or operating

as an interim accommodation.

The following statistics for applications received during the ongoing FY 2018 term are listed

below. The number of applications approved is greater than the number of applications

received because some of the applications were received prior to July 2017.

Cider/Mead:

Three applicants, three pending, one on temporary authorization.

Craft Distillery:

Three applications received, five issued, three pending.

Limited Brewery:

18 applications received, four issued, 18 pending.

Plenary Winery:

Three applications received, one issued, four pending.



57

Farm Winery:

No applications were received, none issued, none pending.

100% of applications require contact with the applicant to amend, add, or elaborate on

information that has been received. An enhancement to the online process allows us to re-

open the application on the public end so that the applicant can upload the deficient

items. We provide templates and samples of the documentation requirements and

continue to work and communicate with applicants to streamline this process.

ATTACHMENT A

A roved Matters b Firm 2017

Law Firm Office Matter Title Amount

ALOIA LAW FIRM, BloomfieldState of New Jersey v. Environmental Protection $3,534.00

State of New Jersey v. William A. Gindhart $1,872.04

Alston &Bird LLP, Atlanta State of New Jersey v. Christopher J. Christie $13,194.45

Anthony J. Apicelli, Jr., LLC, Hamilton

Motor Vehicle Commission v. Marc Senatore $366.00

Motor Vehicles Commission v. Dominick DiGiorgio $507.00

Motor Vehicles Commission v. Ethan Albino $290.00

Motor Vehicles Commission v. Jeffrey Bailey $460.50

MVC v. Alexander Rasmussen $857.12

MVC v. Brawner, LaShonda M. $361.72

MVC v. Cabasa, Lawrence $259.00

MVC v. Cannizzaro, Jacob $189.00

MVC v. Carocci, Eric $274.40

MVC v. Coccurello, Daniela $380.00

MVC v. Gilberto Santiago $688.48

MVC v. Gould, Cheryl A. $240.00

MVC v. Jackson, ChaHes $104.00

MVC v. Jelanny Garcia $271.48

MVC v. Maltz, Eric $776.00

MVC v. Miranda, Michael $444.00

MVC v. Morales, Santos $132.00

MVC v. Rodriguez-Pazmino, Andrea E. $159.00

MVC v. Sulfrain, Richard $367.00

MVC v. Tareen, Waqas T. $313.24

MVC v. Winter, Richard B. $222.00

MVC v. Zefren, Avrohom Y $720.00

Apruzzese, McDermott, Mastro &Murphy, PC, Liberty Corner, Collective Negotiations: NJ Transit Railroad, Inc and Labor Unions; IMO $3,008.52

ARCHER & GREINER, HADDONFIELD

Bradley C. Peterson v. Administrator Christopher Holmes, et al $59,206.31

McKenna, Matthew D. v. Mignella, Anthony, et al. $1,423.04

NJHMFA -Conduit Bond Program -Branch Village Mid-Rise Project $29,852.03

NJHMFA -Montgomery Heights II Apartments Project $30,526.24


NJT Insurance Coverage Issue in Tangia Price, et al. v. NJT $13,040.23

Arseneault & Fassett, LLP Chatham Hoboken Terminal Rail Accident, 9129116; (Thomas Gallagher); Representation in NTSB Inquiry IMO; $4,582.24

Baker Botts L.L.P., Houston

Alternative Investment -Third Point Partners, L.P. $320.00

Alternative Investments -General $1,776.00

Canyon Value Realization Fund $198.00

Division of Investment - 2015 Investment in Och-Ziff Platform Funds -Initial Transaction $25,344.00

Division of Investment -Bay Pond Partners, LP Fund $912.00

Division of Investment -Blackstone Core Plus Real Estate Opportunities (post-closing) $1,488.00

Division of Investment -Blackstone Property Partners (post-closing matters) $9,360.00

Division of Investment -Blackstone Tac Opps Residential Opportunities (initial transaction) $12,432.00

Division of investment -Blackstone Tac Opps Residential Opportunities (post-closing matters) $2,928.00

Division of Investment -Complex Transaction - Tetralogic Pharmaceuticals Corp. Note Exchange $30,000.00

Division of Investment - Crayhill Capital Management LP Separate Account (Initial Transaction) $75,000.00

Division of Investment -Dodd Frank/SEC Municipal Advisor Registration Rule -Advice $1,056.00

Division of Investment - Dyal NJ Investors, LP (2014 Allocation) (post-closing matters) $1,728.00

Division of nvestment - Federa ecurities -Determination of ash Management Fund tatus for Purpose $41,424.00

Division of Investment -Federal Securities Law Matters -Filing and Compliance Advice $3,408.00

Division of Investment - Hitec Vision VII, LP $2,784.00

Division of Investment - NJ/HitecVision Co-Investment Vehicle (post-closing) $3,552.00

Division of Investment - Och-Ziff Real Estate Fund II, LP (post-closing matters) $1,488.00

Division of Investment -Owl Rock Capital Corporation (initial transaction, including revenue share) $31,440.00

Division of Investment -Owl Rock Capital Corporation (post-closing matter) $11,376.00

Division of Investment -Owl Rock Capital Holdings, LLC (initial transaction) $20,976.00

Division of Investment -Owl Rock Co-Investment Vehicle (post-closing matter) $384.00

Division of Investment - OZNJ private Opportunities, LP (post-closing) $3,072.00

Division of Investment - RC Woodley Park, LP (post-closing matters) $13,728.00

Division of Investment -Starboard Leaders Fund LP (post-closing matters) $1,248.00

Division of Investment -Vista Equity Partners Fund VI, LP (initial transaction) $14,800.00

Division of Investment -Vista Foundation Fund III, LP (initial transaction) $1,824.00

Division of Investment -Vista Foundation Fund III, LP (post-closing matters) $6,048.00

Division of Investment DOI) -Alternative Investment - MBK IV, L.P. $59,520.00

Division of Investment DOI) -Alternative Investment - MBK IV, L.P. $6,960.00

Law Firm Office Matter Title AmountGoldman Sachs Multi-Strategy Portfolio (NJ) $1,200.00

Gresham Investment Management $5,664.00

Investments in Winton Futures Fund, Ltd. $432.00eparate Account Managed by Dya Capita Partners (Re ated to Dya apita Partners ) (initia

$20,592.00

York Capital Management $1,248.00

Ballard Spahr LLP -Baltimore

New Jersey Investigators Association, Lodge 174 (Collective Negotiations for a Successor Agreement) $29,433.34New Jersey Law Enforcement Supervisors Association (Collective Negotiations fora uccessor

$23,780.68

New Jersey Superior Officers Law Enforcement Unit (Collective Negotiations for a Successor Agreement) $24,368.19

PBA 105 (Collective Negotiation for a Successor Agreement) $55,435.64

State PBA, State Law Enforcement Unit (Collective Negotiations for a Successor Agreement) $490.00

State Police Captain's Labor Negotiations - STNCOA $922.50

State Police Captain's Labor Negotiations - STSOA $109.00

State Police Captains Labor Negotiations - STFA $84,970.92

State Troopers Fraternal Association, et al. v. State of New Jersey, et al. $3,812.40

Toolen, William, et al. v. State of New Jersey $6,389.84

Biancamano Law, LLC, Chatham In re: ■ $4,624.00

Birchmeier and Powell LLC Tuckahoe

Motor Vehicle Commission v. Kisielewski, Matthew $1,380.00

Motor Vehicles Commission v. Joseph Tiedeman $1,050.00

MVC v. Brandt, Brian F. $1,470.00

MVC v. Ramsey, Robert $1,027.50

Brown 8~ Connery, LLP, Westmont

Apryl Anis v. State of New Jersey, Department of Human Services, et al $113,633.83

Onslo Rose v. Rowan University and John Does 1-5 and 6-10 $26,442.07

Rhonda Holmes v. Ancora Psychiatric Hospital $29,434.63

Buonadonna &Benson, VinelandMVC v. Nimmo, Jillian $769.58

MVC v. Williams, Anthony $1,014.88

Bursch Law PLLC, Caledonia IMO: Federal Monitoring of Federal Mandate; Charlie &Nadine H. v. Christopher Christie, et al. $18,578.72Amalgamated Transit Union, NJ tate Joint ouncil v. NJ TRAN IT; Workers' ompensation Retroactive

$22,337.50

Brooks, Darlene L. vs. Cynthia R.Kern„ et al. $17,943.80

Colin Demonick v. Greystone Psychiatric Hospital $3,220.00

Fuller, John vs. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, et al. $8,560.84

Georandy Johnson v. Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital, et al $11,177.58

Goldstein, Allen and Irene Goldstein vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al. $4,316.50


CAPEHART & SCATCHARD,P.A., MOUNT LAURELKirchheimer, Stefanie vs. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, et al. $16,493.36

Matten, Naomi vs. New Jersey Transit, et al $2,222.72

Moore, Michael v. State of New Jersey $2,397.00

Peterson, Bradley v. Administrator Christopher Holmes, et al. $22,927.00

Shanahan, Kathleen v. NJT $54,135.00

Smith, Charissa v. New Jersey Transit Corp, et al. $10,400.00

Stopko, Keith vs. New Jersey Attoreny General, et al. $24,181.59

Wert, Patricia v. State of New Jersey $1,903.23

CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY 8. AGNELLO

Easement Acquisition -Berkeley Township $101,130.00

Easement Acquisition -Long Branch $5,300.00

Remaining Easement Acquisition -Brick Township $780.00

Remaining Easement Acquisition -Toms River $10,920.00

Carmagnola 8 Ritardi, LLC, MorristownNJ TRANSIT -EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL HUMAN RESOURCES/POLICIES &PROCEDURES $27,254.72

Tara Murphy, et al v. SONJ, et al $3,172.68

Advice and Litigation Regarding Division of Community Affairs Matters $214,065.17

Advice Related to Municipal Financial Matters $23,970.00

AFSCME New Jersey, et als v. City of Atlantic City, et als $2,528.00

Atlantic City PBA Local 24, et al v. Governor Christopher Christie,et al $192,984.14

D.T. v. MCPO, et al $82,741.14

Garrett Collick, et al v. William Paterson University, et al $56,332.21

HCFFA -State Lease Revenue Bonds (Marlboro) Monmouth County Management Agreement $275.00

Healey, Robert, et al. v. State of New Jersey $139,271.31

In re: Gateway Development Corporation $21,490.00

International Association of Fire Fighters, et al v. City of Atlantic City, New Jersey, et al $601,763.46

Kaci Hickox v. Christopher James Christie, et al $273,560.85

L.C. v. MCPO, et al $90,344.21

Latimer, Jahmel J., et al. v. Kathleen Waldron, et al. (Wm Paterson Univ) $18,000.85

Legal Services regarding Stabilization and Recovery of Atlantic City (Atlantic City) $604,956.44

Legal Services Regarding Stabilization and Recovery of Atlantic City (Bond) $74,864.96

Legal Services Regarding Stabilization and Recovery of Atlantic City (City Council/Agenda) $108,915.36

Legal Services Regarding Stabilization and Recovery of Atlantic City (Development/Real Estate) $355,437.12

Legal Services Regarding Stabilization and Recovery of Atlantic City (Environmental Matters) $42,052.88


Chiesa Shahinian 8~ Giantomasi PC, West Orange Legal Services Regarding Stabilization and Recovery of Atlantic City (Labor) $154,470.68

Legal Services Regarding Stabilization and Recovery of Atlantic City (Litigation Against Atlantic City) $509,153.68

Legal Services Regarding Stabilization and Recovery of Atlantic City (Municipal Utility Authority) $27,244.92

Legal Services Regarding Stabilization and Recovery of Atlantic City (Pilot/Tax Appeals) $583,994.00

Legal Services regarding the Stabilization and Recovery of Atlantic City (Board of Public Utilities) $18,174.66

Legal Services regarding the Stabilization and Recovery of Atlantic City (Waste Management/Trash) $11,035.00

Liberty &Prosperity 1776, Inc. etals v. City of Atlantic City, et als $89,057.63New Jersey Economic Deve opment Authority -Transportation Project ub ease Revenue and Revenue

01 e ~e$80,417.96

NJEDA -Dept of Human Services Pooled Financing Program Bonds Follow-up Work $3,940.52

NJEDA -School Facilities Construction Bonds - NJSDA Disposition of Surplus Properties in Camden $1,725.00

NJEDA -School Facilities Construction Refunding Notes - FY 2017 $7,252.04

NJEDA -School Facilities Construction Refunding Notes - FY 2018 $5,371.08

NJEDA -State Office Buildings New Money Bonds 2017 $160,607.12

NJEFA General Obligation Bonds - FY 2017 New Money $63,357.24

NJHCFFA -State Lease Revenue Bonds (Greystone) Morris County Management Agreement $1,821.12ffice of Pub is Finance - outh Jersey Port orporation -Review of New ubordinate enera Bond

$14,550.00

State General Obligation Bonds -Advice on Arbitrage Rebate Compliance $3,500.00

State of New Jersey -Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, Series Fiscal 2017 $51,042.64

State of NJ -General Obligation Refunding Bonds (FY 2015) $8,937.88

Covington &Burling, London Medicaid Section 1115 Comprehensive Waiver Implementation Issue $7,473.01

Covington &Burling, WashingtonCMS Medicaid Disallowance Matters (Ctrs for Medicare &Medicaid Svs) $119,445.00

Union County ARRA Claims $560.00

Alizadeh, Hamid vs. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and NJ Transit Corp., et al. $8,106.54

Althea Hylton-Lindsay v. William Paterson University, et al $77,322.52

Andrea Arias, et al v. Kelly Rippey, MD, et al $80.00

ARC THE TUNNEL PROJECT -GENERAL $83,137.49

Arpad, Seres vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al $73,686.45

Boswell, Keith vs. Robert J. Stillwell, et al. $19,969.87

Condemnation Challenge Ritter, et al. v. NJDEP (Appeal) $1,060.00

Currier, Carmela, et al v. New Jersey Transit, et al. $3,442.80

Drew, Sr., Calvin N. and Stephanie h/w vs. NJ Transit Corporation, et al $5,333.45

Duminiak, Karla vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, et al. $3,204.56


DeCotiis, Fitzpatrick, Cole 8 Giblin, LLP

Duran-Hernandez, Maria vs. New Jersey Transit Corp., et al $31,070.94

Easement Acquisition -Bay Head $221.705.68

Easement Acquisition - Longport $4,970.48

Easement Acquisition -Ocean City $550.72

Edwards, Geneithe I. vs. New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc. and Salvatore Vicari, Jr. $6,568.48

Estate of Frank Lagano v. State of New Jersey $106,733.07

FMERA -Parcels C/C-1 Mixed Use Transaction $3,742.40

FMERA -Special Counsel for Municipal Law -Howard Commons Residential Transaction $10,143.04

FMERA -Special Counsel for Municipal Law -Lodging Area $700.00

FMERA -Special Counsel for Municipal Law -Nurses Quarters $360.00

FMERA -Special Counsel for Municipal Law Officer Housing $10,943.28

Galicki, Zachary, et al. v. State of New Jersey GW Car Service, LLC, et al. v. State of New Jersey, et al. $129,207.11

Goodwine, Earl v. National Railroadf Passenger Corporation/Amtrak, et al. $1,120.00

Goodwine, Earl vs. John Roberts, et al. $171.52

Goodwine, Earl vs. New Jersey Transit, et al. $2,680.00

IMO: Philip Morris $44.90

IMO: Wynika O. Flood -Interview Request by Secaucus Police $1,892.50

Jackson-Locklear, Marquess C., et al. v. William Paterson University, et al. $81,376.50

Lowe, John vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $23,401.54

Mikhaeil, Adel v. Angel Santos, et al. $112.50

NJEFA -Release of Land to Rowan University and Tax Analysis $838.42

Sprick, Dennis vs. New Jersey Transit, et al $320.00

State of New Jersey v. Keizer, Devor, Trooper $14.85

Dilworth Paxson LLP, Philadelphia Serkus, Irene v. James w. Turner Construction, inc., (JWTC), et al. $5,501.25

Drake Law Firm, P.C., Absecon

Augustus, Junior J. vs. University Correctional Health Care, et al. $6,294.00

Cagnina, Anthony vs. Gary Lanigan, et al $11,534.35

Kenly, Tyrone vs. Rutgers State University, et al. $15,631.11

Lewis, David vs. Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center, et al $23,178.65

RODRIGUEZ, HECTOR VS CORRECTIONS, ET AL. $15,245.46

Rosenberg, Michael, et al. vs. Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Inc., et al. $18,527.85

Sanders, Michole vs. Ocean County Bd. of Freeholders, et al. $9,017.29

Scott, Darrell Tyrone vs. UMDNJ, et al $10,475.32

Law Firm Office Matter Title AmountVespe, Michael D., et al. vs. Roy Sandau, D.O., et al. $43,144.29

Vogt, Corey vs. Rutgers University Health Department for the D.O.C., et al. $2,311.00

Youngblood, Christopher vs. Exceptional Medical Transportation, et al $895.00

Drinker Biddle &Reath LLP, Philadelphia NJ Pensions &Health Benefit Study Commission $65,783.00

Dughi, Hewit & Domalewski, P.C.

Brown, Takeisha; A.A.P., et al vs. Newark Extenders Care Facility, Inc., et al. $8,033.38

Campozano, Stefany vs. Julissa Jurado, M.D., et al. $54.00

Colantoni, Anthony vs. Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, et al. $12,881.72

D'Amico, Basilic, A.A.P., et al vs. Meherwan Burzor Joshi, MD, et al. $17,315.54

Deegan, John, et al. v. Lee, Sun H., Dr., et al. $270.00

Dorval, Jean vs. Abu Ahsan, MD, et al $4,487.76

Figatner, Robert vs. Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, et al.; IMO: $11,674.00

Hammond, Earl M. vs. Carmen Victor, et al $6,503.86

Labell, Pamela; A.A.P. of Estate of Jimmy R. Labell v. Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, et al. $272.96

Lauckhardt, Diane (Douglas Lauckhardt); Admin. et al v. Janos Jeges, MD, et al $1,620.64

Melber, Robert vs. United States as substituated for Keegan Johnson, MD, et al; IMO $6,771.79

Miftari, Besnik; Administrator of the Estate of Blerim Miftari, et al vs. Centra STate Medical Center, et al. $701.60

Morehead, Desiree vs. Rutgers/RWJMS; IMO: $12,888.28

Morillo, Amy, et al v. University Hospital, et al. $3,488.76

O'Keefe, Erin E.; An Incapacitated Person, et al. v. Thomas Sexton, D.O., et al. $2,859.16

Ridges, Felicia vs. UMDNJ, et al $29,488.73

Slater, Ethan; a minor, et al v. Joseph C. Canterino, et al $45,014.98

Slaughter, Robert, et al v. Tamanna Haug, MD, et al $90.12

Szemple, Craig Francis v. UMDNJ, UCHC, et al $29,934.92

Thomas, Sharyn Saunders vs. UMDNJ $2,859.66

Thompson, James Sr., et al. v. Rachana Tyagi, MD., et al. $280.14

Ukawabutu, Rumiejah vs. Dr. Abu Ahsan, et al $3,089.44

Villegas, Francisco vs. Correctional Medical Service, Inc., et al. $13,683.76Visconti, John; Administrator of the Estate of Kristi Lynn Rose Visconti; Decd vs. Lasanta Horana, MD, et $721.60

Dvorak &Associates, LLC, New Brunswick Mikhaeel, Neveen v. Frederick V. Fitzgerald, et al.; Frederick V. Fitzgerald v. Robert McNamara, et al. $8,107.57

FMERA -Advice on Bond and Loan Transactions -Financing of Acquisition from US Dept of Army $12,447.50New Jersey Housing &Mortgage Finance Agency Multi-Family onduit Bond Program -Montgomery

$33,189.54

NJHMFA -Conduit Bond Program -Ocean Towers Project $708.90


Eckert Seamans Cherin &Mellott, LLC, PittsburghNJHMFA -Single Family Mortgage-Backed Securities Program -SEC Rule 15Ga-1 Disclosure Filings $2,935.50

NJHMFA -Stafford Senior Apartments Project $30,263.31

NJHMFA Conduit Bond Program -Berkeley Terrace Project $31,707.91NJHMFA Sing e Fami y Variab e Rate Bonds 2004 eries , 2004 Series Y, 2007 eries V and eries Z -

e o$7,594.50

Retention of Counsel for the New Jersey Department of Agriculture for Intellectual Property Matters $1,586.68

Ellenoff Grossman & Schole, New York In re:. $39,446.50

Farkas &Donohue, LLC

Armas-Arani, Maria vs. Michael G. Nosko, MD, et al $245.92

Atzori, Alexander Luca, an infant, et al. vs. Robert Wood Johnson Health System, et al. $25,153.88

Carter, Jacqueline vs. University Hospital, et al $12,446.91n usan, m ivi ua y an as ministrator rosequen um o e state o i n nt ony n

individua and E i End v tate of New erse et a $624.08

Gold, Daniel vs. Steven Recih, MD, et al $60,984.34

Green, Joshua Emmanuel, et al vs. Flavious Thompson, MD, et al. $2,556.84

Jamieson, Donna vs. Saad Chaudhary, MD, et al $54,862.69

Johnson, Isaiah, Jr., an infant, et al vs. Owobamoshola Shonowo, MD, et al $19,149.06

Labell, Pamela; A.A.P. of Estate of Jimmy R. Labell v. Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, et al. $88,950.75

Littman, Walter vs. Englewood Hospital and Medical Center, et al $32,356.05

Mullin, Joan, Administratrix of Estate of Robert Mullin v. State of New Jersey, et al. $558.16

Niblack, Stanley L. vs. UCHC, et al $1,427.95

Niblack, Stanley L. vs. UMDNJ, University Correctional Healthcare, et al. $6,106.86

Oliver, Lorenzo v. Merrill Main, Ph.D., et al $3,432.19

Perren, Michael, et al vs. Englewood Hospital and Medical Center, et al $25,039.92

Sapp, Wyatt vs. Newark Beth Isreal Medical Center, et al $13,719.42

Sedita, Giovanni vs. Morristown Medical Center, et al $7,390.55

Sisco, Nancy, et al v. Chan W. Park, MD, et al. $38,133.09

Swackhamer, Richard D., et al v. Kesler Institute for Rehabilitation, et al. $35,590.84

Vazquez, Robert, et al v. Hackensack University Medical Ctr., et al. $121.68

Velazquez, Damaris vs. Sheldon Turkish, MD, et al $4,800.00

Bramson, Marta Ann, et al vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al. $10,044.78

Dwyer, Kevin v. NJT, et al. $6,357.00

FMERA -Special Counsel for Municipal Law - Squier Hall $1,809.63

FMERA-Special Counsel for Municipal Law -Golf Course $3,467.00Fort Monmouth Economic Revita ization Authority (FMERA) - pecia ounse for Municipa Law - $3,926.27


Florio Perrucci Steinhardt 8 Fader LLC, Phillipsburg

Fort Monmouth Economic Revita ization Authority pecia ounse for Mu~icipa Law - Cha es Wood Firet~o

$1,207.50

Galley, Cheryl vs. NJ Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $36,967.77

Goodwin, James J. vs. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, et al $720.00

Henry Bell, Jr. vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $42,744.51

LaGuerre, et al, Marie Chantal v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc., et al. $5,792.00

Mayers, Tracy vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $7,259.45

Mothersill, Elaine vs. Guarding Services Industries, Inc., et al. $11,939.41

Muhammad, Nailah vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $40,204.52

Odoemene, Emmanuel vs. New Jersey Transit Corp. $7,284.90

Villafuerte, Michael vs. New Jersey Transit, et aI $7,223.52

Washington, Frank vs. New York Transit Authority, et al. $1,968.00

Freidel &Kramer, P.C., Turnersville

State of New Jersey Afison Stanick $1,628.56tate of New Jersey v. Ansari, afeer, D tate of New Jersey v. onne ,Thomas, MD tate of New Jersey gy 629.46

State of New Jersey v. Zuria Ryan and Theresa Markel $2,474.83

Garrity and Knisely, Boston Fort Monmouth Economic Revitalization Authority $26,137.50

Gebhardt &Kiefer, P.C., Clinton

Ashby, Yanett Esther vs. New Jersey Transit, et al. $843.33

Gomez DeMedina, Monica, et al v. Clarence E. Allen, et al. $2,876.24

Hugelmeyer, Richard, et al v. Rudy R. Seepersaud, et al. $131.15

Nicholas Guidi v. State of New Jersey, et al $41,574.73

Genova Burns LLC, Newark Sami Zeidan v. Montclair State University, et at $11,587.00

Barlyn, Bennett A. v. Paula T. Dow, et al. $23,188.26

BLACKSTONE REAL ESTATE PARTNERS VII $450.00

CIR -Committee of Interns and Residents -Union Contract Negotiations $3,635.00

Community Care Providers Union $18,856.46

CROSS BORDER AND LEVERAGED LEASE TRANS- ACTIONS $2,730.00

CWA (Collective Negotiations for a Successor Agreement) $50,050.10WA Local 1031, Rowan chool of steopathic Medicine ( ollective Negotiations fora uccessor

$34,114.12

Division of Investment -Alternative Investment - EQT Infrastructure Fund III, L.P. $36,720.00

Division of Investment -Alternative Investment -New Jersey Asia Investors, II (post-closing matters) $12,895.00Division of Investment -Alternative Investment - NJD I pportunistic Real Estate Program, LP -Post-C osin Matter

$4,762.50

Division of Investment -Alternative Investment - Warbug Pincus China, L.P. $7,322.50

Division of Investment -Alternative Investment Warbug Pincus China, L.P. $18,530.00


Gibbons P.C., Newark

Division of Investment -Blackstone Capital Partners VII, LP (post-closing) $675.00

Division of Investment -Blackstone Energy Partners (post-closing matters) $1,987.50

Division of Investment -Blackstone Mezzanine Partners II $375.00

Division of Investment -Blackstone Read Estate Partners VII, LP (post-closing matters) $187.50

Division of Investment -Blackstone Tactical Opportunities Fund - A (PE) (post-closing) $900.00

Division of Investment -Blackstone Tactical Opportunities Fund -ALP (RA) (post-closing) $450.00

Division of Investment -Brookfield Capital Partners IV, LP (post-closing matters) $11,430.00

Division of Investment -Carlyle Realty Partners V, LP (post-dosing matters) $562.50

Division of Investment - Cevian Capital II, LP Fund (post-closing matters) $937.50

Division of Investment -Complex Transaction -Goldman Sachs & Co. Option Account Agreements $5,325.00

Division of Investment -Goldman Sachs NJ II, LP $4,666.80

Division of Investment - GSO Credit - A Partners LP (post-closing) $2,437.50Division of nvestment - DA Protco Negotiations - ommonwea th Bank of Austra is (enforceabi ity $675.00

Division of Investment - JLL Partners Fund VI $444.60

Division of Investment -Northwood Real Estate Partners, LP Fund $7,400.00

Division of Investment -Silver Lake Partners, IV, LP (post-closing matters) $787.50

Division of Investment - TPG Real Estate Partners II, LP (post-closing matters) $6,525.00

Division of Investment - TSG7 A, LP (post-closing matters) $4,430.00

Division of Investment - TSG7 B, LP (post-closing matters) $2,562.50

Division of Investment -Wheelock Street Real Estate Fund V, LP (post-closing matters) $10,152.50

Division of Investment- M&G Real Estate Debt Fund II & 11~ $1,462.50

DOI - Alternatie Investment NJDOI Core Pluse Real Estate Investment Program, LP (post-closing matters) $4,650.00

DOI -Alternative Investment - ARA Asia Dragon Fund Limited -Post Closing Matter $2,700.00

DOI -Alternative Investment -Hammes Partners III, LP (initial transaction) $28,520.00

GLADYS HILLMAN JONES, TEMPLO AVIVAMIENTO DA MASCO, INC. $12.00

Health Professional and Allied Employees, Local 5089 (HPAE 5089) $22,312.05

Health Professional and Allied Employees, Local 5094 (HPAE 5094) $23,443.39

Heitman Core Property Fund $9,952.20

International Union of Operating Engineers Local 68 $12,476.87

Loan Agreement blt Atlantic City and the State pursuant to the Municipal Stabilization and Recovery Act $27,472.65

Lubert Adler Real Estate Fund VI-B $1,687.50Matters Arising from the tate versight of At antic ity pursuant to the Municipa tabi ization and $51,443.49

Law Firm Office Matter Title AmountNJ Transit Corporation; NJ TransitGrid $62,915.50

NJT -Follow-up Work -Fuel Swap with Merrill Lynch $175.00

NJT -Follow-up Work -Termination of 1996 Meadowns Lease with Wells Fargo $105.00

Response to Request for Documents Related to Prior Litigation $39,834.50

Rowan School of Osteopathic Medicine AAUP (Collective Negotiations for a Successor Agreement) $33,732.52

SDA -Newark Oliver Street Elementary School $30.00pecial ounsel Designation; NJ Transit orporation, as reditor in the Designline Bankruptcy $183.00

State Treasurer &New Jersey Educational Facilities Authority -Advice on CIF &HEFT Bonds $45,000.00

Teamster Local Union 97 $4,742.00

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles

National Collegiate Athletic Association, et al v. Christopher J. Christie, et al $102,445.78

National Collegiate Athletic Association, et al v. Christopher J. Christie, et al $1,080,367.73

National Collegiate Athletic Association, et al. v. Christopher J. Christie, et al. $53,872.33

Gordon &Gordon, P.C., Springfield Passaic River Litigation Ongoing Work $24,891.98

Gray Miller Persh LLC, Washington NJPBA -FCC Matters, State Treasurer and the NJPBA $36,221.50

Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith &Davis LLP, Woodbridge

Centrella, Lorraine, et al. v. Woodbridge Development Center, et al. $81,965.25oncetta Mi itano alk/a onnie Mi itano, eta v. New Jersey Division of Youth & Fami y ervices {DYF ~

o e e $132,931.04Doe, John as Parent and Lega uardian of John Doe, Jr., eta . v. New Jersey Department of hi dren 8~ $33,709.00

Doe, John v. State of New Jersey, et al. $17,590.00

Escobar, Neomi v. Newark Beth Israel Medical Ct~, et al. $7,290.00

Glenn, Christina AIK/A Christiana Rezireksyon, et al. v. DCPP, et al. $13,711.00

Gonzalez, Zenaida, et al. v. State of New Jersey, et al. $51,039.31

JP, as Parent R Legal Guardian of DP v. State of New Jersey, et al. $8,317.95

Meg Yatauro v. Kevin Bolden, et al $330,374.70

NJEDA Technology Centre of New Jersey PILOT Agreement Amendment and possible Tax Appeal $4,720.00

R.C. v. DYFS (n/k/a Division of Child Protection &Permanency), et al. $37,869.11

SBK (formerly RB) an infant by his Guardian Ad Liten, Barbara Klein v. DYFS, et al. $3,200.00Torres, tephanie, Parent &Legal uardian of Amaryllis omez v. tate of New Jersey; Department of $25,345.00

Greenberg Dauber Epstein &Tucker, Newark

Adams, Elizabeth, et al. v. New Jersey Civil Service Commission $479.00

Corey Bland &Virginia Bland v. City of Newark et al $117,372.57

Epifan, Timothy v. Francisco Roman, et al. $8,620.00

Escobar, Neomi v. Newark Beth Israel Medical Ctr, et al. $46,319.50

FY 2017 School Funding Issues $87,017.79

Law Firm Office Matter Title AmountNJ TRAN T - Inte ectua Property Counse Bytemark, nc v. Xerox orp., A Transport So utions, nc.,

s o e T $7,952.00

Greenberg Traurig PA, Miami Federal Engagements and Federal Contracting/Procurement Matters $46,596.00

HAWKINS DELAFIELD &WOOD LLP, NEW YORK NJHMFA -Conduit Program -Advice on Volumn Cap Recycling Program $25,007.36

HILL WALLACK, Princeton

Easement Acquisition -Barbara Kaplan, Block 18.67, Lot 3 -Long Beach Township $1,963.28

Easement Acquisition -Bart &Jill Blaststein, Block 7.01, Lot 6 -Margate $16,285.68

Easement Acquisition -Beach Haven (Bateman) $3,030.87

Easement Acquisition -Donald Goldberg; Block 20.87; Lot 4 -Long Beach Township $4,233.92

Easement Acquisition -Fred Weber &Joanne Mazza, Block 12, Lot 16 -Margate $14,921.45

Easement Acquisition -Geoffrey &Michelle Greenberg, Block 12, Lot 8 -Margate $15,987.36

Easement Acquisition - Ghada Jebara, Block 20.47, Lot 4 -Long Beach Township $1,579.25

Easement Acquisition -Jeanette Frankenberg, Block 20.45, Lot 4 -Long Beach Township $28,380.88

Easement Acquisition -Jennifer &Hugo Vangeen -Block 12, Lot 12 - Elsinboro Township $261.12

Easement Acquisition -Joel Golden; Block 20.117; Lot 7 -Long Beach Township $484.80

Easement Acquisition -Larry R. Sr. &Nancy A. Bechtel -Block 19, Lot 4.13 - Elsinboro Township $4,882.81

Easement Acquisition -Linda L. Ferguson -Block 23, Lot 17 - Elsinboro Township $183.62

Easement Acquisition - LNM Group, LLC; Block 20.129; Lot 1.10 -Long Beach Township $763.68

Easement Acquisition -Long Beach $5,908.80

Easement Acquisition -Margate $28,195.83

Easement Acquisition -Mark 8~ Christine Scott -Block 12, Lot 2 - Elsinboro Township $3,677.10

Easement Acquisition - Morton B & Roberta Z Schiekman, Block 13, Lot 8 -Margate $1,001.49

Easement Acquisition - Nahla Jebara, Block 18, Lot 3 -Long Beach Township $1,188.95

Easement Acquisition -Nancy Roncati, Block 20.67, Lot 4 -Long Beach Township $824.48

Easement Acquisition - Ngan K Do & Diep Tran, Block 13, Lot 17 -Margate $14,527.37

Easement Acquisition -North Beach, 1003, LLC, Block 18.03, Lot 4 -Long Beach Township $10,885.06

Easement Acquisition - Olitsky, Stephen, Block 15, Lot 19 -Margate $20.00

Easement Acquisition -Richard A. Cherner, Block 18, Lot 9 -Margate $16,676.64

Easement Acquisition -Richard Carolan; Block 20.68; Lot 1 -Long Beach Township $13,886.02

Easement Acquisition -Richard Kowazlski, Block 20.35, Lot 1.04 -Long Beach Township $1,162.64

Easement Acquisition -Richard Tavoso -Block 4; Lots 1, 1.01 - Mantoloking Boro $164,597.26

Easement Acquisition -Robert Helemian; Bfock 20.109; Lot 1.04 -Long Beach Township $6,424.02

Easement Acquisition -Robert M. &Stephanie Cocchi -Block 23, Lot 3 - Elsinboro Township $203.62

Easement Acquisition - Robertine Ann Mayer -Block 12, Lot 23 - Elsinboro Township $9,262.32

Law Firm Office Matter Title AmountEasement Acquisition - Shanin Spector; Block 20.89; Lot 5 -Long Beach Township $7,869.52

Easement Acquisition -Sheldon Bonovitz, Block 20.03, Lot 4 -Long Beach Township $2,364.72

Easement Acquisition -Shepherd, Joanne - Biock 84; Lot 9 -Atlantic City $40.72

Easement Acquisition -Shepherd, John and Eleanor -Block 84; Lot 6 -Atlantic City $40.00

Easement Acquisition -Stephen Voda; Block 77; Lot 3 -Ship Bottom $14,134.33

Easement Acquisition - Stonis Family, LLC; Block 20.82; Lot 1 -Long Beach Township $926.08

Easement Acquisition -Thomas Kline, Block 20.37, Lot 1.05 -Long Beach Township $10,606.82

Easement Acquisition - Varunan Sivalingam, Block 18.61, Lot 1.03 -Long Beach Township $1,773.40

Easement Acquisition -William Mascharka; Block 20.127; Lot 1.03 -Long Beach Township $645.36

Easement Acquisition -Windmill Properties, Block 79, Lot 1 & 2 -Atlantic City $14,280.89

Easement Acquisition- Omni AC, LLC, Block 84, Lots 2, 3, 4 & 5 -Atlantic City $8,728.88

Manufacturers and Traders Trust Co. v. Marina Bay Towers Urban Renewal II, et al. $209,894.22

Mills, Whitlock LL (NJHMFA) $51,654.55

NJHMFA -Delaney Homes Project $16,571.97

NJHMFA -Multi-Family Conduit Bond Program Bridgeton Villas $30,671.64

NJT -Hoboken Terminal Redevelopment $19,442.37

NJT-69th Bridge -Property Acquisition - "C" $12,190.37

Somerville 8~ New Bridge Landing (River Edge) $8,341.04

Albanese, Vincent John vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $3,203.59

Allen, Wendell vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $48.90

Alvino, Lane vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $28,808.48

Archibald, Roger vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $6,570.81

Arzuaga, Luis v. NJTRO, Inc. $21,813.36

Blunt, Jamil vs. New Jersey Tranist, et al. $3,373.28

Bonsall, William and Sheri Bonsall; his wife vs. State of New Jersey, New Jersey Transit, et al. $69.36

Brown, Cornelius E. vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al. $6,144.02

Cifarelli, Joseph R. vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $2,964.18

Crennan, Thomas J. vs. New Jersey Transit $1,714.28

Crennan, Thomas J. vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $8,604.81

Cruz, Carlos v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $424.27

D'Amico, Nicole, et al. vs. John E. Mayo, Sr., et al. $2,464.72

DeJesus, Fran vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $3,276.11


Hohn 8 Scheuerle, LLC

Devincenzo, Shawn vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $5,886.82

DiGiacomo, Vincent and Dawn DiGiacomo, h/w vs. Betty L. Harris-Wilson, et al. $13,988.18

Donahue, John vs. New Jersey Tarnsit Rail Operations, Inc. $6,060.53

Ellis, Kenneth vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $9,157.87Eng ish, Tamika, Administratrix of the Estate of Herman English, Deceased, eta v. NJ Transit orporation,

$38,930.61

Harmon, Rexford vs. Stephanie Woods, et al. $104.77Hlywiak, Karen &Peter Hlywiak, her husband vs. National Railroad Passenger orporation d/bla Amtrak, et $g 412.88

Holmes, Sandra vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $8,299.35

Howard, Kandace and Myson Hampton vs. New Jersey Transit Authority $3,564.48

Jenkins, Jermaine v. NJ Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $2,140.90

Jimenez, Enrique vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $9,635.62

Johnson, Jerome C. vs. NJ Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $29,109.18Johnson, Taneka vs. a R. Bieber, ~c. and New Jersey Tranasit orporation, alkla and d/b/a New Jersey

~t$320.72

Kondor, Kris vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $64.08

Lombardi, David v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $776.58

Maher, Terry vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $14,568.74

McEvoy, Matthew vs. New Jersey Transit Operations, Inc. $15,037.60

McGlothen, Cynthia, et al v. Estate of Herman English, et al. $1,716.24

Mirza, Zulfigar H. vs. New Jersey Transit Rait Operations, Inc. $7,122.30

Mohamed, Magdy vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $302.35

Murray, James J. vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $11,338.36

New Jersey Transit Rail Operations Inc. -Non-Litigation Services $2,512.00

Oldham, Christopher vs. NJ Transit, et als. $64.80

Prawdzik, Edward vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations $12,309.36

Ritchey, Douglas vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $31,762.13

Rollins, Tomikakim, et aI v. Tammy Ross-Caffee, et al. $21,872.89

Sean Link v. Craig Reider, et al and Michael Fantry v. Craig Reider, et al $15,641.29

Smith, Tyree vs. New Jersey Transit Rail $6,711.52

Tate-Linton, Wanda vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $3,815.08

Taylor, Todd vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $23,090.37

Tumfour, Carruthers vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $12,633.69

Van Jura, Jeffrey vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $5,956.60


Ice Miller LLP

New Jersey Department of Education -Pension Tax Advice Regarding Renaissance Schools $7,561.70

NJHMFA -Formation of an OPEB Trust $10,000.00

NJT Health &Welfare Benefits Plans; Affordable Care Act Issues $4,344.75

Pension Project 2017 $369,224.48

Special Counsel Designation -State Retirement Plans and State Health Benefit Plans $193,345.91

Jackson Gilmour &Dobbs, PC, Houston Passaic River Litigation Ongoing Work $8,640.00

Jackson Lewis P.C. -White Plains NYFOP, Lodge 91 (CJ Investigators) -Appeal Matter $5,488.36

New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice Non-Commissioned Officers Association (CJ Investigators) $450.00

Joel M. Miklacki, Passaic

Motor Vehicle Commission v. Biasco, Jordon $1,260.00

Motor Vehicles Commission V. Robyn Fields $1,116.89

MVC v. Hirsch, Alfred $3,415.10

John J. Curley LLC, Jersey City

Easement Acquisition - 1067 Ocean Ave, LLC -Block 23; Lots 22, 22.01 - Mantoloking Boro $7,005.00

Easement Acquisition -Anthony Maltese -Block 23; Lots 26, 26.01 - Mantoloking Boro $3,217.21

Easement Acquisition -Barbara Weldon -Block 50.02; Lots 9, 9.01 -Brick Township $550.00

Easement Acquisition -Bel-Air Vil Pro Own Assn, Inc. -Block 42.02; Lot 17 -Brick Township $135.00

Easement Acquisition -Beverly Cammarano Trust -Block 50.02; Lot 14 -Brick Township $870.00

Easement Acquisition -Brick $10,917.98

Easement Acquisition -Craig Jackson -Block 46.02; Lot 34 -Brick Township $1,245.71

Easement Acquisition - D. Castelbanco -Block 52.01; Lots 1, 15 -Brick Township $285.00

Easement Acquisition -Daniel McCreesh -Block 58; Lot 2 -Brick Township $460.00

Easement Acquisition -Donna Walsh -Block 41; Lots 3, 3.01, 4, 4.01 - Mantoloking Boro $400.00

Easement Acquisition -Falls LP °/ Dr. C. Rossakis -Block 4; Lots 8. 8.01 - Mantoloking Boro $1,000.00

Easement Acquisition - Fenelon Properties, Inc. -Block 52.01; Lot 11 -Brick Township $705.00

Easement Acquisition -Fisherman Dunes Pro -Block 42.04; Lot 15 -Brick Township $820.00

Easement Acquisition - JC 8~ JMP Spaccarotella -Block 42.03; Lot 1 -Brick Township $1,883.80

Easement Acquisition -Jerome Giovinazzo - Btcok 64, Lot 11 -Brick Township $622.12

Easement Acquisition -Jill P. Giles Trust -Block 42.04; Lot 13 -Brick Township $590.00

Easement Acquisition - Jstar, LLC -Block 36, Lots 11.06, 11.07 -Brick Township $3,009.74

Easement Acquisition - Kahanovitz, Neil & Suzzanne -Block 57; Lot 1 -Brick Township $300.00

Easement Acquisition -Leonard Rowe -Block 50.02; Lot 1 -Brick Township $330.00

Easement Acquisition - M 8~ M Ocean Property, LLC -Block 42.02; Lot 14 -Brick Township $750.00

Easement Acquisition - Mantoloking $3,445.00

Law Firm Office Matter Title AmountEasement Acquisition - Mantoloking Dunes Club, Inc. -Block 58; Lots 14, 15, 16 -Brick Township $75.00

Easement Acquisition -Mark Martzband -Block 26; Lots 5, 5.01 - Mantoloking Boro $250.00

Easement Acquisition -Michael Verzaleno Trust -Block 39; Lot 2 -Brick Township $165.00

Easement Acquisition -Patel & Warsi Living Trusts -Block 46.02; Lot 32 -Brick Township $330.00

Easement Acquisition -Property Owners Assn Mantoloking -Block 43.08; Lot 9 -Brick Township $285.00

Easement Acquisition -Richard Tavoso -Block 4; Lots 1, 1.01 - Mantoloking Boro $615.00

Easement Acquisition -Robert Merrell -Block 46.02; Lot 29.01 -Brick Township $1,650.00

Easement Acquisition -Ronald O'Malley -Block 58; Lot 6 -Brick Township $510.00

Easement Acquisition -Thomas Buckley -Block 50.02; Lot 4 -Brick Township $430.00

Easement Acquisition -Thomas Tullo -Block 37, Lot 8 -Brick Township $1,067.92

Easement Acquisition -William McCarthy -Block 36, Lot 10.07 -Brick Township $5,008.54

Harvey Cedars, Borough of v. Harvey and Phyllis Karan, et al. $6,545.00

Joseph M. Wenzel, Attorney at Law, LLC, Clifton

State of New Jersey v. Barthelus, Wesley $1,680.00

State of New Jersey v. Brock, Theresa $1,800.00

State of New Jersey v. Roberts, Kimberly $825.00

State of New Jersey v. Williams, Lanisha $900.00

Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, New York NJT v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, et al. $154,220.90

Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.- njlaws, Edison

Motor Vehicle Commission v. Gorzaloa, Sonny $3,330.00

Motor Vehicle Commission v. Ozgur Demir $3,242.00

Motor Vehicles Commission v. Ana M. Felciano $4,095.00

MVC v. Daniel Coates $3,211.00

MVC v. Dennard, Jamal $3,182.50

MVC v. Jeffrey Sgro $990.00

MVC v. Shkelqim Afjani $1,500.00

State of New Jersey v. Valentin, Randy $1,005.00

Kent &McBride, P.C., New Jersey Cherry Hitl

State of New Jersey v. Adeaga, Oyedolapo $2,265.00

State of New Jersey v. Buckley, Joan $1,020.00

State of New Jersey v. Hicks, Heather $485.71

State of New Jersey v. Schmidt, Leah A. $4,155.52

State of New Jersey v. Trout, Todd $1,096.68

King &Spalding LAP, Atlanta In re:. $735,785.58

Krovatin Klingeman LLC, Newark In Re:. $41,417.84


Law Office of Brian J. Levine Benton, Imani, Admin of the Estate of Tierra Morgan, et al. v. State (DCPP), et al. $16,174.85

Law Office of Dolores Rocco Kulp, Philadelphia

state ire an asua ty nsurance ompany as u rogee o mot y regory v. ew ersey ransitCor oration

$2,976.00

Barber, Richard K. vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $7,697.16

Burnett, Hafeez vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation $16,106.92

Christofes, Dustyn vs. Linda Paz Kelly and New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc. $7,280.00

DeRobertis, Nicholas vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $144.00

Fosetta, Christopher v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, et al. $66,634.13

Frink, John v. NJT $176.00

Gooding, Francis vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $6,487.48

Judge, Jeffrey vs. Evelyn Lewis, Larry Lewis and New Jersey Transit $2,755.18

Kreitz, Jr., George vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $2,999.48

Lavance, Everett K, vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $8,329.68

Miller, Caroline vs. New Jersey Transit Corp. $21,121.40

Viggiano, Russell v. New Jersey Transit Raif Operations, Inc. $17,281.49

Watson, Shirley, et al. v. Best Transit, Inc., et al. $12,697.68

Wright, Gilbert v. New Jersey Transit $19,135.17

Law Office of William P. Flahive, L.L.C., Lambertville

Brown, Denise v. State of NJ, et al. $680.00

Deane, Joseph L., Jr. v. Honorable Edward V. Gannon, et al. $9,860.48

Henien, Usama, et al. v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, et al. $15,363.02n re: App ication of an Attorney-Trustee of an Attorney at Law of the tate of New Jersey (Law Practice of

e $1,640.00

Leonard, Latiah, et al. v. Melissa Vybiral, et al. $360.00

Peterson, Bradley C. v. A. Matlock, Jr., et al. $48,468.72

Robbins, Wayne v. Kevin Bolden, et al. $109,974.96

Wahab, Atiya v. State of New Jersey, et al. $20,118.72

Willis, Ratarsha v. Carl Walker, et al. $42,377.23

Wright-Belser, Sabrina v. Children &Families, et al. $480.00

LeClair Ryan, Richmond

Klugman, Jeffrey v. New Jersey Transit, et a~. $199,555.40

Lieb, Drew v. State of New Jersey, Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness $69,857.50

Maria Brito v. Ramapo College $200.80

Pittman, William v. Middlesex County Prosecutor's office, et al. $100.00

Request Medical Staffing, LLC DIBIA Request Staffing v. Joseph Scully $3,958.60

State of New Jersey v. Gatson, Tokyo $4,078.75


Leitner, Tort, DeFazio, Leitner S~ BrauseP.C., Edison Paul Gelentis v. State of New Jersey $3,793.50

Lenox, Socey, Formidoni, Brown, Giordano, Cooley 8 Casey, LLC, Lawrenceville

Averona, Dominique; Administratrix, et al vs. Henry R. Schuitema, D.O., et al. $92,188.74

Bodine, Lawrence C., et al. v. Trenton Psychiatric Hospital, et al. $40.00

Budden, Christopher L., et al v. William Paul Block, DO, et al $105,926.81

Luciano Twins; Vincent Luciano &Juliana Luciano; Minors, et al vs. So. Jersey Healthcare, et al. $42,462.50

McCormick, Anthony v. State of New Jersey $2,463.00

Medina, Crystal M., et al v. Vishwanath Bhat, MD, et al. $160.00

Pierznik, Patricia; A.A.P., et al vs. Jennifer Hummel, D.O., et al $2,093.80

Ramirez, Maria vs. Uml R. Panganamamula, MD, et al $200.00

Sylla, Kemo; A.A.P., et al vs. Thomas Hegy, MD, et al $9,190.75

Watts-Naley, Beverly; OIBIO; The Estate of Levis F. Nalley vs. Cooper University Hospital, et al. $16,997.07

Lite DePalma Greenberg Bradley C. Peterson v. Administrator Christopher Holmes, et aI $28,076.74

Locke Lord LLP (EAPD), Boston

Division of Investment -Alternative Investment Aspect Core Diversified Program (Initial transaction) $4,316.40

Division of Investment - Cadian Fund L.P. $831.60

Division of Investment -Catalyst Fund Limited Partnership V $30,000.00

Division of Investment -Chatham Asset Mgmt (Separate Account) (post-closing matters) $14,924.00

Division of Investment - Excellere Capital Fund III, LP (initial transaction) $40,107.44

Division of Investment - Exceltere Capital Fund III, LP (post-closing matters) $15,000.00

Division of Investment -Exeter Core Industrial Club Fund, II, LP (initial transaction) $45,000.00

Division of Investment -Exeter Core Industrial Club Fund, II, LP (post-closing matters) $11,563.20

Division of Investment -Lazard Rathmore Fund, LTD (post-closing matters) $5,266.80

Division of Investment -Lynx (Bermuda) Ltd. $14,454.00

Division of Investment -Lynx Common (Bermuda) Ltd. (initial transaction) $60,000.00

Division of Investment -Lynx Common (Bermuda) Ltd. (post-closing matters) $4,910.40

Division of Investment - MKP Opportunity Fund $5,337.60

Division of Investment - Onex Partners IV, LP $2,098.80

Division of Investment - WLR Recovery Fund IV, LP (post-closing matters) $2,732.40

Lowenstein Sandler LLP, Roseland

onduct nterna nvestigation Regarding the Demo ition of the Huggs-Harrison House and Lega Ana ysis

~$226,604.14

Equal Employment Opportunity Matter $40,858.16

Lukas, LaFuria, Gutierrez 8 Sachs, LLP, McLean NJ Transits Positive Train Control Project/Radio Frequency Spectrum FCC Matters $15,048.00

Lum, Drasco & Positan, LLC, Roseland

Jersey City Municipal Utilities Authority v. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al. $11,014.00NJT -Acquisition of Portions of Properties Known as ne and Two Penn P aza East, Newark, NJ (NJT $49,839.00

Law Firm Office Matter Title Amountpecia ounse Designation - NJ Transit Corporation Jersey city Municipa Uti ities Authority Caim -

e 0 e e$24,206.80

Lynch &Lynch, Garden City

Belfand, Seman vs. Raymond Petosa and New Jersey Transit Corporation, C-83585-444 $77,695.08

Benavente, Elena N. vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al. N-82834-442 $180.00

Berger, Erica vs. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey vs. New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc. $10,666.25

Fetahu, Valdona v. New Jersey Transit Corp. $27,319.74

Henry, Kathleen vs. New Jersey Transit, et al. $23,269.88

Holmes-Moses, Iraida vs. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey $6,176.00

Huerta, Michael A. vs. NJ Transit Corp., et al. $10,086.72

Johnson, Althea vs. New Jersey Transit Authority $18,735.23

Kim, Jung Kui and Won Kim vs. NJ Transit Bus Operations and Justen Oriolo $10,561.39

Lan, Mario and Elizabeth Lan vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al. $6,969.49

Laux, William V, vs. Anwapul H. Chowdhury, et al, N-83029 $7,844.75

Lee, Vong vs. Justen Oriolo, et al $3,994.46

Wallace, Karen vs. New Jersey Transit Corp. and Carlos Trujillo $14,771.00

Westchester Radiology and Imaging, P.C., Assignment of Anyhony Brewington vs. NJ Transit Corp. $2,560.00

M. Jeremy Ostow, Esq., South Orange

NJEDA -Biomedical Research Facilities Bonds Post-Issuance Tax Compliance Procedures $275.00

NJEDA -Medical Research Facilities State Contract Bonds $1,655.00

NJHMFA - Captial Program Fund Revenue Bonds -Redemption of 2004 and/or 2007 Series Bond $34,475.00

NJHMFA -Fall 2016 New Money Bonds; Refunding Bonds and Remarketing of Outstanding Bonds $42,421.82

NJHMFA Burlington Preservation Project and Cedar Run Preservation Project $40,365.84

NJHMFA Conduit Bond Program -Camden Townhouses Project $31,155.66NJHMFA onduit Bond Program -July 2017 Mandatory Tender of Passaic Housing RAD Project, eries2016D-1 Bonds

$4,175.00

NJHMFA Conduit Bond Program -Willows at Whiting Project $25,576.11

NJTTFA -Fiscal Year 2017 New Money Bonds $88,648.86NJTTFA - FY 2015 New Money Bonds, ystem Refunding Bonds, Program Refunding Bonds and F oating $3,334.00

MacNeill, O'Neill 8~ Riveles, LLC, Cedar Knolls

Ferrie, Suzanne, et al vs. Lauren Murpphy, RN, APN, et al $25,367.27

Gibbs, Jamal vs. University Correction) Healthcare, et al. $15,045.50

Kisby, Jessica vs. NJ DOC, et al. $11,502.32

Lombardi, Christopher; Decd vs. Rutgers Biomedical Health Sciences, et al $15,385.57

Nyamuchiwa, Kudazviro vs. Marc I Malberg, MD et al $980.00

Onyekaomelu, Peter and Kamilah vs. UMDNJ, et al (appeal) $31,835.16

Onyekaomelu, Peter and Kamilah vs. UMDNJ, et al. $2,280.00

Law Firm Office Matter Title AmountSisco, Nancy, et al v. Chan W. Park, MD, et al. $23,137.56

Williams vs. Rutgers Biomedical Health Sciences; IMO $10,687.60

Mayer Brown LLP, US Offices In re:. $1,433.48

McCarter &English, LLP, Newark New Jersey

NJEDA - Schoo Faci ities onstruction Bonds - FY2017 New Money Bonds, Refunding Bonds and Noteo e $42,869.77

NJEDA -State Office Bldg Complex Bonds - Followup Work $3,815.08

NJEDA -Tech Council Ventures, L.P. $10,357.04

McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney &Carpenter LLP, Morristown NJ

Anderson, George III, v. NJDMAVA, et al. $79,988.86Baskervi e, tephen;Admin. of the Estate of Bernis Lave e Jordan; Decd vs. Robert Wood Johnson $31,171.10

Behling, Cynthia vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $3,040.00

Brady Middlesworth v. Board of Trustees, Public Employees' Retirement System $6,160.00

Clarification of Unit Petitions - Group Y $10,740.00

CNJSCL AFT-CIO -Faculty/Professional Staff Unit (Collective Negotiations for a Successor Agreement $77,792.08

CNJSCL AFT, AFL-CIO Adjunct Unit (Collective Negotiations for a Successor Agreement) $15,672.80

Collective Bargaining Negotiations wIPBA (NJT) $69,687.69

Collective Negotiations with NJT Bus Labor Unions $11,805.80

Council of NJ State College Locals, ATFIAFL-CIO Grievance: State Refusal to Pay Normal Increments $10,264.64

David Schwarzer v. Montclair State University $3,910.00

DeRobertis, Nicholas vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $2,887.68

Employment Claims by LPS Employee $51,275.40

In re:- $238.00

In re:. $986.00

Jenkins, Leslie E. v. Montclair State University, et al. $7,370.00


Miljanic, Milena; A.A.P. of Zoran Miljanic; Decd vs. Peter Scholz, MD, et al $7,048.25

Miller, Stephen K. vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $3,280.00

Negotiation &Creation of Labor Agreement b/t NJT & CWA Local 1032 (Fare Enforcers 8 Dispatchers) $5,620.00

NJ Transit Corporation -Labor Counsel -Amalgamated Transit Union Contracts $23,848.12

NJ Transit Corporation -Labor Counsel -Employee Compensation Issues $6,691.00

NJHMFA -Arbitration Concerning Prescription Drug Benefits $7,759.63

Peiffer, William vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $14,518.88

Peoples, Christine v. Montclair State University $18,908.54

Price, Tangia, et al v. NJ Transit, Inc., et al $64,864.97

Law Firm Office Matter Title AmountRobinson, Raphael, et al v. new Jersey Transit Rail Operaions, Inc. $9,652.00

State of New Jersey and Council of New Jersey State College Locals, AFT $30,043.00

TANGIA PRICE v. NEW JERSEY TRANSIT, JAMES SCHWORN, PAUL KELLY and JOHN WASILAK, $117,000.58

Tarboro, Oscar v. Board of Trustees, Public Employees' Retirement System $47,160.06

Tietze, Deborah v. New Jersey Pinelands Commission $3,052.00

Tietze, Deborah vs. New Jersey Pinelands Commission $12,760.00

Villapando, Maurine A. v. Raritan Bay Medical Center, et al. $16,541.88

McGivney & Kluger, PC, Florham Park

Fofana, Mamadou, et al v. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al. $4,976.00

Michelson, Eric vs. New Jersey Transit $6,572.41

Riehle, Anthony vs. New Jersey Transit - N84875 $28,802.33

McKool Smith, Dallas NJT v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, et al. $1,856,344.20

McManimon, Scotland &Baumann, L.L.C., RoselandNJESAA -Series 2016 Bonds $748.50

NJESAA -Series 2017 Bonds $48,323.52

Michael A. Armstrong 8 Associates, LLC, Willingboro

State of New Jersey v. Colasanto, Jeanine $4,646.93

State of New Jersey v. Flynn, Nathan and Duda, Joseph $3,897.32

State of New Jersey v. Mongiovi, Stephen $7,422.52

Abramowitz, Michael vs. Kulwant Singh, D.O., et al $612.00

Acebal, Felix vs. Maritza Parreno, MD, et al.; IMO $6,265.00

Aly, Angie vs. John Wessel, et al $19,830.88

Baker, Kim; Administratrix, et al vs. Kessler Rehabiltation Center, et al $3,067.00

Balsamo, Nicolette R. vs. University Hospital, et al $180.00

Buch, Corri, et al v. Rutgers, et al $3,750.52

Cordova Frances J., et al v. Rutgers, The State University of NJ (Formerly UMDNJ), et al. $115.00

Corrado, Thomas, et al v. Warren Chiodo, DPM, et al $9,428.80

Cosentino, Carol vs. Dr. Gregory Borah, et al. $3,883.03

Cynthia Phillips, et al v. NJ Veterans Memorial Home -Paramus, et al $4,919.11Erazo, Ines .; Administratix of the Estate of arlos Erazo vs. Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, et al.; $15,292.99

Feltynowski, Kelly A. vs. Andrew G. Kaufman, MD, et al. $14,913.49

Frankel, Douglas P.; A.A.P., et al vs. Boris Veysman, MD, et al $30,036.90Hambrick-Esby, Deborah . as ourt Appointed uardian of Reginald Hambrick v. WoodbridgeDeve o menta Center et a $3,003.45

Harris, Evelyn v. Rutgers Biomedical 8. Health Sciences $9,279.44

Horton, Nefeesah vs. Theodore Barrett, MD, et al. $1,703.00


Michael J. Lungs, Esq., LLC, Florham Park

Joie, Gina M., et al v. Monorcare Health Services-Wahington Twp., et al; IMO (Bombara, Estate of) $7,897.95

Jones, Imani Siobhan vs. US Food &Drug Administration, et al. $2,020.00

Kadonsky, Steven vs. Abu Ahsan, MD, et al $20,838.44

Little, AI-Kaseem vs. Donique (very, et al. $10,695.74

Ma, Rita v. Princeton Surgical Associates, PA, et al. $800.00

Mazzarella, Andrew A., Estate of, et al. v. New Jersey Veterans Memorial Home Menlo Park, et al. $1,220.00

McNellis-Wallace, Eileen, et al v. Anthony Salerno, MD, et al. $5,876.72

Melincavage Raymond, et al v. Franklin Twp. Police Dept., et al $3,910.48

Olejnik, Adriane; Ad Prosequendum, of the Estate of John Olejnik, Jr. vs. Adena J. Osband, M.D., et al. $4,981.30

Potter, Eric v. James Glover, et al $2,259.50

Price, Kathleen v. RWJUH, et al $17,167.40

Rabeeah, Marwah vs. Kennedy University Hospital, et al. $2,067.92

Robinson, Barbara, et al vs. Jersey City Medical Center, et al. $2,000.00Rohlf, hristopher; Executor of the Estate of atherine Rohlf vs. Robert Wood Johnson UniversityHos its • MO

$3,944.64

Tolver, Edward R.; An Incapacitated Person, et al vs. Kennedy University Hopital, et al. $1,491.75

Ukawabutu, Rumiejah vs. Dr. Abu Ahsan, et al $340.00

Vargas, Anthony vs. Rutgers The State University of NJ, et al. $245.00

Vespe, Michael D., et al. vs. Roy Sandau, D.O., et al. $2,227.69

Wiggins, Christopher; A.A.P., et al vs. City of Newark, et al. $37,355.88

Montgomery, McCracken, Walker and Rhoads, LLP, Philadelphia In re:- $244,899.50

Morgan Melhuish Abrutyn, Livingston

Claims Against HESAA: Debt Collection Practices $38,211.36

DeGarcia, William v. Kean University $34,047.19

Diakunczak, Randy v. Kean University, et al. $32,824.81

Mary Heart v. State Of New Jersey, et als $2,252.48

Rose Richardson v. State of NJ, Office of the Attorney General $6,212.24

Saint-Surin, Carmen, et al. v. Gustavo Reyes, et al. $52,343.88

Schoenstein, Matthew, et al. v. Richard E. Constable, III. Commissioner, et al. $31,450.60

Smith, Diamond, Estate of, et al. v. State of New Jersey, Division of Child Protection &Permanency, et al. $3,244.36

Triebe, Robert v. State of NJ, et al. $42,647.38

Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Jason & Anello P.C., New York In re: ■ $204.00

Abdelhamid, Yassien by his G/AIL Abdelhamid, Mohammed, et al v. Keith Williams, M.D., et al. $2,638.59

Anthony DeSantis v. New Jersey Transit, et al $28,815.32


Mount Laurel- MDWCG Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin

Biassou, Gary, et al vs. John Fitzsimmons, M.D., et al $6,805.00

Deposition of Adena Osband, MD; In reference to kidney transplant; IMO $678.21

Doglio, Jaime A., et al vs. Robert Wood Johnson Medical Group, et al. $57,618.78

Dougherty, Joann; A.A.P., et al v. Kennedy Health System, et al $900.00

Economidis, Maria vs. Susannah Wise, MD, et al. $5,590.08

Esawy, Nawal; a minor, et al vs. Joseph Chong, MD, et al. $83,288.49

Finance of America Reverse, LLC v. The Unknown Heirs, et al $2,180.00

Gary DeMarzo and Samuel Lashman vs. Cape May County Prosecutor Robert Taylor, et al. $19,756.75

rassia, Maurice R., Jr; Executor of the Estate of E izabeth K. rassia v. Underwood Memoria Hospita , eta $28,884.92

ueye, ateefa atee a it ie uar ian o revo n yree ter ing; an in ant vs. i iamcorza eta

$68,089.10

Jenkins, Sherie v. State of NJ, et al. $2,340.32

Jones, Nikki vs. University Hospital, et al. $39,938.27

Keith Stopko vs. New Jersey Attorney General, et al. $23,681.45

Maronski, Walter, et al v. Kennedy Health System, Inc., et al $2,574.85

Mcginley, Audrey, Administrator of the Estate of Daniel McGinley vs. Elisabeth Palmara, et al. $13,968.01

Moody, Juana vs. Thomas Kearney, MD, et al $380.76

Morales, Maria, et al v. Gregory Peck, DO, et al $10,408.69

Muhammad, Winter Hazael; an infant, et al vs. Pierre F. Lespinasse, MD, et al. $27,131.50

Nicole DeBiase v. NJTransit $24,187.60

Pierznik, Patricia; A.A.P., et al vs. Jennifer Hummel, D.O., et al $2,345.87

Redmond, Phillip A., II vs. Virtua West Jersey Health System, et al. $33,185.62

Salifu, Falila; A.A.P. of Janai Adama Maanda Salifu; Decd vs. University Hospital, et al $33,683.24

Salvemini, Mauro, et al v. Naieml Nassiri, MD, et al $12,301.14

Santiago, Janice; A.A.P, of Jovanny Santiago vs. Kennedy Health Care Facilities, et al. $3,971.15

Simon, Sabu, et al vs. Joel Sheinfeld, MD, et al. $14,918.24

Still, Denise Y.; Administrator of the Estate of Everlon M. Still, Jr. vs. Voorhees Center, et al; IMO $8,073.96

Verdi, Shannon &Ralph vs. Anthony P. Salerno, MD, et al. $17,079.36Zwo inski, Barbara F.; Administrator of the Estate of Frank J. Zwo inski; Decd vs. Kenneth Kaufman, MD, $97,767.30

Division of Investment - AnaCap Financial Partners, III, LP (post-closing) $9,362.50

Division of Investment -Benefit Street Partner Special Situations Fund L.P. (post closing matter) $1,710.00

Division of Investment -Benefit Street Partners Special Situations Fund L.P. (initial Transaction) $34,506.15

Division of Investment - MHR Institutional Partners, IV, LP (Post-Closing Matters) $1,377.50


Nixon Peabody LLP, San Francisco

Division of Investment -Securities Law Matters $237.50

Division of Investment - Siguler Guff/NJ Developing Markets LP $237.50Division of Investment - SONJ Private Opportunities II, LP - 2016 Additional Investment (post-closing

$x,425.00

Division of Investment - TPG Start, LP (post-closing matters) $570.00

Division of Investment Complex Transaction CVC Capital Partners, VI, LP $237.50pecia ounse esignation - tate o ew ersey, epartment o reasury, ppointment as isc osure

Counse$52,403.05

State Disclosure Counsel -Review of NJTTFA Website $3,520.00

O~ Brien &Ryan, LLPMills, Dawn, et al. vs. Kennedy Memorial Hospital-Stratford Division, et al $6,124.89

Pollitt-Milcarek, Regina, Michael Milcarek (wlh) vs. Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center, Inc., et al. $2,612.52

OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL 8~ HIPPEL LLP, PHILADELPHIA

New Jersey Housing &Mortgage Finance Agency Atlantic City Townhouses Follow- Up Work $720.00

New Jersey Housing &Mortgage Finance Agency Conduit Bond Program -Jacobs Landing Project $32,720.14

New Jersey Housing &Mortgage Finance Agency Prepayment Opinion 8~ Advice -Lawrence Plaza (#849) $9,000.00

New Jersey Housing &Mortgage Finance Agency Prepayment Opinion 8~ Advice -Mansions Plaza (#578) $7,530.08

NJHMFA -Conduit Bond Program -Keansburg Mixed Income Project $114.09

NJHMFA -Conduit Bond Program -Lincoln Towers Project (December 2016 Remarketing) $2,516.61

NJHMFA -Conduit Bond Program - Marveland Crescent Project $13,097.21

NJHMFA -Conduit Bond Program -New Horizons Phase I Project $66,289.32NJHMFA -Multi Family variable Rate Bonds -Renewal of Bank of AMerica Liquidity Facilities - 2008 eriesB CFand

$5,496.00

NJHMFA -Multi-Family Conduit Bond Program; No Brunswick Crescent (Royal Village) Project $55,683.32

Orlovsky, Moody, Schaaff &Conlon, LLC, West Long Branch

Brewer, Jeffrey, et al v. Centra State Medical Center, et al $15,516.25

Brooks, Leslie vs. Kessler Institute vs. Rutgers, The State University $3,074.00

Brown, Sandra, et al vs. Richard H. Bodner, M.D., et al. $858.00

Davis, Kamora, et al v. Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc., et al $857.00

Fox, Anthony vs. Bayside State Prison, et al. $22,882.23

Garcia, Agustin vs. Correctional Medical Services, et al $11,894.85

Graham, Alquan vs. Ahmar Shakir, D.O., et al. $20,322.30

Johnson, James I., et al vs. Manoj B. Patel, MD, et al. $220.00

Kriegl, John; Decd-Estate of; et al vs. Igor Rybinnik, MD, et al. $17,824.27

Mariocca, Laverne; Estate of, et al vs. Peter McGovern, MD, et al $2,682.00

Pannacciulli, Ella, et al. v. Michelle Beloff $4,241.00

Schroll, Rulla v. Southern Ocean Medical Center, et al. $21,391.67

Taylor, Debra v. Robert Wood Johnson University Hosipital, et al $2,872.50


Taylor, Shinah vs. Rutgers The State University, et al. $3,804.76


Pashman Stein, Hackensack

A.M., a minor by her uardian Jennifer Morales v. tate of New Jersey, Division of Youth and Familye "

$7,245.00


Militano, Concetta; AIKIA Connie Militano, et al. v. DYFS $99,076.86

Pearlman &Miranda, LLC, BloomfieldNew Jersey Economic Development Authority ERB Financing -Health Care Facilities $30,115.74

NJEDA ERB Financing - reation of Template rantlLoanl ubrecipient Agreement & losing$50,000.72

Post & Schefl, PC Schenk, Patrick, et al v. Lisa Dertr, DO, et al. $8,413.00

Post, Polak, Goodsell & Strauchler, PA, Roseland Jones, Rodney v. Newark Police Dept., et al. $140.00

Potters 8 Della Pietra LLP, Fairfield Estate of Frank Lagano v. Bergen County Prosecutor's Office, et al $3,740.00

Reynolds 8 Horn, P.C., Marlton

Budder, Christopher L., et al v. William Paul Block, DO, et al $13,448.71

McDaniel, Michael Paul vs. Donique Ivery, APN, et al $3,480.00

Worthy, Lisa v. Kennedy Heath Systems, et al $680.00

Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland 8 Perretti LLP, Morristown

FMERA -Marina $2,050.00

FMERA -Special Counsel for Municipal Law $24,530.00

FMERA -Special Counsel for Municipal Law -Fitness Center $4,226.50

FMERA -Special Counsel for Municipal Law - Parcel B $55,180.97

FMERA -Special Counsel for Municipal Law - Pinebrook Road Commerce Center $13,737.18

FMERA -Special Counsel for Municipal Law -Pistol Range $7,618.40

FMERA -Special Counsel to Municipal Law -Russel Hall $8,866.81

Fort Monmouth Economic Revita ization Authority pecia ounse for Municipa Law -Motor Poo , ounty $19,617.40

In Re: - $22,045.98

In Re~ $13,014.82

In re~ $4,914.52

In re: - $2,869.00

Roseland MDWCG Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin Shanahan, Kathleen v. NJT, et al. $291,563.89

8/19/2016 NJT Two Bus Collision -Request for Pre-Litigation $14,959.00

Abril, Ernesto vs. Jose Santiago, et al. $33,446.98

Alexander, Wayne vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, et al. $18,208.24

Alfieri, Anthony v. NJT $1,499.00

Almeida, Antonio vs. New Jersey Transit, Inc. $2,288.00

Almeida, Antonio, et al v. NJ Transit, et al. $30,626.16

Law Firm Office Matter Title AmountAmons, Na-Quay vs. University Hospital, et al $19,533.73

Anderson, Diana vs. Ana Mendez, et al. $19,876.16

Aranov, Vlad vs. Wilson Herrerra-Perez, et al. $3,498.50

Baker, Angelique v. NJTBO, C-82232-01-101 $44.00

Beauzil, Anne Marie, et al. vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al. $15,695.28

Belitzky, David, et al vs. Delka Trucking, Inc., et al. $3,008.00

Biggs, Jonathan, et al. vs. Wilson Herrera-Perez, et al. $4,665.36

Binford, Matthew vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al. $20,552.59

Broderick, Thomas vs. Harry Thompson, Jr., et al. $144.00

Byrd, Jeffrey & Kelli Byrd vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc., et al $112.00

Cabaj, Maria, et al v. New Jersey Transit, et al $22,427.08

Caldwell, Whadoo, Estate of vs Northern State Prison, et al. $1,299.00

Chehade Pierre vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $12,544.53

CiFuentes, Oralia, et al v. New Jersey Transit Corp., et al. $2,278.42

Cohn-Dobkin, Debra vs. New Jersey Transit $27,338.88

Culkin, Frank vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $29,147.79

D'Angiolillo, Robert vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $22,477.23

Danley, Elizabeth vs. NJ Transit, et al. $20,741.01

Dasrat, Chitrawatie v. Thomas K. Bertram, et al. $64.00

Dertouzous, Claire vs. New Jersey Transit $20,189.86

Desai, Samir vs. Wilson Herrera-Perez, et al. $3,507.01

Deshong, Shina vs. New Jersey Transit $8,112.00

Duarte, Mario, et al v. Abdelaziz Elwaziki, et al. $2,845.24

Dugan, Thomas v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $98.00

Dykeman, Wiliam v. Abu Ahsan, MD, et al $2,617.29

Edwards, Urica vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $9,870.00

Esposito, Dominic v. New Jersey Transit, et al. $35,137.11

Farina, Robert vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $160.00

Garcia-Rosales, Cesar, et al v. Claire H. Frederic, et al. $304.00

Gebert, Walter vs. New Jersey Transit, et al. $55.00

Gialamas v. New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc. $15,697.92

Grice, Montia, et al v. University Hospital, et al. $10,156.00


Ruprecht, Hart Weeks & Ricciardulli, LLP

Griso, Raven, et al v. Kelka Trucking Inc., et al $2,161.00

Guadalupe, Angel; Estate of, et al vs. Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, et al. $16,622.85

Guererra, Michael vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $29,915.89

Hoboken Terminal Rail Accident of 9/29116 $52,781.00

Howard, Anthony v. NJT (R-08424) $20,479.58

Kertesz, John and Laverne Maryann Kertesz vs. Consolidated Rail Corporatio, et al $800.00

Kest, Sheldon vs. New Jersey Transit Corp. d/bla NJ Transit, et al. $240.00

Kosich, Natalie; Admin. of Estate of Sergei Kosich, et al v. Hackensack University Medical Center, et al $15,424.68

Kozak, Edwin vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation $4,398.12

Kozak, et al, Matthew vs. Ana Mendez, et al $17,978.67

Kucharski, Alan; Estate of, et al. v. Central Railroad of New Jersey, et al. $20,209.77

Lazar, Roslyn, et al v. New Jersey Transit, et al. $52,210.30

Linton, Susan vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $39,934.42

Maybank, Barbara vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $144.00

McCall, Tyquan vs. New Jersey Transit, et al $20,850.50

Miller, Ricky vs. Paul Lagana, et al $5,423.00

Mox, Rolando vs. New Jersey Transit Corp., et al. $2,030.00

Murillo, Jorge Luis vs. New Jersey Transit Corp., et al. $32.00

Neglia, Joseph vs. New Jersey Transit $27,951.57

Nurge, Kyle vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $3,388.00

Oyediran, Shola vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $34,710.54

Panebianco, Brian vs. Delka Trucking, Inc., et al. $6,072.99

Perren, Michael, et al vs. Englewood Hospital and Medical Center, et al $555.00

Queller, Martin, et al v. Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, et al $46,889.07

Rhoden, Cordell vs. New Jersey Transit Corproation $768.00

Ritchwood, Randy vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations $23,347.29

Rodriguez, Cesar A., et al. vs. Wilson A. Orjuelasolorzano, et al $16,203.76

Rojas, Ely vs. New Jersey Transit $9,767.88

Rozenstein, Stella, et al v. Steven Goldberg, MD, et al. $49,399.64

Ruberry, Frank vs. Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, et al. $915.00

Sapp, Wyatt vs. University Hospital, et al $12,271.78

Shtarker, Natalya v. Wilson Herrera-Perez, et al $1,930.60

Law Firm Office Matter Title AmountSiev, Justin vs. Wilson Herrera-Perez, et al. $4,134.00

Singleton, Elijah vs. NJ DOC, et al. $3,020.00


Son, Alexander vs. New Jersey Transit $73,849.41

Soto, Nicholas vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $11,706.80

Szumski, Amy;G/A/L, or Isabela Guzman, a minor vs. Abdulla AI-Khan, MD, et al. $18,461.02

Tavarez, Julio vs. New Jersey Transit, et al. $8,520.03

Thomas, James vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $32,616.83

Tramontano, Danielle, et al v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $101,245.47

Troutman, Schkeema vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $10,373.67

Valoroso, Robert and Kimberly Valoroso, his wife vs. Delks Trucking, Inc., et al. $2,147.92

Vanegas, David v. Temporary Guardian of Karen Vanegas v. Roy Palian-DeLacruz, et al. $58,619.89

Vinci, Angela vs. Wilson Herrea-Perez, et al. $2,680.96

Wechman, Greg vs. New Jersey Transit $2,724.74

West, Thmas vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $15,011.97

Wojcik, Iwona vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al. $13,450.97

Wong-Stewart, Bridgette vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al $288.00

Yu, Alex, et al vs. Delka Trucking, Inc., et al $5,369.84

Easement Acquisition -Addeo Gina -Block 179.03; Lot 5.02 -Point Pleasant Beach $266.00

Easement Acquisition - AFMV, LLC -Block 99.01; Lots 1.08, 1.09 -Seaside Heights $9,348.88

Easement Acquisition -Anita Dietrick -Block 1.01; Lot 1 -Point Pleasant Beach $2,406.25Easement Acquisition -Bay Pointe Dune Homeowners Assoc -Block 179.04; Lots 2, 3, 4 -Point PleasantBeach

$2,143.68

Easement Acquisition - Bayhead Point Homeowners Assn -Block 179.03; Lot 9 -Point Pleasant Beach $254.00

Easement Acquisition -Belle Freeman Properties, LLC -Block 69, Lots 1, 1.01, 1.02 -Seaside Heights $1,658.19

Easement Acquisition -Boylan, John -Block 9; Lot 1 -Point Pleasant Beach $375.00Easement Acquisition - Bradshaw's Beach Homeowners Assn -Block 17.02; Lots 13, 14 -Point PleasantBeach

$2,940.92

Easement Acquisition - Brod, Craig -Block 179.03; Lot 5.07 -Point Pleasant Beach $182.00Easement Acquisition - arter & cean Avenues ub. Homeowners Assn -Bock 179.04; Lot 5 -Point $9,702.82

Easement Acquisition -Children's Trust, et al. -Block 7; Lot 8 -Point Pleasant Beach $352.80Easement Acquisition -Edward 8, Mary Jo Nervi, Marianne F. Mongello -Block 17.02; Lot 7 -Point PleasantBeach

$18,753.70

Easement Acquisition -Elizabeth Carter Assoc, -Block 13.07; Lots 1, 2, 3, 6 -Point Pleasant Beach $32,850.58

Easement Acquisition -Fisher, Steven -Block 179.03; Lot 5.03 -Point Pleasant Beach $164.00


Rutter 8~ Roy, LLP, Freehold

Easement Acquisition - Funtown Pier Associates -Block 97, Lots 20, 20.01 -Seaside Heights $42,094.60

Easement Acquisition - Girgis, Ihab -Block 179.03; Lot 5.04 -Point Pleasant Beach $230.00

Easement Acquisition -Grillo, Robert -Block 9; Lot 2 Point Pleasant Beach $801.08

Easement Acquisition - Harborhead Condo Assn -Block 180; Lot 2 -Point Pleasant Beach $105.00

Easement Acquisition - Jakeway, Phillip E., III -Block 7; Lot 5 -Point Pleasant Beach $804.26asement cquisition - ames Inca e an ynn an e touwe; oc of - oint easant

Beach$30.00

Easement Acquisition - Jenkinson's South Inc- Block 210.02; Lots 1, 2 -Point Pleasant Beach $3,550.52Easement Acquisition - Jenkinsons Pavi ion and Jenkinsons outh, nc. v. NJ Department of

t ct'$6,180.00

Easement Acquisition -Kane, William -Block 8; Lot 3 -Point Pleasant Beach $10,699.32

Easement Acquisition - Korzeniowski Trust -Block 1.01; Lot 2 -Point Pleasant Beach $3,053.32

Easement Acquisition - Labowsky, Andrew -Block 179.03; Lot 5.09 -Point Pleasant Beach $206.00

Easement Acquisition - Mahasagar Properties -Block 17.02; Lot 6 -Point Pleasant Beach $149.00Easement Acquisition - cean Ventures @Bay Pt Dunes, nc. -Bock 179.03; Lots 5.06, 5.08 -Point

$3,735.00

Easement Acquisition -Point Beach House, LLC -Block 17.02; Lot 4 -Point Pleasant Beach $12,651.17

Easement Acquisition -Point Pleasant Beach Surf Club -Block 28.02; Lot 2 -Point Pleasant Beach $9,357.08

Easement Acquisition - Poray, Kenneth -Block 17.02; Lot 2.03 -Point Pleasant Beach $95.00

Easement Acquisition - Pt. Pleasant Beach $76,093.32

Easement Acquisition -Richard Peterson -Block 69, Lots 35, 35.01 -Seaside Heights $90.00

Easement Acquisition - Rinaolo, Robert -Block 17.02; Lot 5 -Point Pleasant Beach $30.00

Easement Acquisition - Risden's Beach Corp. -Block 46.02; Lots 1, 3 -Point Pleasant Beach $6,205.92

Easement Acquisition -Samuel Tiles, Inc. -Block 99.01 -Lots 1.03, 1.05, 1.06 -Seaside Heights $240.00

Easement Acquisition - Sarnasi, Charles -Block 17.02; Lot 2.04 -Point Pleasant Beach $173.00Easement Acquisition -The Ippolito orp -Block 17.02; Lots 2.01, 3 -Point Pleasant Beach (Driftwood

$17,881.98

Easement Acquisition -The Ippolito Right of Way, part B. 179.04, Lot 5 $5,501.74

Easement Acquisition -Todd Lyons -Block 28.02; Lot 1 -Point Pleasant Beach $20,300.64

Easement Acquisition -Van Kralingen Resident Trust II -Block 17.02; Lot 1.01 -Point Pleasant Beach $20.00

EASEMENT- Beach Condo Association -Point Pleasant Beach Codemnation $12,912.40

Saiber, LLC, Florham Park

Diversity Issues $44,294.48

Leslie, Donna v. State of New Jersey Department of Consumer Affairs, et al. $4,767.04

Leslie, Donna v. State of New Jersey Department of Consumer Affairs, et al. (APPEAL) $2,622.78

New Jersey Economic Development Authority Newark Ventures Partners Fund, LP $10,744.00NJEDA -Mortgage Revenue Bonds (Friends of entra Jersey Arts harter choo Project), eries 2011

$3,060.00


Saul Ewing, LLP HarrisburgNJEDA - Triple V Financing $73,269.00

NJEFA - FY2017 Capital Improvement Fund Bonds -New Money &Refunding $76,516.50

NJHMFA Conduit Bond Program -Oak Lane at Little Egg Harbor Project $32,091.48

NJTTFA -Fiscal Year 2017 New Money Bonds $53,454.07

Savo, Schalk, Gillespie, O'Grodnick &FisherEdwards, Elijah, et al v. Theresa A. Valeriano, et al. $900.00

Rosado, Robert v. State of NJ, et al. $9,528.50

Schenck, Price, Smith 8 King, LLP, Florham Park

Alongi, Anthony v. Ocean County Prosecutors Office, et al. $240.24


Estate of Frank P. Lagano v. State of New Jersey $7,710.84

Evans, Lee vs. Newark City, et al. $2,370.22

Goodall-Gaillard, Stacey v. NJDOC, et al. $106,718.13

Kamienski, Paul v. Ocean County Prosecutor's Office, et al. $32,217.56

Kent, Ryan vs. St. Peter s University Hospital, et al $18,595.08

Materia, Dawn and Nicole French vs. New Jersey Judiciary, et al $51,084.89

Newton, Andowah, et al v. Anthony Yang, MD, et al. $7,394.88

Spurgeon, Dwayne vs. A. Narvaze, Corrections Officer, et al. $6,845.00

Sills Cummis &Gross P.C., Newark

Juvenile Justice Commission -Real Property Matters $9,666.16

Lamanteer, Michael v. State of New Jersey, et al. $1,972.00

Representation of the State Treasurer -Advice on Challenges to Funding for Construction Projects $21,035.00

Representation of the State Treasurer -Advice on Structuring State Property Redevelopment $23,499.50

Retention for Legal Services for the Administrator of the Department of Law &Public Safety $16,890.32

Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Washington DC

Advice and Representation in Potential Litigation Related to Municipal Financial Matters in Atlantic City $569,848.28

Federal Railroad Administration Inquiries of New Jersey Transit $129,644.23

Pension Project 2017 $773,423.13

Stahl & DeLaurentis, P.C., Runnemede

Parse ,Lena Administrator, A.A.P. for Anna Krzeminski, Decd vs. Virtua-West Jersey Hea th ystem, nc., $g 821.01

Young, Nicole vs. Chevalta Bostick-Smith, MD, et al $40,510.53

Strasser 8 Associates, P.C., Paramus

Motor Vehicle Commission v. Gilbert Mendez $1,710.05

Motor Vehicle Commission v. Swale, Louise $1,822.55

Motor Vehicles Commission v. Cumberbatch, Ryon $1,747.55

MVC v. Ansumana Wally $1,335.40

MVC v. Awwad, Wisam $3,310.35

MVC v. Emili, John C. $720.25

Law Firm Office Matter Title AmountMVC v. Gehm, Kathleen $2,490.10

MVC v. Kappil, Stalin $1,282.55

MVC v. Larios, Felix $3,015.05

MVC v. Mira Bharatiya $2,364.80

Stroz Friedberg, LLC, New YorkIn Re~ $47,841.00

Retention to Represent the Office of the Governor $696,284.79

Swartz Campbell LLC Phila PAClark, Markeith vs. New Jersey Transit $2,720.00

Richardson, Carlos vs. New Jersey Transit $5,346.00

Volpe and Koenig, PC, Princeton NJT Intellectual Property $35,420.00

Warner Norcross &Judd LLP, Grand Rapids IMO: Federal Monitoring of Federal Mandate; Charlie &Nadine H. v. Christopher Christie, et al. $374.00

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman 8~ Dicker LLP -New York Hoboken Train Crash -Pending Inquiry by the National Transportation Safety Board $73,248.29

Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP, Madison NJ Transit Corp. Mason Substation Property Dispositions and Matters Related Thereto $53,612.96

Total $26,731,492.08

ATTACHMENT B

A roved Matters b Firm 2018Law Firm Office Matter Title Amount

Anthony J. Apicelli, Jr., LLC, Hamilton

MVC v. Albert T. Ayala $810.76

MVC v. Carocci, Eric $691.00

MVC v. Gilberto Santiago $690.00

MVC v. Vaneric Layton $460.00

Motor Vehicle Commission v. Henry Hoffler OAL Docket No.: MVH 15771-2017 $359.04

MVC v. Rodriguez-Pazmino, Andrea E. $282.00

MVC v. Nohemi Farfan $196.00

ARCHER & GREINER, HADDONFIELD

Jackie Alexander, et al v. Detective Miguel Holguin, et al $64,033.19

NJHMFA -Camino Plaza Apartments Project $41,311.49


Marianito Ruiz v. Correctional Officer Jerry Stretch, et al $4,807.31

McKenna, Matthew D. v. Mignella, Anthony, et al. $120.00

Arseneault 8 Fassett, LLP Chatham Hoboken Terminal Rail Accident, 9/29/16; (Thomas Gallagher); Representation in NTSB Inquiry IMO; $2,241.12

Ballard Spahr LLP -Baltimore

Toolen, William, et al. v. State of New Jersey $4,324.00

New Jersey Law Enforcement Supervisors Association (Collective Negotiations for a Successor Agre $2,780.00

State Police Captains Labor Negotiations - STFA $660.00

New Jersey Investigators Association, Lodge 174 (Collective Negotiations for a Successor Agreement $215.00

New Jersey Superior Officers Law Enforcement Unit (Collective Negotiations for a Successor Agreem $82.42

Birchmeier and Powell LLC Tuckahoe Motor Vehicles Commission v. Joseph Tiedeman $1,335.00

Brown & Connery, LLP, WestmontApryl Anis v. State of New Jersey, Department of Human Services, et al $88,590.02

Onslo Rose v. Rowan University and John Does 1-5 and 6-10 $1,555.86

Bursch Law PLLC, Caledonia IMO: Federal Monitoring of Federal Mandate; Charlie &Nadine H. v. Christopher Christie, et al. $4,453.51

CAPEHART & SCATCHARD,P.A., MOUNT LAUREL

Shanahan, Kathleen v. NJT $15,971.00

Peterson, Bradley v. Administrator Christopher Holmes, et al. $8,432.72

Kirchheimer, Stefanie vs. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, et al. $5,654.50

Brooks, Darlene L. vs. Cynthia R. Kern„ et al. $4,118.70

Goldstein, AIIen and Irene Goldstein vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al. $1,837.03

Fuller, John vs. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, et al. $1,280.00

Smith, Charissa v. New Jersey Transit Corp, et al. $800.00

Moore, Michael v. State of New Jersey $708.00

Georandy Johnson v. Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital, et al $580.00

Colin Demonick v. Greystone Psychiatric Hospital $100.00

Carmagnola 8 Ritardi, LLC, MorristownTara Murphy, et al v. SONJ, et al $5,574.03

NJ TRANSIT -EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL HUMAN RESOURCES/POLICIES &PROCEDURES $2,975.00

Chiesa Shahinian 8 Giantomasi PC, West Orange

Legal Services regarding Stabilization and Recovery of Atlantic City (Atlantic City) $182,358.72

Legal Services Regarding Stabilization and Recovery of Atlantic City (Litigation Against Atlantic City) $112,823.48

Legal Services Regarding Stabilization and Recovery of Atlantic City (Pilot/Tax Appeals) $91,220.54

International Association of Fire Fighters, et al v. City of Atlantic City, New Jersey, et al $84,450.51

Legal Services Regarding Stabilization and Recovery of Atlantic City (Development/Real Estate) $69,426.65

AFSCME New Jersey, et als v. City of Atlantic City, et als $42,322.74

Legal Services Regarding Stabilization and Recovery of Atlantic City (Bond) $29,741.90

Legal Services Regarding Stabilization and Recovery of Atlantic City (Labor) $27,020.00

Liberty &Prosperity 1776, Inc. etals v. City of Atlantic City, et als $19,153.56

Atlantic City PBA Local 24, et al v. Governor Christopher Christie,et al $17,855.43

Legal Services Regarding Stabilization and Recovery of Atlantic City (City Council/Agenda) $9,091.96

Legal Services Regarding Stabilization and Recovery of Atlantic City (Municipal Utility Authority) $7,213.84

Polo North Country Club, Inc. v. State of NJ, et al $5,348.00

Covington &Burling, Washington CMS Medicaid Disallowance Matters (Ctrs for Medicare &Medicaid Svs) $120.00

DeCotiis, Fitzpatrick, Cole & Giblin, LLP

Easement Acquisition -Bay Head $55,559.40

Lowe, John vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $28,199.25

Arpad, Seres vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al $12,317.48

Pramuk, Dylan vs. NJ Transit Corp., et al. $7,870.14

Duran-Hernandez, Maria vs. New Jersey Transit Corp., et al $6,505.86

Boswell, Keith vs. Robert J. Stillwell, et al. $6,377.64

FMERA -Special Counsel for Municipal Law -Nurses Quarters $5,165.60

FMERA -Special Counsel for Municipal Law -Howard Commons Residential Transaction $3,376.00

Drew, Sr., Calvin N. and Stephanie h/w vs. NJ Transit Corporation, et al $3,298.56

FMERA -Special Counsel for Municipal Law -Lodging Area $2,972.88

Althea Hylton-Lindsay v. William Paterson University, et al $2,799.36

Alizadeh, Hamid vs. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and NJ Transit Corp., et al. $2,235.00

Gill, Nia vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al $1,849.12

FMERA -Special Counsel for Municipal Law Officer Housing $1,720.08

Bowman, Thomas vs. George S. Hail, Inc., et al. $622.48

North Jersey Media Group Inc., d/b/a The Record vs. State of New Jersey Office of the Governor and N $620.00

FMERA -Parcels C/C-1 Mixed Use Transaction $560.00

Goodwine, Earl vs. New Jersey Transit, et al. $416.00

Bojkiu, Serveta, et al v. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al $387.84

Edwards, Geneithe I. vs. New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc. and Salvatore Vicari, Jr. $367.40

Easement Acquisition - Pacaud, Victoria % HL Collins III -Block 66; Lot 18 -Bay Head $340.00

Duminiak, Karla vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, et al. $48.00

Drake Law Firm, P.C., Absecon


Rosenberg, Michael, et al. vs. Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Inc., et al. $3,560.91

Kenly, Tyrone vs. Rutgers State University, et at. $618.50

Lewis, David vs. Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center, et al $297.82

Drinker Biddle 8 Reath LLP, Philadelphia NJ Pensions &Health Benefit Study Commission $13,825.00

Dughi, Hewit & Domalewskiy P.C.

Slater, Ethan; a minor, et at v. Joseph C. Canterino, et al $32,475.90

Perez, Jose, et al v. Warren A. Chiodo, DPM, et al. $7,522.00

Colantoni, Anthony vs. Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, et al. $6,918.99

Morehead, Desiree vs. Rutgers/RWJMS; IMO: $5,956.36

Morillo, Amy, et at v. University Hospital, et al. $4,111.00

McDaniels, Angel vs. University Hospital-Newark, et al. $1,956.40

Villegas, Francisco vs. Correctional Medical Service, Inc., et al. $1,761.08

Szemple, Craig Francis v. UMDNJ, UCHC, et al $1,345.96

Visconti, John; Administrator of the Estate of Kristi Lynn Rose Visconti; Decd vs. Lasanta Horana, M $1,020.24

Miftari, Besnik; Administrator of the Estate of Blerim Miftari, et al vs. Centra STate Medical Center, et $862.72

Hammond, Earl M. vs. Carmen Victor, et al $195.00

Ukawabutu, Rumiejah vs. Dr. Abu Ahsan, et al $105.00

Figatner, Robert vs. Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, et al.; IMO: $100.00

Woszczyk, Magdalena vs. Rutgers; IMO $80.00

Dvorak &Associates, LLC, New Brunswick Mikhaeel, Neveen v. Frederick V. Fitzgerald, et al.; Frederick V. Fitzgerald v. Robert McNamara, et al. $160.00

Eckert Seamans Cherin 8 Mellott, LLC, Pittsburgh FMERA -Advice on Bond and Loan Transactions -Financing of Acquisition from US Dept of Army $6,013.70

Gold, Daniel vs. Steven Recih, MD, et al $40,067.01

Labell, Pamela; A.A.P. of Estate of Jimmy R. Labell v. Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, et al. $19,991.20

Littman, Walter vs. Englewood Hospital and Medical Center, et al $19,230.85


Niblack, Stanley L. vs. UCHC, et al $10,382.47

Jamieson, Donna vs. Saad Chaudhary, MD, et al $10,192.37

Farkas &Donohue, LLC

Swackhamer, Richard D., et al v. Kesler Institute for Rehabilitation, et al. $9,686.76

Sapp, Wyatt vs. Newark Beth Isreal Medical Center, et al $7,454.40

Atzori, Alexander Luca, an infant, et al. vs. Robert Wood Johnson Health System, et ai. $4,733.67

Johnson, Isaiah, Jr., an infant, et al vs. Owobamoshola Shonowo, MD, et al $4,554.40

Perren, Michael, et al vs. Englewood Hospital and Medical Center, et al $1,835.44

Velazquez, Damaris vs. Sheldon Turkish, MD, et al $538.85

Sedita, Giovanni vs. Morristown Medical Center, et al $202.64

Oliver, Lorenzo v. Merrill Main, Ph.D., et al $120.00

Niblack, Stanley L. vs. UMDNJ, University Correctional Healthcare, et al. $75.00

Florio Perrucci Steinhardt &Fader LLC, Phillipsburg


Odoemene, Emmanuel vs. New Jersey Transit Corp. $6,474.49

FMERA -Special Counsel for Municipal Law - Squier Hall $4,570.66

FMERA-Special Counsel for Municipal Law -Golf Course $3,874.50

Galley, Cheryl vs. NJ Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $3,046.72

Goodwin, James J. vs. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, et al $2,884.29

Coronet, Edison A. vs. New Jersey Transit Corp., et al. $2,560.00

LaGuerre, et al, Marie Chantal v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc., et al. $2,560.00

Dwyer, Kevin v. NJT, et al. $1,806.00

Muhammad, Nailah vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $1,729.35

Bramson, Marta Ann, et al vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al. $1,251.20

Washington, Frank vs. New York Transit Authority, et al. $368.00

FMERA Special Counsel for Municipal Law -Allison Hall $300.00

Mothersill, Elaine vs. Guarding Services Industries, Inc., et al. $240.00

Garrity and Knisely, Boston Fort Monmouth Economic Revitalization Authority $5,535.00

Gebhardt &Kiefer, P.C., Clinton Nicholas Guidi v. State of New Jersey, et al $1,940.00

Genova Burns LLC, NewarkSami Zeidan v. Montclair State University, et al $7,936.00

Usama Henien and Estela Euceda v. NJDOC, et al $40.00

DOI -Complex Transactions -PIPE Transactions - Andina Acquisitions Crop. II - Lazydays Common S $5,962.50

Heitman Core Property Fund $4,719.60

Division of Investment - TPG Real Estate Partners 11, LP (post-closing matters) $3,037.50

Rowan School of Osteopathic Medicine AAUP (Collective Negotiations for a Successor Agreement) $2,538.00

Division of Investment -Alternative Investment - JLL Fund VI, LP -Post closing Matters $2,287.50

Division of Investment -Silver Lake Partners, IV, LP (post-closing matters) $1,837.50

Gibbons P.C., Newark

Division of Investment -Alternative Investment - Warbug Pincus China, L.P. $1,650.00

DOI -Alternative Investment -Elliot Associates, LP Fund $1,275.00

DOI -Alternative Investment -Blackstone capital Partners V (post- closing matter) $1,050.00

Teamster Local Union 97 $775.00

Division of Investment -Wheelock Street Real Estate Fund V, LP (post-closing matters) $610.72

CIR -Committee of Interns and Residents -Union Contract Negotiations $600.00

Lubert Adler Real Estate Fund VI-B $525.00

International Union of Operating Engineers Local 68 $275.00

Division of Investment - TSG7 A, LP (post-closing matters) $105.00

Gibson, Dunn 8~ Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles National Collegiate Athletic Association, et al v. Christopher J. Christie, et al $356,250.00

GluckWalrath LLP, Trenton NJEFA -Rowan College at Burlington County HEFT Grant Agreement Amendment $7,500.00

Gray Miller Persh LLC, Washington NJPBA -FCC Matters, State Treasurer and the NJPBA $4,700.50

Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith &Davis LLP, Woodbridge

Meg Yatauro v. Kevin Bolden, et al $126,690.29

Doe, John as Parent and Legal Guardian of John Doe, Jr., et al. v. New Jersey Department of Children $4,586.00

NJEDA Technology Centre of New Jersey PILOT Agreement Amendment and possible Tax Appeal $3,740.00

Gonzalez, Zenaida, et al. v. State of New Jersey, et al. $1,041.00

Doe, John v. State of New Jersey, et al. $697.50

Escobar, Neomi v. Newark Beth Israel Medical Ctr, et al. $562.50

Glenn, Christina A/K/A Christiana Rezireksyon, et al. v. DCPP, et al. $330.00

Torres, Stephanie, Parent &Legal Guardian of Amaryllis Gomez v. State of New Jersey; Department o $90.00

Greenberg Dauber Epstein &Tucker, Newark

Charles Ken Zisa v. John Haviland, et al $58,620.00

Corey Bland &Virginia Bland v. City of Newark et al $8,305.06

Adams, Elizabeth, et al. v. New Jersey Civil Service Commission $3,556.00

HAWKINS DELAFIELD &WOOD LLP, NEW YORK Office of Public Finance -Federal Tax Advice for Go Bonds $3,197.74

Mills, Whitlock LL (NJHMFA) $26,890.00

Manufacturers and Traders Trust Co. v. Marina Bay Towers Urban Renewal II, et al. $20,551.98

NJT -Hoboken Terminal Redevelopment $8,750.72

Somerville &New Bridge Landing (River Edge) $3,820.00

Easement Acquisition -Windmill Properties, Block 79, Lot 1 & 2 -Atlantic City $3,120.64

Easement Acquisition - Ghada Jebara, Block 20.47, Lot 4 -Long Beach Township $2,400.96

Easement Acquisition -Jeanette Frankenberg, Block 20.45, Lot 4 -Long Beach Township $2,344.08

Easement Acquisition - LNM Group, LLC; Block 20.129; Lot 1.10 -Long Beach Township $1,114.08

Easement Acquisition -Margate $768.24

HILL WALLACK, Princeton

Easement Acquisition -North Beach, 1003, LLC, Block 18.03, Lot 4 -Long Beach Township $560.00

Easement Acquisition -Beach Haven (Bateman) $500.48

Easement Acquisition -Robert Helemian; Block 20.109; Lot 1.04 -Long Beach Township $500.00

Easement Acquisition -Donald Goldberg; Block 20.87; Lot 4 -Long Beach Township $480.88

Easement Acquisition -Richard Carolan; Block 20.68; Lot 1 -Long Beach Township $480.00

Easement Acquisition -Bart 8 Jill Blaststein, Block 7.01, Lot 6 -Margate $405.76

Easement Acquisition -Stephen Voda; Block 77; Lot 3 -Ship Bottom $340.48

Easement Acquisition - Varunan Sivalingam, Block 18.61, Lot 1.03 -Long Beach Township $321.12

Easement Acquisition -Richard A. Cherner, Block 18, Lot 9 -Margate $320.40

Easement Acquisition - Stonis Family, LLC; Block 20.82; Lot 1 -Long Beach Township $301.92

Easement Acquisition - Shanin Spector; Block 20.89; Lot 5 -Long Beach Township $300.00

Easement Acquisition -Thomas Kline, Block 20.37, Lot 1.05 -Long Beach Township $300.00

Easement Acquisition -Larry R. Sr. &Nancy A. Bechtel -Block 19, Lot 4.13 - Elsinboro Township $260.00

Easement Acquisition -William Mascharka; Block 20.127; Lot 1.03 -Long Beach Township $240.88

Easement Acquisition -Sheldon Bonovitz, Block 20.03, Lot 4 -Long Beach Township $227.92

NJT-69th Bridge -Property Acquisition - "C" $200.24

Easement Acquisition -Barbara Kaplan, Block 18.67, Lot 3 -Long Beach Township $192.72

Easement Acquisition - Nahla Jebara, Block 18, Lot 3 -Long Beach Township $185.76

Easement Acquisition -Fred Weber &Joanne Mazza, Block 12, Lot 16 -Margate $183.28

Easement Acquisition -Nancy Roncati, Block 20.67, Lot 4 -Long Beach Township $102.24

Easement Acquisition -Richard Tavoso -Block 4; Lots 1, 1.01 - Mantoloking Boro $100.00

Easement Acquisition -Joel Golden; Block 20.117; Lot 7 -Long Beach Township $80.64

Easement Acquisition -Geoffrey &Michelle Greenberg, Block 12, Lot 8 -Margate $80.08

Easement Acquisition -Richard Kowazlski, Block 20.35, Lot 1.04 -Long Beach Township $40.72

Easement Acquisition - Robertine Ann Mayer -Block 12, Lot 23 - Elsinboro Township $20.00

English, Tamika, Administratrix of the Estate of Herman English, Deceased, et al v. NJ Transit Corpor $17,244.42

Rollins, Tomikakim, et al v. Tammy Ross-Caffee, et al. $15,985.00

DiGiacomo, Vincent and Dawn DiGiacomo, h/w vs. Betty L. Harris-Wilson, et al. $12,257.70

Jimenez, Enrique vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $4,541.00

Cifarelli, Joseph R. vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $4,534.46

McEvoy, Matthew vs. New Jersey Transit Operations, Inc. $4,270.73

Arzuaga, Luis v. NJTRO, Inc. $4,038.40

Devincenzo, Shawn vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $3,912.15

Hohn 8 Scheuerle, LLC

Crennan, Thomas J. vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $3,745.31

Smith, Tyree vs. New Jersey Transit Rail $2,994.56

Maher, Terry vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $2,968.72

Cafi, Raffaele and Joana Cafii, husband and wife vs. NJ Transit, et al. $2,417.99

Burnett, Merium and Jesse James, h/w vs. National Railroad Passenger Corporation a/k/a Amtrak and $2,277.04

Conrad, Steven vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operatins, Inc. $2,203.64

Jenkins, Jermaine, et al. v. NJ Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $1,825.46


Holmes, Sandra vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $1,704.98


Fitzsimmons, Jesse vs. New Jersey Transit Rait Operations, Inc. $1,225.60

Howard, Kandace and Myson Hampton vs. New Jersey Transit Authority $836.24

Brown, Cornelius E. vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al. $608.72

Bonsall, William and Sheri Bonsall; his wife vs. State of New Jersey, New Jersey Transit, et al. $598.32

Van Jura, Jeffrey vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $546.16

Ellis, Kenneth vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $481.20

Mirza, Zulfiqar H. vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $453.20

Jenkins, Jermaine v. NJ Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $304.00

Alvino, Lane vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $257.04

McGlothen, Cynthia, et al v. Estate of Herman English, et al. $240.00

Hlywiak, Karen &Peter Hlywiak, her husband vs. National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a Amtr $177.28

Johnson, Jerome C. vs. NJ Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $145.36

Archibald, Roger vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $129.28

Ice Miller LLP

New Jersey Department of Education -Pension Tax Advice Regarding Renaissance Schools $28,177.81

Special Counsel Designation -State Retirement Plans and State Health Benefit Plans $15,561.00

DeGarcia v. Kean University (EL Settlement Counseling) $9,105.75

NJHMFA -Formation of an OPEB Trust $6,711.75

Jackson Lewis P.C. -White Plains NY New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice Non-Commissioned Officers Association (CJ Investigators) $200.00

Kaplan, Kirsch &Rockwell -Denver

NJ Transit Corporation -Gateway Program Financing $84,029.65

NJT - NECSA, PRIAA and Fast Matters, and Related Surface Transportation Board and Federal Railroa $23,806.44

NJ Transit Corp; County Yard/Delco Lead/Mega) Lead Acquisitions, Surtace Transportation Board and $787.11

Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.- njlaws, Edison

MVC v. Jeffrey Sgro $1,140.00

MVC v. Brian E. Kowasa $990.00

Motor Vehicle Commission V. Shawn Curry OAL Docket No.: MVH 13488-17 $495.00

Kent 8 McBride, P.C., New Jersey Cherry Hill

State of New Jersey v. Adeaga, Oyedolapo $2,662.50

State of New Jersey v. Buckley, Joan $2,428.25

State of New Jersey v. Hicks, Heather $1,960.67

State of New Jersey v. Christopher LaBruna, Steven Fritz, Carlos Ramirez &John Harris $525.00

Krompier & Tamn, L.L.C., Parsippany Kriviruk, Alisa vs. Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, et al $4,837.66

Law Office of Dolores Rocco Kulp, Philadelphia

Fosetta, Christopher v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, et al. $26,280.02

Kreitz, Jr., George vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $16,674.86

Gooding, Francis vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $14,855.36

Barber, Richard K. vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $13,893.08

Wright, Gilbert v. New Jersey Transit $9,480.78

Burnett, Hafeez vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation $4,889.00

Judge, Jeffrey vs. Evelyn Lewis, Larry Lewis and New Jersey Transit $3,760.00

Smith, Gregor vs. New Jersey Transit $1,823.54

Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company as Subrogee of Timothy Gregory v. New Jersey Transit $1,657.68

Watson, Shirley, et al. v. Best Transit, Inc., et al. $96.00

Law Office of William P. Flahive, L.L.C., Lambertville

Peterson, Bradley C. v. A. Matlock, Jr., et al. $21,374.00

Willis, Ratarsha v. Cart Walker, et al. $7,109.00

Henien, Usama, et al. v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, et al. $1,395.00

Wahab, Atiya v. State of New Jersey, et al. $460.00

Robbins, Wayne v. Kevin Bolden, et al. $260.00

Deane, Joseph L., Jr. v. Honorable Edward V. Gannon, et al. $80.00

LeClair Ryan, Richmond

Maria Brito v. Ramapo College $7,903.88

Lieb, Drew v. State of New Jersey, Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness $1,160.00

Request Medical Staffing, LLC D/B/A Request Staffing v. Joseph Scully $358.36

Lenox, Socey, Formidoni, Brown, Giordano, Cooley &Casey, LLC, Lawrenceville

Budden, Christopher L., et al v. William Paul Block, DO, et al $8,961.64

Averona, Dominique; Administratrix, et al vs. Henry R. Schuitema, D.O., et al. $7,369.27

Luciano Twins; Vincent Luciano &Juliana Luciano; Minors, et al vs. So. Jersey Healthcare, et al. $6,602.87

Watts-Naley, Beverly; O/B/O; The Estate of Levis F. Nalley vs. Cooper University Hospital, et al. $1,754.60

Sylla, Kemo; A.A.P., et al vs. Thomas Hegy, MD, et al $300.00

Lite DePalma Greenberg Bradley C. Peterson v. Administrator Christopher Holmes, et al $2,630.00

Division of Investment -Alternative Investment Aspect Core Diversified Program (Initial transaction) $26,254.80

Division of Investment -Focus Healthcare Partners Fund I, LP (post-closing matters) $14,097.60

Division of Investment - WLR Recovery Fund IV, LP (post-closing matters) $1,346.40

DOI -Alternative Investment - VALUEACT CAPITAL PARTNERS II, L.P. (post-closing matter) $158.40

Lowenstein Sandler LLP, Roseland Equal Employment Opportunity Matter $20,355.24

Lukas, LaFuria, Gutierrez &Sachs, LLP, McLean NJ Transits Positive Train Control Project/Radio Frequency Spectrum FCC Matters $8,028.00

Lum, Drasco & Positan, LLC, RoselandNJT -Acquisition of Portions of Properties Known as One and Two Penn Plaza East, Newark, NJ (NJT $7,815.92

Special Counsel Designation - NJ Transit Corporation Jersey city Municipal Utilities Authority Claim - $1,298.00

Lynch &Lynch, Garden City

Henry, Kathleen vs. New Jersey Transit, et al. $5,208.25

Belfand, Seman vs. Raymond Petosa and New Jersey Transit Corporation, C-83585-444 $4,734.25

Huerta, Michael A. vs. NJ Transit Corp., et al. $3,209.85

Fetahu, Valdona v. New Jersey Transit Corp. $2,343.63

Berger, Erica vs. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey vs. New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, I $1,872.00

Lee, Vong vs. Justen Oriolo, et al $1,536.00

Westchester Radiology and Imaging, P.C., Assignment of Anyhony Brewington vs. NJ Transit Corp. $1,128.00

Wallace, Karen vs. New Jersey Transit Corp. and Carlos Trujillo $1,085.75

Holmes-Moses, Iraida vs. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey $992.00

Lan, Mario and Elizabeth Lan vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al. $512.00

M. Jeremy Ostow, Esq., South Orange

NJHMFA Mniti-Family Conduit Bond Program -Victorian Towers Project $28,124.32

NJHMFA Conduit Bond Program -Commons Family &Senior Project $15,441.16

NJHMFA Conduit Bond Program -Douglas Homes Project $15,440.29

NJHMFA Conduit Bond Program -Roseville Senior Project $15,439.41

NJHMFA Conduit Bond Program -Gardens Family &Senior Project $15,431.22

NJHMFA - Captial Program Fund Revenue Bonds -Redemption of 2004 and/or 2007 Series Bond $8,967.50

MacNeill, O'Neill & Riveles, LLC, Cedar Knolls

Gibbs, Jamal vs. University Correction) Healthcare, et al. $21,085.75


Nyamuchiwa, Kudazviro vs. Marc 1 Malberg, MD et al $2,388.00

Sutherland, Vanessa vs. Andrei Botea, MD, et al $2,025.00

Onyekaomelu, Peter and Kamilah vs. UMDNJ, et al (appeal) $1,935.00

Williams vs. Rutgers Biomedical Health Sciences; IMO $1,800.00

Morrison, Michele vs. Seyedehsara Seyedali, MD, et al. $1,760.00

Lombardi, Christopher; Decd vs. Rutgers Biomedical Health Sciences, et al $732.00

Kisby, Jessica vs. NJ DOC, et al. $595.00

McCarter &English, LLP, Newark New Jersey New Jersey Economic Development Authority -State Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds, 2004 Series A $20,069.25

Villapando, Maurine A. v. Raritan Bay Medical Center, et al. $59,721.52

McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney &Carpenter LLP, Morristown NJ

TANGIA PRICE v. NEW JERSEY TRANSIT, JAMES SCHWORN, PAUL KELLY and JOHN WASILAK, $32,525.78

Tietze, Deborah v. New Jersey Pinelands Commission $30,706.58

Anderson, George III, v. NJDMAVA, et al. $29,330.00

CNJSCL AFT-CIO -Faculty/Professional Staff Unit (Collective Negotiations for a Successor Agreemen $26,850.00

Jenkins, Leslie E. v. Montclair State University, et al. $6,833.48

Brady Middlesworth v. Board of Trustees, Public Employees' Retirement System $6,280.00

CNJSCL AFT, AFL-CIO Adjunct Unit (Collective Negotiations for a Successor Agreement) $5,180.40

Diane Scott, et al v. State of NJ, et al $4,533.75

Speed, Schanel, et al v. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al. $4,401.56

NJ Transit Corporation -Labor Counsel -Employee Compensation Issues $4,400.00

State of New Jersey and Council of New Jersey State College Locals, AFT $3,085.00

NJHMFA-Arbitration Concerning Prescription Drug Benefits $2,710.00

Robinson, Raphael, et al v. new Jersey Transit Rail Operaions, Inc. $2,058.96

Collective Bargaining Negotiations w/PBA (NJT) $1,900.00

Behling, Cynthia vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $1,290.96

Baskerville, Stephen;Admin. of the Estate of Bernis Lavelle Jordan; Decd vs. Robert Wood Johnson $1,214.73

Demusso, Sergio vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $1,184.00


Clarification of Unit Petitions - Group Y $1,100.00

Crus, Israel vs. Leamon McKenzie, et al $1,040.00

DeRobertis, Nicholas vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $448.00

Peoples, Christine v. Montclair State University $133.03

McGivney 8~ Kluger, PC, Florham Park Fofana, Mamadou, et al v. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al. $3,728.00

McKool Smith, Dallas NJT v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, et al. $103,865.01

Michael A. Armstrong &Associates, LLC, Willingboro State of New Jersey v. Jackson, Joshua, Officer & Busanardo, Brett, C.O. $1,853.87

Aly, Angie vs. John Wessel, et al $12,233.75

Frankel, Douglas P.; A.A.P., et al vs. Boris Veysman, MD, et al $12,029.20

Buch, Corri, et al v. Rutgers, et al $5,334.05

McNellis-Wallace, Eileen, et al v. Anthony Salerno, MD, et al. $4,312.95

Harris, Evelyn v. Rutgers Biomedical &Health Sciences $4,250.00

Cynthia Phillips, et al v. NJ Veterans Memorial Home -Paramus, et al $3,828.88

Hambrick-Esby, Deborah G. as Court Appointed Guardian of Reginald Hambrick v. Woodbridge Devel $2,769.04

Price, Kathleen v. RWJUH, et al $2,760.00

Little, AI-Kaseem vs. Donique Ivery, et al. $2,429.68

Tolver, Edward R.; An Incapacitated Person, et al vs. Kennedy University Hopital, et al. $1,640.00

Corrado, Thomas, et al v. Warren Chiodo, DPM, et al $680.00

Jones, Imani Siobhan vs. US Food &Drug Administration, et al. $660.00

Kadonsky, Steven vs. Abu Ahsan, MD, et al $600.00

Ma, Rita v. Princeton Surgical Associates, PA, et al. $480.00

Feltynowski, Kelly A. vs. Andrew G. Kaufman, MD, et al. $394.90

Potter, Eric v. James Glover, et al $200.00

Montgomery, McCracken, Walker and Rhoads, LLP, Philadelphia Retention for Legal Services for Administrator of the Department of Law 8 Public Safety Regarding th $89,627.36

Morgan Melhuish Abrutyn, Livingston

Triebe, Robert v. State of NJ, et al. $3,567.60

Rose Richardson v. State of NJ, Office of the Attorney General $1,571.76

Claims Against HESAA: Debt Collection Practices $1,480.00

Schoenstein, Matthew, et al. v. Richard E. Constable, III. Commissioner, et al. $500.00

Mount Laurel- MDWCG Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin

Keith Stopko vs. New Jersey Attorney General, et al. $29,369.05

Doglio, Jaime A., et a~ vs. Robert Wood Johnson Medical Group, et al. $16,424.63

Grassia, Maurice R., Jr; Executor of the Estate of Elizabeth K. Grassia v. Underwood Memorial Hospit $13,010.00

Zwolinski, Barbara F.; Administrator of the Estate of Frank J. Zwolinski; Decd vs. Kenneth Kaufman, $12,874.96

Gary DeMarzo and Samuel Lashman vs. Cape May County Prosecutor Robert Taylor, et al. $10,457.17

Morales, Maria, et al v. Gregory Peck, DO, et al $7,507.94

James A. Cocores, MD v. NJ State Board of Medical Examiners $4,545.00

DiNapoli, Jill vs. Anthony Salerno, M.D. $4,462.84

Economidis, Maria vs. Susannah Wise, MD, et al. $4,342.64

Gueye, Lateefah; F/K/A; Lateefah Whitfield; Guardian of Trevohn Kyree Sterling; an infant vs. William $3,422.90

Nicole DeBiase v. NJTransit $3,315.00

Santiago, Janice; A.A.P. of Jovanny Santiago vs. Kennedy Health Care Facilities, et al. $2,063.80

Salvemini, Mauro, et al v. Naieml Nassiri, MD, et al $1,717.50

Anthony DeSantis v. New Jersey Transit, et al $1,701.64

Mcginley, Audrey, Administrator of the Estate of Daniel McGinley vs. Elisabeth Palmara, et al. $1,593.00

Jones, Nikki vs. University Hospital, et al. $1,580.00

Verdi, Shannon &Ralph vs. Anthony P. Salerno, MD, et al. $1,360.60

Maronski, Walter, et al v. Kennedy Health System, Inc., et al $1,155.72

Redmond, Phillip A., II vs. Virtua West Jersey Health System, et al. $1,100.00

Dougherty, Joann; A.A.P., et al v. Kennedy Health System, et al $900.00

Salifu, Falila; A.A.P. of Janai Adama Maanda Salifu; Decd vs. University Hospital, et al $795.00

Biassou, Gary, et al vs. John Fitzsimmons, M.D., et al $759.64

Muhammad, Winter Hazael; an infant, et al vs. Pierre F. Lespinasse, MD, et al. $655.00

Esawy, Nawal; a minor, et al vs. Joseph Chong, MD, et al. $435.24

Nixon Peabody LLP, San Francisco Special Counsel Designation -State of New Jersey, Department of Treasury, Appointment as Disclosu $69,680.00

O~Brien &Ryan, LLPPollitt-Milcarek, Regina, Michael Milcarek (w/h) vs. Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center, Inc., et al. $7,063.72

Mills, Dawn, et al. vs. Kennedy Memorial Hospital-Stratford Division, et al $4,230.08

OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP, PHILADELPHIANew Jersey Housing 8~ Mortgage Finance Agency - 540 Broad Street Apartments Project $58,749.00

New Jersey Housing 8 Mortgage Finance Agency Conduit Bond Program -Lincoln Towers Remarketi $1,104.00

Orlovsky, Moody, Schaaff &Conlon, LLC, West Long Branch

Brewer, Jeffrey, et al v. Centra State Medical Center, et al $21,273.67

Schroll, Rulla v. Southern Ocean Medical Center, et al. $11,035.76

Garcia, Agustin vs. Correctional Medical Services, et al $5,640.00

Graham, Alquan vs. Ahmar Shakir, D.O., et al. $4,097.88

Pashman Stein, HackensackBradley C. Peterson v. Administrator Christopher Holmes, et al $21,393.04

A.M., a minor by her Guardian Jennifer Morales v. State of New Jersey, Division of Youth and Family S $660.00

Post &Schell, PCSchenk, Patrick, et al v. Lisa Dertr, DO, et al. $3,539.00

Tereshko, Rochelle vs. Kennedy University Hospital, Inc., et at. $284.00

Potters &Della Pietra LLP, Fai~eld

Estate of Frank Lagano v. Bergen County Prosecutor's Office, et al $4,177.00

Rosiland White vs. NJ Transit Rail Operations, Inc. Docket No.: ESX-L-5893-17 $2,676.08

Yvette Cruz vs. State of NJ, et al. Docket No.: MRS-L-1733-15 $1,105.00

Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti LLP, Morristown

FMERA Special Counsel for Municipal Law -Bowling Center $7,102.50

FMERA Special Counsel for Municipal Law -Eatontown DPW $6,047.50

FMERA -Special Counsel for Municipal Law - Parcel B $5,022.50

FMERA -Special Counsel for Municipal Law - Pinebrook Road Commerce Center $164.00

FMERA -Marina $82.00

FMERA -Special Counsel for Municipal Law $82.00

Roseland MDWCG Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman 8 Goggin Shanahan, Kathleen v. NJT, et al. $9,128.44

Son, Alexander vs. New Jersey Transit $30,806.53

Esposito, Dominic v. New Jersey Transit, et al. $20,819.36

Edwards, Urica vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $14,628.57

Almeida, Antonio, et al v. NJ Transit, et al. $13,305.76

Miller, Ricky vs. Paul Lagana, et al $12,010.50

Tramontano, Danielle, et al v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $11,614.11

Ruprecht, Hart Weeks & Ricciardulli, LLP

Rozenstein, Stella, et al v. Steven Goldberg, MD, et al. $10,887.50

Lazar, Roslyn, et al v. New Jersey Transit, et al. $10,771.72

Linton, Susan vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $10,623.12

Gialamas v. New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc. $9,901.60

Kucharski, Alan; Estate of, et al. v. Central Railroad of New Jersey, et al. $9,758.02

McCall, Tyquan vs. New Jersey Transit, et al $9,585.30

Banks, Bambie J. and Claude Zongo vs. New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc., et al. $9,267.87

D'Angiolillo, Robert vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $8,200.07

Nurge, Kyle vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $7,944.10

Guererra, Michael vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $7,920.34

Danley, Elizabeth vs. NJ Transit, et al. $7,476.00

Hoboken Terminal Rail Accident of 9/29/16 $7,417.00

Dertouzous, Claire vs. New Jersey Transit $7,Zg2,gg

Culkin, Frank vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $6,761.12

Sapp, Wyatt vs. University Hospital, et al $6,639.75

Cabaj, Maria, et al v. New Jersey Transit, et al $6,403.80

Wojcik, Iwona vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al. $6,221.00

Queller, Martin, et al v. Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, et al $6,113.33

Dykeman, William v. Abu Ahsan, MD, et al $6,045.74

Cohn-Dobkin, Debra vs. New Jersey Transit $6,019.92

Neglia, Joseph vs. New Jersey Transit $6,000.96

Thomas, James vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $5,985.92

Tavarez, Julio vs. New Jersey Transit, et al. $5,918.08

Chehade Pierre vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $5,716.00

West, Thmas vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $5,449.96

Szumski, Amy;G/A/L, or Isabela Guzman, a minor vs. Abdulla AI-Khan, MD, et al. $5,392.50

Dennis, Robert and Lisa Dennis vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al. $5,392.00

Grice, Montia, et al v. University Hospital, et al. $5,231.70

Ritchwood, Randy vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations $5,198.76

Guadalupe, Angel; Estate of, et al vs. Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, et al. $5,119.44

Gillespie, Jason and Christina Gillespie vs. Ronald T. Lewis, New Jersey Transit Corporation $4,402.56

Gormley, Keri H. vs. New Jersey Transit, et al. $4,140.64

Rojas, Ely vs. New Jersey Transit $3,993.04

Kertesz, John and Laverne Maryann Kertesz vs. Consolidated Rail Corporatio, et al $3,987.00

Kozak, et al, Matthew vs. Ana Mendez, et al $3,529.63

Caldwell, Whadoo, Estate of vs Northern State Prison, et al. $3,301.72

Valoroso, Robert and Kimberly Valoroso, his wife vs. Delks Trucking, Inc., et al. $3,021.00

Rhoden, Cordell vs. New Jersey Transit Corproation $2,963.00

Oyediran, Shola vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. $2,794.04

Beauzil, Anne Marie, et al. vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al. $2,748.92

Stritto, Paul Dello v. Eric Lackawanna Railroad, et al. $2,660.00

Anthony, Kiliek Dashawn vs. Timothy W. Baptist, et aI. $2,492.00


Kosich, Natalie; Admin. of Estate of Sergei Kosich, et al v. Hackensack University Medical Center, eta $2,424.85

Lucas, Neil John vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al. $2,163.00

Bhalla, Deepti Chanana and Varun Bhalla vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation and Thomas Gallagher $1,844.00

Biggs, Jonathan, et aI. vs. Wilson Herrera-Perez, et al. $1,772.88

Turner, Ruth vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al $1,615.00

Kest, Sheldon vs. New Jersey Transit Corp. d/b/a NJ Transit, et al. $1,604.00

Wong-Stewart, Bridgette vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al $1,513.00

Martinez, Dilenia vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation, et al $1,343.00

Guevara-Rodriguez, Franklin vs. James Roberts, et al. $1,321.00

Desai, Samir vs. Wilson Herrera-Perez, et al. $1,280.00

Deshong, Shina vs. New Jersey Transit $1,012.00

Belitzky, David, et al vs. Delka Trucking, Inc., et al. $942.96

Griso, Raven, et al v. Kelka Trucking Inc., et al $862.96

Alfieri, Anthony v. NJT $819.00

Shtarker, Natalya v. Wilson Herrera-Perez, et al $798.96

Amons, Na-Quan vs. University Hospital, et al $696.50

Vanegas, David v. Temporary Guardian of Karen Vanegas v. Roy Palian-DeLacruz, et al. $640.00

Alexander, Wayne vs. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, et al. $496.00

Yu, Alex, et al vs. Delka Trucking, Inc., et al $358.96

Henricus, Adrianus Rudolfus vs. NJ Transit Corp. d/b/a NJ Transit, et al $304.00

Panebianco, Brian vs. Delka Trucking, Inc., et al. $264.96

Subramaniam, et al, Bagyalakshmi vs. NJ Transit Corp. d/b/a NJ Transit $256.00

Anderson, Diana vs. Ana Mendez, et al. $80.00

Kozak, Edwin vs. New Jersey Transit Corporation $32.00

Howard, Anthony v. NJT (R-08424) $16.00

Rutter &Roy, LLP, Freehold

Easement Acquisition - Pt. Pleasant Beach $28,691.50

Easement Acquisition -Ocean Ventures @Bay Pt Dunes, Inc. -Block 179.03; Lots 5.06, 5.08 -Point PI $2,730.00

Easement Acquisition -Anita Dietrick -Block 1.01; Lot 1 -Point Pleasant Beach $1,306.00

Easement Acquisition -The Ippolito Right of Way, part B. 179.04, Lot 5 $1,065.00

Easement Acquisition - Risden's Beach Corp. -Block 46.02; Lots 1, 3 -Point Pleasant Beach $890.00

Easement Acquisition - Korzeniowski Trust - Biock 1.01; Lot 2 -Point Pleasant Beach $805.00

Easement Acquisition -Elizabeth Carter Assoc, -Block 13.07; Lots 1, 2, 3, 6 -Point Pleasant Beach $528.00

Easement Acquisition -Point Pleasant Beach Surf Club -Block 28.02; Lot 2 -Point Pleasant Beach $510.00

Easement Acquisition - Bradshaw's Beach Homeowners Assn -Block 17.02; Lots 13, 14 -Point Pleasa $465.00

Easement Acquisition - Jenkinsons Pavillion and Jenkinsons South, Inc. v. NJ Department of Environ $465.00

EASEMENT- Beach Condo Association -Point Pleasant Beach Codemnation $210.00

Easement Acquisition -Kane, William -Block 8; Lot 3 -Point Pleasant Beach $189.00

Easement Acquisition - Poray, Kenneth -Block 17.02; Lot 2.03 -Point Pleasant Beach $180.00

Easement Acquisition -Todd Lyons -Block 28.02; Lot 1 -Point Pleasant Beach $173.00

Easement Acquisition -Bay Pointe Dune Homeowners Assoc -Block 179.04; Lots 2, 3, 4 -Point Pleas $165.00

Easement Acquisition -Edward &Mary Jo Nervi, Marianne F. Mongello -Block 17.02; Lot 7 -Point Ple $98.54

Easement Acquisition -Point Beach House, LLC -Block 17.02; Lot 4 -Point Pleasant Beach $75.00

Easement Acquisition -The Ippolito Corp -Block 17.02; Lots 2.01, 3 -Point Pleasant Beach (Driftwood $70.00

Easement Acquisition -Carter &Ocean Avenues Sub. Homeowners Assn -Block 179.04; Lot 5 -Point $60.00

Easement Acquisition -James Kincade and Lynn Vande Stouwe; Block 17.02, Lot 2.02 -Point Pleasan $45.00

Easement Acquisition -Addeo Gina -Block 179.03; Lot 5.02 -Point Pleasant Beach $9.00

Easement Acquisition - Labowsky, Andrew -Block 179.03; lot 5.09 -Point Pleasant Beach $9.00

Saiber, LLC, Florham Park Diversity Issues $463.51

Schenck, Price, Smith &King, LLP, Florham Park


Goodall-Gaillard, Stacey v. Corrections, et al. (Appeal) $13,086.19

Kent, Ryan vs. St. Peter's University Hospital, et al $8,046.08

Newton, Andowah, et al v. Anthony Yang, MD, et al. $7,567.00

Kamienski, Paul v. Ocean County Prosecutor's Office, et al. $5,100.76

Spurgeon, Dwayne vs. A. Narvaze, Corrections Officer, et al. $1,985.00

Evans, Lee vs. Newark City, et al. $840.00

Goodall-Gaillard, Stacey v. NJDOC, et al. $520.00

Materia, Dawn and Nicole French vs. New Jersey Judiciary, et al $520.00

Peterson, Bradley v. Albert Matlock, et al. $240.00

Williams, Brooklyn, an infant by her guardian ad litem, Nicole Williams, et al vs. Karen Koscica, D.O., e $120.00

Sills Cummis &Gross P.C., Newark

Retention for Legal Services for the Administrator of the Department of Law &Public Safety Regardin $38,787.00

Representation of the State Treasurer -Advice on Challenges to Funding for Construction Projects $1,820.00

Lamanteer, Michael v. State of New Jersey, et al. $646.00

Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Washington DCRenaissance School Employee Eligibility for State Pension $84,915.00

Application IRC Provisions. State Pensions Statutes and Unclaimed Property Law to Unclaimed Indivi $15,075.00

Stahl 8 DeLaurentis, P.C., RunnemedeParsell, Lena Administrator, A.A.P. for Anna Krzeminski, Decd vs. Virtua-West Jersey Health System, $2,280.00

Young, Nicote vs. Chevalta Bostick-Smith, MD, et al $1,177.00

Strasser 8 Associates, P.C., ParamusMVC v. Robert Nankervis $1,365.00

MVC v. Mira Bharatiya $1,020.00

Stroz Friedberg, LLC, New YorkRetention to Represent the Office of the Governor $63,325.90

In Re:. $4,784.10

Swartz Campbell LLC Phila PA Richardson, Carlos vs. New Jersey Transit $2,570.22

Volpe and Koenig, PC, Princeton NJT Intellectual Property $3,290.00

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &Dicker LLP -New YorkGlendia Mondesir v. Daniel Hendi, Director 8 NJ Bar Client Protection Fund $9,473.50

Hoboken Train Crash -Pending Inquiry by the National Transportation Safety Board $5,738.00

Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP, Madison NJ Transit Corp. Mason Substation Property Dispositions and Matters Related Thereto $13,418.00

Total $4,403,499.11

ATTACHMENT C

Forfeiture Balances, AGLEFA, FY 2016 - FY 2017

FY 2016 Beginning Balance: $5,543,975

Body Cameras $2,500,000DCJ Confidential Funds $300,000DCJ Confidential Purposes $450,000DCJ Curriculum and Training $8,000DSP Confidential Funds $900,000DSP ROIC Consultant $110,000DSP Security Holding Cells $50,000DRBA License Plate Readers $181,155Department of Health $93,827DSP Witness Protection $200,000DSP Ballistics Glass $350,000General Fund Revenue $1,000,000Sub-Total Obligations $6,142,982

FY 2016 AGLEFA Revenue $2,316,742

FY 2016 Ending Balance: $1,717,735

FY 2017 Beginning Balance: $1,717,735

Conductive Energy Devices $539,000Know the Law Campaign $1,000,000Community Policing Initiative $121,000DCJ Confidential $1,150,000DCJ Surveillance $791,000Department of Health $148,638DSP Witness Protection $100,000DSP Confidential X850,000Trenton Surveillance Camera Initiative $750,000General Fund Revenue $250,000Sub-Total Obligations $5,699,638

FY 2017 AGLEFA Revenue $6,300,118

FY 2017 Ending Balance: $2,318,215

ATTACHMENT D

Division RecapitulationAs of April 2018

W o z oo ~" aW - FVC7v z; z o 0a°

.~ ~ Az °

w oz

o ~~ z

° °v o

z0

V ~ W

~

F

z

z

A

~

WA

~ OF

V v~W

O ~H

~V

UG~~

v~ ~ Zw

va Z VW VrWv, V

V~ Z IW Wv~

~wz

Q Q

~i~ZO

~~

~ a~oW

~~z'

~ ~~

~ OQa

Gtra

Uw

Aa

wa

~wr~z

w,V~>

xI DI ~„

~

pw~~

H~

v~Zo

S O W ~"o ~ ̀~ >" riH ~HFa~" C ~ W ~~ F'"

O O O O O ~ W ~ F I Qz ~ ~

H Hv N~~ H ~ U W ~~'' W W ri ~w~v~ v~ W

aF xH a

F-~sF

xE"'' ~~ Wu z ~~ ~ ~

w ~ V a A A A~ F H ~ ~ w D ~ ~ O

O

~̀ a w x ~x ~ a A W ~ x ~ W ~a

p~ 0w HO HO Wq wW W~ ~~ aw zO Ad ~

°~~

Va

v w w w x ~ ~ y ~ F ~.

~ ~ ~, ~, c~ ~+ A ~ UO O W w

fz, , ~ ~ W id~

~ ~

~

~

I

0

Colonel 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Lt. Colonel 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S

Major 0 0 4 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19Captain 0 1 10 2 1 2 0 0 1 2 3 2 2 0 5 6 4 4 5 4 5 59

Lieutenant 1 1 20 11 3 5 1 l 4 14 14 15 9 3 23 23 15 8 15 9 i 19 214Sgt. First Class 5 0 14 1 3 4 0 0 11 14 13 22 13 4 0 1 18 7 16 13 31 190

Det. Sgt. First Class 1 0 13 14 0 4 0 0 1 4 3 3 2 0 25 31 2 0 2 0 2 107Sergeant 0 0 12 2 3 2 0 0 0 39 41 44 25 20 1 0 25 9 37 9 62 331

.-Det. Sergeant 0 0 13 16 0 10 0 0 6 11 14 7 6 0 38 41 1 0 2 0 2 167

---Staff Sergeant 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 35 31 16 10 0 0 ~ 2 0 0 0 13 142

Detective I 0 0 8 2 0 12 0 0 4 5 7 7 7 0 43 51 0 0 0 0 5 151Detective II 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 3 8 0 0 0 0 1 19Detective 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 5 0 3 1 0 5 4 0 Q 0 0 1 22Trooper I 0 0 13 1 0 8 0 0 1 31 70 . 21 3G 50 4 3 22 2 2 5 116 385Trooper II 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 8 19 10 12 12 3 4 2 0 0 0 7 83Trooper 0 0 6 0 0 5 0 0 2 195 215 172 84 60 8 8 10 2 4 2 8 781

Enlisted Totals 7 3 119 50 12 59 2 2 34 366 435 338 215 159 159 181 102 33 84 43 273 2,676

I Civilian TotalsI----

0 4 38 8 3 181 1 1 9 ~-

7 9 210 -3 0 39 11 214 145 336—

164 35 1,418

~~ Grand Totals~_--

7 7 157 58 15 240 3 3 43 373 444 548 218 159 198 192 316 178~

420 207 308 4,094~

12-Apr-18

ATTACHMENT ENJ Department of Law and Public SafetyDivision of State Police -Enlisted Staff

As of 2017-13

FEMALE Captain

Lieutenant

Sergeant 1st Class

Sergeant

Trooper 1

Trooper 2

Trooper

FEMALE Subtotal

AmericanIndian orAlaskanNative Asian Black Hispanic

NativeHawaiian or

OtherPacificIslander

Some OtherRace White Total

1 5 6

10 10

12 12

4 2 20 26

1 1 10 12

2 10 12

1 2 9 34 462 8 13 101 124

_...MALE 'Colonel 1 1

LT. Colonel 5 5

Major

Captain

Lieutenant

Sergeant 1st Class

Sergeant

1 1 16 18

4 7 42 53

1 3 8 14 189 215

2 1 14 13 _ 1 251 282

3 9 24 58 512 606

Trooper 1 3 5 14 32 1 260 315

Trooper 2

Trooper

Not Defined

7 10 31 230 278

1 25 68 132 2 497 725

1 1

MALE Subtotal 10 50 144 288 2 2 2,003 2,499

Total 10 52 152 301 2 2 2,104 2,623

ATTACHMENT F

JJC CAPITAL FUNDED PROJECTS COMPLETED IN FY17 AND FY18

Project Description Location Status Total Cost'` FY Completed

Second Means of Egress Community House NJTS Complete $546,913 2017

Personal Duress Alarm Campus Wide JMSF-Hayes Complete $1,103,703 2017

Roof & HVAC Replacement BMU NJTS Complete $1,737,250 2017

Phase III Heat NJTS Complete $7,476,822 2018

TOTAL. ~ $70,864,688

* Total cost include expenses incurred by JJC and Capital Construction (Interdepartmental).