Breaking: Robert Moss moves to intervene in action brought by NJ AG against Mahwah

In a filing early this morning, an individual named Robert Moss filed to intervene in Porrina v. Township of Mahwah and Mahwah Township Council.

Mr Moss, an advocate for increasing the amount of land under Green Acres encumbrances, in his motion (posted below) “seeks to protect his interest in preserving Green Acres encumbrances on Defendant Mahwah’s parklands”.

Mr. Moss has previously intervened in Hannon v. West Milford (NJ PAS-L-1675-03) and was a plaintiff* in Melvin v. Seaside Heights, NJ A-004585-15 (combined with NJ A-005372-15) and has a history of activism on behalf of environmental causes as per the brief.

The position of Mr. Moss is that permitting Mahwah to give back the $3.4M+ that they received in grants through Green Acres funding would be impermissible when other remedies, such as injunctive and specific performance remedies are simultaneously being sought by the State.

As always, we will continue to monitor and keep the public apprised of any developments.


* The post initially listed Mr. Moss as an intervenor in Melvin v. Seaside Heights.  He was, in fact, a plaintiff.  The post has been corrected.

2 Responses to Breaking: Robert Moss moves to intervene in action brought by NJ AG against Mahwah

  1. Robert Moss says:

    Since someone’s been diligently checking submissions to the District Court in Newark, I’ll needle you with some picky corrections.

    My name doesn’t toggle between “Moss” and “Ross”, it’s “Moss”, after the town of Moss, Norway.

    Hannon v. West Milford is a great story; if anyone has an afternoon, they can ask me to retell it.

    Strictly speaking, I have not intervened in Melvin v. Seaside Heights, but was added as a plaintiff by Stephen Melvin’s attorneys. He’s the real plaintiff; however, there is a widespread belief that individual, poorly-known plaintiffs are at a disadvantage. At least I was one more plaintiff on the list. It shouldn’t matter, but you know, in reality—

    The State vehemently disagrees with my legal analysis.

    Now that the parks ordinance has been rescinded or put back the way it was, more information will be forthcoming early in January.

Leave a Reply