Danielle Joseph Lawsuit

MON-L-000453-22 09/26/2023 11:58:16 PM Pg 1 of 98 Trans ID: LCV20232953175
Desha Jackson Law Group, LLC.

Attorney ID #014591996
4400 Route 9 South,
Suite 1000
Freehold, NJ 07728
PH: 732-409-5172
FAX: 201-603-1800
djackson@dljlawgroup.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Danielle Joseph
DANIELLE JOSEPH SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

LAW DIVISION-CIVIL PART
Plaintiff MONMOUTH COUNTY
vs. DOCKET NO. MON-L-000453-22
CITY OF ASBURY PARK, CITY OF CIVIL ACTION

ASBURY PARK POLICE
DEPARTMENT, ELIZABETH GORCEY,
CHRISTOPHER SEIGEL, HILBE
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
GORCEY PROPERTIES, DAVID ANSWERT TO COUNTERCLAIM
DESANE, MICHAEL CASEY, JOHN
DOES 1-10, ABC CORPORATION 1-10
Defendants
RACE DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
NJLAD, BREACH OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, CONVERSION,
SELECTIVE ENFORCMENT BASED ON RACE IN VIOLATION OF NJ
CONSTITUTION, RACIAL PROFILING, NEGLIGENT TRAINING,
HIRING, RETENTION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL
DISTRESS, CONSPIRACY
1
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiff leased a space from Defendant Gorcey, the Landlord, in the fall of 2020. The
Plaintiff was harassed and threatened to be evicted, unable to run her business to its fully
capacity due to the racial harassment by the Defendant City of Asbury Park Police Department in
concert with the Defendant landlord and the Defendant Christopher Seigel, the property
manager. The Plaintiff did not receive any guidance, assistance, or communication from the
Defendant landlord from the beginning till the end only to be evicted from the premises once the
Defendant landlord found out that she was black. Plaintiff tried reaching out to the Defendant
landlord to work out their issues for months to no avail. The Defendant landlord responded by
forcing the Plaintiff out of the commercial property after all the hard work she put in with
construction she did within the property. Defendant Landlord gave Plaintiff 6 days in a notice to
quit although plaintiff was forthcoming, accommodating, and helpful to landlord from day one.
Defendant landlord would not accept payment of rent either.
Immediately upon taken over the premises Plaintiff became aware that there were severe
defects with the premises that were not represented in the lease agreement. After making the
required fixes to operate, herself, she opened her space on November 11, 2020. Her grand
opening party was plagued with discrimination from Defendant Seigel, the property manager. In
the days to come she was continually visited by police from Defendant City of Asbury Park who
created excuses for their visits that were not grounded in the facts of what had occurred
Plaintiff’s lease space, the property. Police officers from Defendant City of Asbury Park
continually left without reporting any violations of the law; even though white tenants were
violating the law in front of them, and they failed to cite them for any violations. The Defendant
2
landlord worked in concert with the Defendant City of Asbury Park Police Department against
Plaintiff based on race.
Moreover, in June of 2021 the City Manager from Defendant City of Asbury Park called
her notifying her that she could not hold an event that she had been planning because it made use
of the space outside her property, this is despite it being well established practice of other
landlords to do the same thing. White business owners and tenants were given preferential
treatment to secure advertising via permits that Plaintiff was never notified about. Plaintiff’s
business has suffered greatly due to the unfair enforcement based on race by the Defendant City
of Asbury Park and Asbury Park Police Department.
Plaintiff brings this lawsuit and seeks justice due to the violation of her rights based on
her race:
Plaintiff, Danielle Joseph, who resides at need address 633 Briar Way in the City of
Beachwood, County of Ocean, State of New Jersey, by way of Complaint against defendants
says:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff is an individual and is now, and at all times mentioned in this complaint was
renter/leasee of commercial space owned by the defendants Elizabeth Gorcey, Hilbe
Management Company, Inc. and Gorcey Properties.
2. At all times mentioned in this complaint, Defendants Gorcey, Hilbe Management
Company, Inc. and Gorcey Properties owned and/or possessed and controlled the
premises at 727 Cookman Avenue, in the City of Asbury Park, County of Monmouth,
3
State of New Jersey. She and the businesses were legally responsible for the actions and
inactions of the named individual defendants, all defendants, John Does 1-10 and/or ABC
Entities 1-10, or in the alternative, she was, at all times mentioned in this complaint, an
agent and/or partner, employer predecessor or successor in interest and assign of all
individual defendants, all defendants, John Does 1-10 and ABC Entities 1-10.
3. Defendant Hilbe Management Company, Inc. is, a privately owned New Jersey company
whose principle office and place of business is located at 40 Memorial Pkwy, City of
Long Branch, County of Monmouth, State of New Jersey that supplies building
management services for rental services. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Hilbe”),
which provides support to both Defendant Gorcey Properties. Both companies are
property building management company (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant
Management Companies”). At all times mentioned in this complaint, plaintiff and
defendant Hilbe were related due to her being a renter/leasee of the commercial space
located at 727 Cookman Ave, City of Asbury Park, New Jersey.
4. Defendant Gorcey Properties is, a privately owned New Jersey company whose principle
office and place of business is located at 40 Memorial Pkwy, City of Long Branch,
County of Monmouth, State of New Jersey that supplies building management services
for rental services. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Properties”), which provides
support to both Defendant Hilbe. Both companies are property building management
company (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Management Companies”). At all times
mentioned in this complaint, plaintiff and defendant Properties were related due to her
being a renter/leasee of the commercial space located at 727 Cookman Ave, City of
Asbury Park, New Jersey.
4
5. Defendant City of Asbury Park is a government entity located at One Municipal Plaza, in
the City of Asbury Park, County of Monmouth, State of New Jersey.
6. Defendant the Asbury Park Police Department is a government entity located at One
Municipal Plaza, in the City of Asbury Park, County of Monmouth, State of New Jersey.
7. Defendant Elizabeth Gorcey (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Gorcey”) is an
individual and at all times mentioned in this complaint was the owner of 727 Cookman
Avenue, in the City of Asbury Park, NJ, owner and agent of Defendant Hilbe
Management Company, Inc. and Gorcey Properties and supervisor of codefendant Seigel
and as the supervisor of Defendant Seigel acted for all pertinent purposes within the
scope and course of employment and/or otherwise contributed to the wrongful and illegal
conduct alleged in this complaint.
8. Defendant Christopher Seigel (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Seigel”) is an
individual and at all times mentioned in this complaint was an agent and employee,
property manager, of codefendant Gorcey, Hilbe Management Company, Inc. and Gorcey
Properties and as an agent and employee of acted for all pertinent purposes within the
scope ad course of employment and/or otherwise contributed to the wrongful and illegal
conduct alleged in this complaint.
9. Defendant Desane (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Desane”) is an individual and at
all times mentioned in this complaint was an agent and employee of codefendant
Defendant City of Asbury Park and the Asbury Park Police Department and as an agent
and employee of Defendant City of Asbury Park and the Asbury Park Police Department
acted for all pertinent purposes within the scope ad course of employment and/or
otherwise contributed to the wrongful and illegal conduct alleged in this complaint.
5
10. Defendant Sergeant Michael Casey (hereinafter referred to as “ Defendant Casey”) is an
individual and at all times mentioned in this complaint was an agent and employee of
codefendant Defendant City of Asbury Park and the Asbury Park Police Department and
as an agent and employee of Defendant City of Asbury Park and the Asbury Park Police
Department acted for all pertinent purposes within the scope ad course of employment
and/or otherwise contributed to the wrongful and illegal conduct alleged in this
complaint.
11. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of
defendants JOHN DOES 1 through 10 (hereinafter referred to as “DOES”), inclusive, are
unknown to plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff sues those defendants by such fictitious names
and will amend this complaint to show their true names and capacities when they have
been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that information and
belief alleges, that each of the defendants designated as a DOES is legally responsible for
the events and happenings referred to in this complaint, and unlawfully caused the
injuries and damages to plaintiff alleged in this complaint.
12. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of
defendants ABC COPORATION 1 through 10 (hereinafter referred to as “ABC
CORP.”), inclusive, are unknown to plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff sues those defendants
by such fictitious names and will amend this complaint to show their true names and
capacities when they have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based
on that information and belief alleges, that each of the defendants designated as a ABC
6
CORP is legally responsible for the events and happenings referred to in this complaint,
and unlawfully caused the injuries and damages to plaintiff alleged in this complaint.
13. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that information and belief alleges, that at
all times mentioned in this complaint, defendants were the agents and employees of their
codefendants City of Asbury Park and the Asbury Park Police Department Gorcey, Hilbe
Management Company, Inc. and Gorcey Properties within, and in doing the things
alleged in this complaint were acting within the course and scope of such agency and
employment.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
FACTS
14. Plaintiff, Danielle Joseph, an African American, owns a consulting firm, DEJ Creative
Consulting, LLC (hereinafter “DEJ”).
15. Plaintiff is in a protected class as an African American.
16. Plaintiff provides services to clients big and small. She extends her services to all
different types of businesses and brands. DEJ Creative Consulting is a place where the
opportunity was provided to allow businesses to create, collaborate, innovate and
promote/sell their products and services. Furthermore, the Plaintiff executed full creative
control for her clients with business branding, Pop-up shop experiences, collaborative
Business launches, marketing and promotional services such as photography,
videography, business consulting, business seminars and teach backs, interactive “think
hub”.
7
17. In August of 2020, Plaintiff started to look for a space where she could grow her
consulting firm.
18. She found 727 Cookman Ave, Asbury Park NJ 07712 on an online posting.
19. Plaintiff reached out to the listing agent Anthony Newarski from Berkshire Properties and
scheduled a time to take a tour of the property.
20. On August 4, 2020, Plaintiff took a tour of the property. Upon arriving to the property,
she was excited about the location due to the surrounding area of art, music, arcades,
great food, bars and the beach.
21. The City of Asbury Park is also known for its rich cultural offerings.
22. Plaintiff was eager to bring her business here because there was none like it around and it
would be great for the community.
23. Once Plaintiff completed the tour of the property, she fell in love.
24. Although, she knew it would be a challenge, Plaintiff decided to continue with the
process to obtain the rental property.
25. She thought that with this space she could not only have her consulting firm, but also add
more services to the firm and the community.
26. Next on August 5, 2020 Plaintiff sent over the proposal to lease the property to Anthony
Newarski.
27. Mr. Newarski acted as the landlord’s agent, as well as her’s.
28. All communications up until the lease was signed on August 19, 2020, were between
Anthony Newarski and Plaintiff.
29. Defendant Elizabeth Gorcey is the landlord. She lives in California.
8
30. Defendant Gorcey was formally introduced to the Plaintiff via e-mail by Anthony
Newarski only after the lease was signed.
31. Plaintiff designed the space to be a replica of a think hub, a unique space where
brands/business can come, collaborate and innovate.
32. Due to COVID-19, many people have started businesses and were in need of rebranding
or assistance with lost revenue, Plaintiff wanted to help them from the ground up and
show them the way.
33. As soon as she moved in, Plaintiff on or about August 19, 2020, she started to notice
numerous problems with the property that were not discussed prior to her signing the
lease.
34. Plaintiff and Defendant Gorcey have talked numerous of times via text, email, and phone.
They had a very pleasant relationship & worked through a lot of problems with property.
35. The Plaintiff helped Defendant Gorcey with other work. Defendant Gorcey even thanked
the Plaintiff for how amazing, resourceful she had been even with the HVAC system that
the Plaintiff was unaware was not working and had to locate, find a HVAC company
willing to work at such an unfit and complex property.
36. The Plaintiff even went out her way to help Defendant Gorcey save money when the
floor was unfinished by the previous contractors. The Plaintiff believed the previous
contractors took advantage of the fact that she resided in California to ensure the work
was done.
37. The Plaintiff had to track down the previous contractor and plead for him to come back to
finish the job, due to him he stated he didn’t finish due to the issues he had experienced
there with people.
9
38. Later to find out, he was referring to Defendant Christopher Seigel. This contractor was
also a black man.
39. Plaintiff had to reach out to the person who did the outside doors and windows of the
property because that too was not properly elevated which left the Plaintiff unable to
open her business due to it being a trip hazard, all of which Defendant Gorcey knew yet
failed to advise and/or fix on her own.
40. Starting on or about August 19, 2020, most of these items required major renovations and
repairs due to the dangerous conditions they created.
41. Finally, Plaintiff had her Grand Opening on November 11, 2020.
42. One of Plaintiff’s clients is a chef, and he was frying wontons in the back area of the
location. This made the smoke detectors go off.
43. Plaintiff aired the property out, but in the middle of doing so heard a loud banging noise
on the windows.
44. At the same time, a member of the City of Asbury Park Fire Department walked in the
main door and advised that the door be left open and that everything was okay.
45. Later, Plaintiff found out that the loud banging noise came from Defendant Seigel, the
property manager.
46. Plaintiff discovered this during a disturbing call from Defendant Gorcey.
47. Up until November 11, 2020, Plaintiff was unaware that Defendant Seigel was the
property manager.
48. On November, 11 2020, at the Grand opening several witnesses heard Defendant Seigel
say "You people" in a loud, demeaning matter. This was offensive and the people
believed it was said to demean them because they were African American.
10
49. Plaintiff did not have contact information for Defendant Seigel, he had never introduced
himself to Plaintiff, nor had Defendant Gorcey ever introduced Plaintiff to the property
manager.
50. During her Grand Opening, Plaintiff’s brother went outside to see who was banging on
the windows, for whatever reason the two of them got into a verbal argument.
51. When Plaintiff walked outside, she saw them face-to-face speaking.
52. Plaintiff then got a call from Defendant Gorcey who was extremely nasty, yelling,
screaming, being falsely accused of untrue things and threatened to be evicted.
53. Defendant Gorcey accused her of breaching her lease and threatened to contact her
attorney.
54. She falsely accused her of smoking in the property, having 150 people inside the location
and that they were not social distancing.
55. Plaintiff was completely taken back by this. These were lies, and there was a strong lack
of professionalism.
56. Defendant Gorcey stated that she had pictures and videos showing that what Defendant
Seigel was saying was not true.
57. Plaintiff advised Defendant Gorcey that since day one of the partnership that Plaintiff has
been upfront, honest, and more than helpful with the entire situation.
58. Plaintiff advised Defendant Gorcey of the truth and then Defendant Gorcey hung up the
phone on Plaintiff.
59. At approximately 10:43 PM, Plaintiff texted Defendant Gorcey asking her to call Plaintiff
due to the City of Asbury Park Police Department being at the location. Plaintiff wanted
11
Defendant Gorcey to hear for herself that the things Defendant Seigel had been telling her
were untrue.
60. Plaintiff advised Defendant Gorcey that she was trying to resolve the issue with her and
that both the City of Asbury Park Police Department and fire chief were at the property.
61. Defendant Gorcey called Plaintiff and they spoke.
62. After the conversation, Plaintiff called Defendant Gorcey because Defendant Seigel
purposely backed into Plaintiff’s brother’s car.
63. Defendant Seigel stated that his actions did not matter, because he knew the captain of
the Defendant City of Asbury Park Police Department. Defendant Gorcey did not
respond.
64. It must be noted, per the police report made by Sgt. Willey, from Defendant City of
Asbury Park Police Department, there was not any loud music, there were not 150 people
at the location, and everything was fine at the premises. So, there were actually no
violations of the law.
65. On November 12, 2020, Defendant Gorcey called Plaintiff. The two had a conversation.
Defendant Gorcey apologized for the way she spoke and stated that “Chris thinks he
owns the building.”
66. This was the last time Plaintiff spoke with Defendant Gorcey on the phone.
67. Plaintiff believes that Defendant Seigel told Defendant Gorcey that Plaintiff was black.
68. Since Plaintiff met Defendant Seigel, she has only been harassed due to her race.
69. Previous contractors have been harassed and did not want to come back to finish the job
hired at the premise work. Contractors the Plaintiff has hired have stated he was not easy
12
to work with. Plaintiff’s family and clients have been harassed at the grand opening
onward by Defendant Seigel, the property manager.
70. Defendant Gorcey started to send the police from Defendant City of Asbury Park Police
Department to harass Plaintiff.
71. On the following day the police harassment from Defendant City of Asbury Park Police
Department continued.
72. On November 13, 2020, Defendant Sergeant (Sgt.) Casey from Defendant City of Asbury
Park Police Department came to the property and accused Plaintiff of having a social
gathering.
73. He looked inside the windows and stated they were not social distancing.
74. Defendant Casey knew Plaintiff’s name, zoning status and stated that the business was
supposed to be a consulting firm.
75. Plaintiff explained to Defendant Casey about the event and what type of business was
conducted at the property.
76. Defendant Casey stated he would be putting something on file. She was not charged with
violating the law at that time.
77. Following this unwarranted and unlawful visit another one occurred on November 21,
2020, by Defendant Captain David Desane from Defendant City of Asbury Park Police
Department.
78. Defendant Desane came to the property at 8:00 PM. He banged on Plaintiff’s door.
79. Plaintiff was meeting with a client, so another client opened the door for him.
13
80. Defendant Desane stated that the gentleman who answered the door smelled like
marijuana. He said that he would come back in 15 minutes. The person who answered the
door was black.
81. Plaintiff waited outside until Defendant Desane came back.
82. When he returned Defendant Desane with four other officers made race-based comments
and insulting accusations without reasonable suspicion, probable cause or any
justification. He accused Plaintiff’s business of being a social club and that he knew it
was not a consulting firm. Defendant Desane questioned if Plaintiff had adequate
credentials to have a license to consult or run a business.
83. Defendant Desane also falsely accused Plaintiff without reasonable suspicion, probable
cause or any justification whatsoever of not having the necessary credentials and
licensing to have a consulting firm in that part of town.
84. Defendant Desane stated that there were a lot of “ins and outs” by guys wearing hoodies.
He was talking about the black people. Defendant Desane stated he let the grand opening
slide and that he spoke with Plaintiff’s landlord, Defendant Elizabeth Gorcey.
85. Defendant Desane stated that Plaintiff would receive a letter from Defendant Gorcey
advising that Plaintiff could only do business 9:00AM to 5:00 PM.
86. Plaintiff continued to ask Defendant Desane for his lawful reason for being at her
business and he would and could not provide an answer.
87. Plaintiff advised that she was being harassed by the Defendant City of Asbury Park
Police Department including him.
88. Defendant Desane then had the audacity and temerity to ask if Plaintiff knew the meaning
of the word harassment!!!!!
14
89. Plaintiff still does not know why Defendant Desane came with 4 other officers to her
place of business.
90. This was an unlawful visit.
91. On the same night, the white business owners on the block were able to have parties, use
their locations not for their intended business purposes, make loud noises and not follow
COVID-19 regulations or mandated city protocol. Plaintiff had to end networking event
early and as they were leaving Defendant Desane made a comment to the individuals
asking if they had a great time.
92. These activities of the other businesses were in contrast to Plaintiff, who was actually
only conducting business and following all rules and regulations on this night.
93. The Cigar Shop next door to Plaintiff’s business was open later than the mandated time
for businesses to be open due to COVID-19. They were not social distancing.
94. They were loud, yelling and screaming due to watching a sports game.
95. They stayed open past 10:00 PM. There is a Covid restriction that business could not stay
open past 10:00 PM.
96. So, they were clearly violating the law.
97. The majority of the people who patron this Cigar social club are white. The 5 white City
of Asbury Park police officers did not say anything to them.
98. Johnny Macks is a local bar on the corner of the same street as Plaintiff’s business.
99. They are open past 10:00PM. Drunk and loud people are always walking past Plaintiff’s
building.
100. Johnny Macks’ lines often come in front of Plaintiff’s door. Where patrons from this bar
are loud, drunk and disruptive to DEJ.
15
101. The majority of the people who patron this bar are white. The 5 white City of Asbury
Park police officers did not go to this establishment.
102. Additionally, there is a rock and roll band directly upstairs from Plaintiff’s space at the
Hot Dog House.
103. They play their music very loudly and it can be heard from outside and inside Plantiff’s
space, while Plaintiff is inside her space and when the police were present.
104. Everyone who attends this rock and roll studio is white. The 5 white City of Asbury Park
police officers did not say anything about their noise violations.
105. Defendant Casey from Defendant City of Asbury Park Police Department came to
Plaintiff’s place of business and stated that he received a noise complaint on November
27, 2020.
106. However, when he walked up, Defendant Casey did not hear anything, nor did he even
know Plaintiff’s business was open.
107. Although Defendant Casey did not hear anything, he stated he would have to document
that he came to Plaintiff’s business.
108. She was again not charged with violating any laws.
109. May 15, 2021, at 6:00 PM Officers Salerno and Ritler from Defendant City of
Asbury Park Police Department barged into Plaintiff’s place of business
indicating there was noise complaint. They refused to use the main door.
110. They did not come for an emergency, no one was hurt.
111. The band was practicing at the Hot Dog House, there were other businesses on the
same street playing music outside of their businesses'.
112. The band's music was louder than Plaintiff’s music.
16
113. Plaintiff was not even playing music outside.
114. The officers from Defendant City of Asbury Park Police Department also told her
that her clients could not smoke there even though its legal.
115. Plaintiff nor were her clients smoking marijuana.
116. Plaintiff has a permit for a sidewalk/cafe access where she is permitted to have
vendors sell products outside of her business. Music is permitted as well.
117. Her music could never be heard.
118. All of the businesses owned by white people were not told to turn down their
music even though it was louder than the Plaintiff’s.
119. The officers from the Defendant City of Asbury Park Police Department never
even made an attempt to speak to the white business owners about their loud
music.
120. When the Plaintiff raised the issue about the white owners’ music being loud. The
officers from the Defendant City of Asbury Park Police Department told her to
call them and report the noise they were listening too, and they would come out
again, instead of rectifying flagrant violations of the noise ordinance by white
owners that they were currently witnessing.
121. More importantly, she was permitted by law to play music. There was no reason
for them to enter her place of business.
122. Plaintiff hosted a pop-up shop event on June 19, 2021 called “The Black Market”.
123. At this event, she allowed black owned businesses to come and promote, network and sell
their products or services as a celebratory event for Juneteenth.
17
124. June 17, 2021, she received a call from Mike Manzella, City Deputy Manager from
Defendant City of Asbury Park looking to get some information about the event.
125. He wanted to ensure that the event would take place inside and not outside as this event
would not be permitted on Cookman Ave outside.
126. Plaintiff gave Mr.Manzella a call back to get some more information.
127. She advised him that the event would take place inside, however she wanted to get
clarification that if it was outside, she could obtain permit for the sidewalk/cafe from the
township.
128. Furthermore, she was confused that her event was prohibited when other businesses on
Cookman Ave, have had other businesses/vendors outside their business other than their
own business.
129. Mr. Manzella stated that this is news to him and only businesses should be vending
outside and selling their business items, products, services and he would send an email
communication out to other businesses on Cookman.
130. It should be noted that Plaintiff was not on the original email that was communicated to
all the business on Cookman to advise of the sidewalk/cafe permits.
131. Due to this, she was unable to get a permit in at the same time as the other businesses
which puts her at another disadvantage to the other businesses and made her unable to
run her businesses as effectively as others.
132. This led to improper promotion of her business where everyone else on Cookman has
placement there.
133. Plaintiff is unsure if Mike Manzella, City Deputy Manager from Defendant City of
Asbury Park sent the email advising the other businesses of this “rule,” however on
18
Saturday June 19th, 3 businesses on the 700 block of Cookman had other outside vendors
on the outside of their businesses. These vendors were not black.
134. Plaintiff was also accused by the Defendant City of Asbury Park that her garbage was not
handled properly by Mike Manzella.
135. On June 21st, 2021, Mike Manzella, sent an email to Plaintiff stating that her acts were
unacceptable. He stated that per the City ordinance, the garbage cannot be left outside of
the curb prior to 6pm the night before garbage pick-up. A picture was attached, however
in the picture one can see the picture was taken in the morning or early afternoon on the
day of garbage pick-up.
136. Mike Manzella advised that code enforcement was alerted and will issue a summons the
next time that this occurs. Plaintiff responded to the email advising that she put the
garbage out at 7:30 PM as she is fully aware of the regulations for garbage due to her
already receiving a violation when she first moved to the property, that she had no
problem paying for even though she was never informed of garbage pick up by her
landlord/property manager.
137. Mike Manzella did not acknowledge or respond to the email.
138. In fact, the Defendant City of Asbury Park stopped picking up the Plaintiff’s garbage and
never resumed picking up Plantiff’s garbage for the duration of the time she was at the
property although she was following all rules and regulations of the City.
139. Plaintiff was being harassed about her garbage as well due to her threatening to sue for
race discrimination.
140. The Plaintiff has moved out of the premise as a result of harassment and being threatened
to have legal actions taken against her due to tint on the windows that she placed on to
19
provide privacy, to conduct her business and other tenants of Defendant Gorcey’s had the
same on their windows. It should be noted that the tint has been removed and there was
no damage to the windows.
141. The Plaintiff has moved out of the premise due to harassment of the City of Asbury Park
Police Department, City Deputy Manager and the City of Asbury Park.
142. Plaintiff offered to pay rent after she was not able to in August of 2020.
143. Defendant Gorcey would not take the late rent payment and instead moved for possession
of the property.
144. Plaintiff has moved out of the premises as a result of the discrimination she faced as a
tenant and due to unfair treatment, unable to receive the same advantage as other
businesses on her street and the lack of support from Defendant City of Asbury Park.
LEGAL CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT ELIZABETH GORCEY,

CHRISTOPHER SEIGEL, HILBE MANAGEMENT AND GORCEY
PROPERTIES
COUNT ONE
RACE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF NEW JERSEY LAW
AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (N.J. Statute §§ 10:5-12) IN A
COMMERCIAL LEASE and (N.J. Statute §§ 10:5-1)
145. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in
each, and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein.
146. Defendant Gorcey intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff, in the terms of her lease,
based on her race in violation of NJLAD §§ 10:5-12 (1)(f) 1&2, (g) (1) & (2) & (4); 10:5-
4.
147. Defendant Gorcey is an owner of Defendant Hilbe Management Company, Inc. and
20
Gorcey Properties.
148. Defendant Gorcey was the landlord for the Plaintiff at the commercial property located at
727 Cookman Ave., Asbury Park NJ 07712.
149. A contract was created between Plaintiff and Defendant Gorcey, Defendants Hilbe
Management Company, Inc. and Gorcey Properties beginning on August 2021 when the
two signed a lease for 727 Cookman Ave, Asbury Park NJ 07712, for which Defendant
Gorcey is the landlord.
150. At all times Defendant Gorcey acted on behalf of her businesses Defendant Hilbe
Management Company, Inc. and Gorcey Properties
151. Defendant Christopher Seigel works for Defendant Grocey and her businesses Defendant
Hilbe Management Company, Inc. and Gorcey Properties as her property manager.
152. Defendant Gorcey threatened Plaintiff that she would break the lease on the basis of
accusations and lies that came from Defendant Seigel.
153. Defendant Seigel disturbed the grand opening and Plaintiff has reason to believe that he
informed Defendant Gorcey about Plaintiff’s race when he called her to discuss the grand
opening. He told Defendant Gorcey that Plaintiff was black.
154. On November 11, 2020 at the Grand opening several witnesses heard Defendant Seigel
155. Defendant Gorcey did not make her Caucasian tenants comply with the same rules she
was attempting to impose upon the Plaintiff.
156. Defendant Seigel subjected Plaintiff and her family to discriminatory and racist behavior.
157. Defendant Seigel crashed into Plaintiff’s brother’s car intentionally.
21
158. Defendant Gorcey did nothing to atone for Defendant Seigel’s behavior and instead
excused it, implicitly authorizing it.
159. After Defendant Gorcey found out that Plaintiff was black she made it impossible for
the Plaintiff to continue with her lease.
160. Defendant Gorcey started to no longer cooperate with the Plaintiff.
161. Defendant Gorcey worked in concert with the City of Asbury Park Police Department to
harass the Plaintiff because of her race so that she would break the lease and leave the
property by having the police constantly come to the premises and falsely accuse the
Plaintiff of violating the law.
162. Defendant Gorcey’s property manager and agent Defendant Seigel, engaged in a series of
acts within the scope and furtherance of his agency and employment relationship with
Defendant Gorcey in violation of NJLAD §§ 10:5-1.
163. In violation of NJLAD §§ 10:5-1, Defendant Seigel intentionally discriminated against
Plaintiff and her family because of their race by disrupting her grand opening party so
that she could not conduct her business.
164. Defendant Seigel’s interruption, intrusive and disruptive behavior led to Defendant
Gorcey calling Plaintiff yelling at her in a manner that is inappropriate for a business
relationship.
165. Defendant Gorcey got her false information from Defendant Seigel.
166. The false accusations and lies Defendant Seigel spread denied Plaintiff equal privileges
of her lease on the basis of her race.
167. Plaintiff has moved out of the premises as a result of the racial discrimination she faced
as a tenant by Defendant Gorcey and Defendant Seigel.
22
168. Defendant Gorcey intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff by forcing her out of her
lease and refused to continue to rent to her because of her race.
169. Defendants Gorcey, Hilbe Management Company, Inc. and Gorcey Properties are
vicariously liable for the actions of their employees, Defendant Seigel.
170. Plaintiff has lost beneficial enjoyment of the premises that was promised to her under the
lease based upon Defendants Gorcey, Seigel, Hilbe Management Company, Inc. and
Gorcey Properties discriminatory conduct.
171. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff
has suffered and will continue to suffer economic damages and losses, severe emotional
distress, severe anxiety, fear, physical and emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish,
depression, embarrassment, humiliation, and other intangible injuries. Furthermore, the
Plaintiff has incurred additional costs and expenses which would not have been incurred
but for Defendants unlawful conduct.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant for the following:
a. Compensatory damages;
b. Pre & Post-judgment interest;
c. Loss of income;
d. Punitive damages;
e. Damages for pain and suffering;
f. Interest;
g. Counsel fees;
h. Cost of suit;
i. Any other relief that the court deems to be just and equitable.
23
COUNT TWO
BREACH OF CONTRACT
each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein.
173. A contract was created between Plaintiff and Defendant Gorcey, Defendants Hilbe
Management Company, Inc. and Gorcey Properties beginning on August 2021 when the
two signed a lease for 727 Cookman Ave, Asbury Park NJ 07712, for which Defendant
Gorcey is the landlord.
Hilbe Management Company, Inc. and Gorcey Properties as her property manager.
176. The lease made several representations about the condition of the property.
177. Plaintiff moved into the property and began making changes in reliance on the contract
and the belief that her company would thrive there.
178. Plaintiff began to lose the beneficial enjoyment of the property almost immediately.
179. Soon after moving in she recognized repairs needed to be made to the space that were not
accounted for in the lease, such as property needed new HVAC unit and landlord did not
disclose this during walkthrough, holes and flooring in the floor that was stated to have
been fixed prior too, unleveled flooring caused a trip hazard.
180. Plaintiff held a grand opening party for her new space on November 11, 2020.
181. During that event the space smoked up due to improper ventilation.
182. At the same time Plaintiff began to be harassed by the Defendant property manager
Seigel.
24
183. Plaintiff had no knowledge of Defendant Seigel, or his role as property manager, prior to
this run in. Defendant Gorcey had failed to introduced Plaintiff and Defendant Seigel to
each other.
184. Defendant Seigel immediately began harassing Plaintiff and spreading lies about
Plaintiff’s use of the property, prompting Defendant Gorcey to nearly illegally terminated
the lease.
185. On November 11, 2020, at the Grand opening several witnesses heard Defendant Seigel
187. Specifically, Defendant did not make Caucasian tenants remove the tint from windows of
rental properties but Defendant did force Plaintiff to remove her tint.
vicariously liable for the actions of their employees, Defendant Seigel.
189. Defendant Gorcey breached the lease by failing to make all the necessary repairs for the
space to be ready for use.
190. These repairs were not disclosed as required by the contract.
191. The repairs that Plaintiff needed to make prior to opening the space where not minor,
they were major repairs that without them would otherwise render the space dangerous
and unusable.
192. Defendant breached the lease by providing Plaintiff a less than satisfactory space and
then yelling at her about lies.
25
193. Her behavior deprived the Plaintiff of the use of space that she was promised under the
contract.
194. As a result of Defendant Gorcey’s actions Plaintiff was forced to incur monetary
damages to fix up the property in order to make it usable.
195. Defendant Gorcey breached the lease by failing to pay the Plaintiff back out of pocket
money she expended repairs to the property.
196. Plaintiff was also deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of her grand opening.
197. Instead, Plaintiff was forced to ask the police and fire department to speak to Defendant
Gorcey to prove to Defendant Gorcey that the lies Defendant Seigel had told her were
just that, lies.
198. Defendants breached the following provisions of the lease: 7.4 Ownership, Removal &
Restorations, 13- 13.2 Default Breach Remedies, 23. Notices. 5. Security Deposits, 7.
Maintenance Repairs Utility Installation Trade Fixtures and Alterations 7.3 Utility
Installations, Trade Fixtures and Alterations. 38. Quiet Possession.
199. Defendant Gorcey did not call the Police on other tenants, specifically, the Hot Dog
House for the same or similar conduct because they are Caucasian.
200. Defendant Gorcey breached the lease by failing to give Plaintiff sufficient time to cure
fraudulent deficiencies after sending the Notice to Quit. She refused to speak to the
Plaintiff.
201. Defendant Gorcey breached the lease when she failed to return the Plaintiff’s security
deposit.
202. All actions taken against Plaintiff were due to her race.
26
203. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination indicates that a person cannot be
discriminated against based on race in a commercial lease.
204. Defendant’s Gorcey breached the contract by discriminating against the Plaintiff based
on race.
205. All of Defendant Gorcey;s actions towards Plaintiff were done with the intention of
having Plaintiff harassed by the Police due to her race.
as a tenant by Defendant Gorcey, Defendant Hilbe Management Company, Inc., Gorcey
Properties and Seigel.
207. Defendant Gorcey has not returned the security deposit in accordance with the lease.
208. Defendant Gorcey breached the contract by failing to return the security deposit.
lease based upon Defendants Gorcey, Seigel, Hilbe Management Company, Inc. and
Gorcey Properties unlawful conduct and breach of contract.
210. Defendant Gorcey failed to provide Plaintiff with a valid Notice to Quit.
211. Defendant Gorcey failed to provide Plaintiff with time to cure any perceived deficiencies
or violations of the lease agreement.
212. Defendant Gorcey failed to refund the Plaintiff for out-of-pocket money Plaintiff spent on
repairs and improvements to the subject property.
213. Defendant Gorcey fraudulently claimed that Plaintiff breached the terms of the lease
when no such breach occurred.
214. Defendant Gorcey wrongfully sought possession of the subject property.
215. Defendant Gorcey breach the lease by illegally seeking to take possession of the subject
27
property.
c. Loss of income;
f. Interest;
g. Counsel fees;
h. Cost of suit;
COUNT THREE
NEGLIGENCE
218. Defendant’s Gorcey, Hilbe Management Company, Inc., Gorcey Properties and Seigel
owed Plaintiff a duty of care when renting out her space to ensure that it was fit for the
28
uses for which it was being rented and warranted.
Hilbe Management Company, Inc. and Gorcey Properties as her property manager. He is
an agent of the business.
breached that duty when she failed to deliver to Plaintiff premises that were ready and fit
for commercial use.
owed Plaintiff a duty to be candid about the condition of the property which she was
prepared to spend several thousands of dollars on for her business.
breached that duty by failing to disclose material facts and the condition of the property
and repairs that were both likely and necessary for use.
224. As a result of Defendant’s Gorcey, Hilbe Management Company, Inc., Gorcey Properties
and Seigel’s failure to make repairs and failure to disclose the necessary repairs to
Plaintiff prior to the signing of the contract, Plaintiff failed to get the benefit of what she
bargained for, instead she incurred major damages.
225. Plaintiff was forced to spend thousands over the allotted allowance, on repairs that she
should not have been forced to pay for.
owed Plaintiff a duty of care to ensure that her property manager treated all tenants with
29
equal respect, and not in a discriminatory manner based upon the New Jersey Law
Against Discrimination.
breached this duty by excusing Defendant Seigel’s actions with a statement that “Chris
thinks he owns the building,” as a dismissive nod to his behavior even in the face of
overwhelming evidence that he had acted improperly and with intent to discriminate.
owed Plaintiff a duty of care to treat her as she would any other tenant regardless of race.
breached this duty by treating Plaintiff in an abrasive nature due to her race, yelling at
her, calling the police on her, refusing to rent to her, harassing her and having Defendant
Seigel harass her all to make her leave the property, after Defendant Seigel told her
Plaintiff is black.
230. Defendant’s Gorcey, Hilbe Management Company, Inc., Gorcey Properties and Seigel’s
breach of their duty caused the Plaintiff to be deprived of the enjoyment of her grand
opening and she continually suffered verbal abuse from both parties.
231. Defendant’s Gorcey, Hilbe Management Company, Inc., Gorcey Properties and Seigel’s
breach of their duty caused the Plaintiff to be forced to spend time defending herself
against false accusations with the police and absorb both parties yelling and lies about her
and the event.
232. Plaintiff has reason to believe that Defendant Seigel treated her this way because he saw
that she was black, and that Defendant Seigel informed Defendant Gorcey of Plaintiff’s
race which led to Defendant Gorcey treating her outrageously as well.
30
233. On November 11, 2020 at the Grand opening several witnesses heard Defendant Seigel
235. Plaintiff took rightful ownership of 727 Cookman Ave, Asbury Park NJ 07712 when she
signed a lease for the property.
236. The lease designated that Plaintiff would be a tenant for the given term.
237. Under the lease the Plaintiff had the right to physical occupancy of the property, and to
run her business out of the property.
238. Defendant Gorcey lives in California and maintains her business in New Jersey.
239. Plaintiff had no reason to believe that Defendant Gorcey would spend time on the
property or otherwise micromanage her use of the property.
240. Plaintiff was not told by Defendant Gorcey, anytime on signing or after signing, that the
property had a property manager.
241. Plaintiff was first introduced to property manager Defendant Seigel when she held her
grand opening event on November 11, 2020.
242. Defendant Seigel is the property manager, who is an employee and therefore an agent of
Defendant Gorcey.
243. Plaintiff did not know about Defendant Seigel prior to the event, and he was not invited
to the event.
244. When Defendant Seigel intruded on the grand opening by banging on the property’s
windows he breached their duty of care as well.
31
245. Defendant Seigel’s banging caused such an intrusion on the event that Plaintiff’s brother
walked outside to confront him.
246. Defendant Seigel and Plaintiff’s brother got to an oral argument. This was also a breach
of their duty of care as well.
247. Subsequently Defendant Gorcey called Plaintiff yelling things about the grand opening
that were not true: she claimed there were over a hundred people, and there was no social
distancing, and that Plaintiff was smoking marijuana. This was also a breach of their
duty of care as well.
248. Defendant Gorcey was informed that these statements were lies but she threatened to
break off the lease anyways. This was also a breach of their duty of care as well.
249. This threat to break the lease off in the face of reassurances to the contrary was a
wrongful act that was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s right to the property under the lease.
This was a breach of their duty of care as well.
250. When Plaintiff was finally able to reassure Defendant Gorcey after contacting the
Defendant City of Asbury Park Police Department and fire department, her troubles with
Defendant Seigel were swept under the wrong with a statement that “Chris thinks he
owns the building.”
251. Instead of affirmatively acting to reel in Defendant Seigel’ improper intrusion on
Plaintiff’s property rights, Defendant Gorcey dismissed the actions of her agent. This was
a breach of their duty of care as well.
252. By her own improper actions and by authorizing Defendant Seigel’s improper actions,
Defendant Gorcey knowingly choose to infringe on the Plaintiff’s property rights under
the lease.
32
253. Defendant’s Gorcey’s and Seigel’s actions were abusive, threatening, wrong and
unlawful.
254. Due to Defendant’s Gorcey, Hilbe Management Company, Inc., Gorcey Properties and
Seigel’s actions were in violation of the duty of care owed to Plaintiff.
vicariously liable for negligent actions of their employees, Defendant Seigel.
256. As a result of Defendant Gorcey’s breach of the duty of care it caused the Plaintiff to lose
the enjoyment of her grand opening night and she suffered verbal abuse, anxiety, and
stress.
257. Plaintiff was forced to move out of the premises as a result of the racial discrimination
she faced as a tenant and breach of the duty of care by Defendant’s Gorcey, Hilbe
Management Company, Inc., Gorcey Properties and Seigel.
lease due to the breach of the duty of care by the Defendant’s Gorcey, Hilbe Management
Company, Inc., Gorcey Properties and Seigel.
259. Plaintiff has demonstrated that Defendants knowingly departed from the standard of care
and failed to exercise the degree of care, precaution, prudence, and vigilance which a
reasonably prudent person would under the same or similar circumstances.
260. While the Plaintiff need not show that the Defendants had an evil heart or intent to do
harm, she has demonstrated that the Defendants actions were based upon race.
33
c. Loss of income;
f. Interest;
g. Counsel fees;
h. Cost of suit;
COUNT FOUR
CONVERSION
each, and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein.
264. Defendant Gorcey has a security deposit from the Plaintiff in the amount of $4,500.
34
tenant by Defendant’s Gorcey, Hilbe Management Company, Inc., Gorcey Properties and
Seigel.
266. Defendants have not returned her security deposit in accordance with the law and the
lease.
267. They are now unlawfully in possession of the security deposit.
268. Defendant’s Gorcey, Hilbe Management Company, Inc., Gorcey Properties are liable for
unlawful conversion of the security deposit.
269. Defendant Gorcey also illegally withheld money from Plaintiff for repairs to the property
that the Plaintiff spent out of her pocket to enhance the property as it was unusable
without the repairs.
270. Defendant is now reaping the rewards of the improvements and the security
deposit.
lease and her security deposit.
272. Defendant Gorcy converted money that rightfully belonged to Plaintiff in violation of the
law.
35
c. Loss of income;
f. Interest;
g. Counsel fees;
h. Cost of suit;
COUNT FIVE
WRONGFUL EVICTION IN VIOLATION OF THE ANTI-EVICTION STATUTE,
N.J.S.A §2A:18-53(c) FOR SERVING FRAUDULENT NOTICE
TO QUIT AND UNLAWFUL POSSESSION
274. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein.
275. Plaintiff entered into a commercial lease agreement with the Defendant’s on
August 16, 2020.
276. Pursuant to the terms of the lease, the Agreed Used of the Premises is for
“Business Branding and Retail Component.
277. The Lease states, “Lessee shall use and occupy the premises only for the Agreed
Use, or any other legal use which is reasonably comparable thereto, and for no other
purpose.”
36
278. Plaintiff, Danielle Joseph, an African American, owns a consulting firm, DEJ
Creative Consulting, LLC (hereinafter “DEJ”).
videography, business consulting, business seminars and teach backs, interactive “think
hub”.
280. Defendant sent two notices to the Plaintiff regarding the property.
281. On December 3, 2020, Defendant sent Plaintiff a Notice to Cease indicating that
Plaintiff was using the premises as a place for parties and social events.
282. On August 23, 2021, Defendant sent Plaintiff a Notice to Quit indicating that
Plaintiff refused to remove black film/coating that was placed on the windows in the
rental property.
283. The Notice to Quit makes no mention whatsoever of Plaintiff using the property
for anything other than her business.
284. The Notice to Quit also alleged that a dividing wall was built in violation of the
lease; however, Plaintiff had permission from the Defendant Landlord to add the wall.
285. Additionally, Plaintiff could have removed the wall had Defendant Gorcey
provided the required opportunity to cure and negotiated the security deposit.
37
286. Defendant Gorcey was not concerned about the use of the property when she
initially rented the property to the Plaintiff. She was only concerned about whether she
could pay the rent.
287. It was not until after she was told that the Plaintiff was African American and her
clientele was African American that Defendant Gorcey started to fabricate reasons for a
breach of the lease.
288. Defendant Gorcey’s actions were also based on race as already indicated earlier in
this Complaint.
289. In September of 2021, Defendant Gorcey wrongfully took possession of the
Plaintiff’s location based on fraudulent reasons in violation of the law by not giving
Plaintiff sufficient time to cure fraudulent deficiencies, defective notice and based on
Plaintiff’s race.
290. Defendant has now filed a Counterclaim against the Plaintiff, indicating that
Plaintiff was using the subject property for purposes contrary to the agreed use.
291. Pursuant to the Anti-Eviction Statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:18-53(c)(4) provides, in
pertinent part, that a commercial tenant may be removed from the premises: after the
landlord or his agent for that purpose has caused a written notice of the termination of
said tenancy to be served upon said tenant, and a demand that said tenant remove from
said premises within three days from the service of such notice. The notice shall specify
the cause of the termination of the tenancy, and shall be served either personally upon the
tenant or such person in possession by giving him a copy thereof, or by leaving a copy
thereof at his usual place of abode with some member of his family above the age of
[fourteen] years.
38
292. The purpose in N.J.S.A. 2A:18-53(c) of providing notice to a commercial tenant
is to "permit the tenant to adequately prepare a defense, since the tenant may contest an
alleged breach of a covenant or may raise equitable defenses." Ivy Hill Park Apartments.
v. GNB Parking Corp., 236 N.J. Super. 565, 570 (Law Div. 1989).
293. Further, owners found in violation of this section shall be liable to the former
tenant in a civil action, “for three times the damages plus the tenants’ attorney fees and
costs.” N.J.S.A. §2A:18-61.6.
294. As such, the Notice to Quit sent to the Plaintiff was defective and grounds for
Wrongful Eviction. Possession was obtained unlawfully.
295. Given the easily established status of Defendant’s fraudulent ploy to remove
Plaintiff from the subject property, claiming window tinting, as well as a dividing wall
being built and not use of premises, Plaintiff is entitled to all legal and equitable remedies
available under the Anti-Eviction Statute.
296. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of Defendant,
Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer economic damages and losses, pain and
suffering, mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation, and other intangible injuries.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs have incurred additional costs and expenses which would not
have been incurred but for Defendants unlawful conduct.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants for the following:
b. Pre-judgment interest;
c. Punitive damages;
d. Damages for pain and suffering;
39
e. Interest;
f. Counsel fees;
g. Cost of suit;
h. Any other relief that the court deems to be just and equitable.
COUNT SIX
VIOLATION OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
297. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained in each and every aforementioned paragraph as though fully set forth herein.
298. Plaintiff entered into a commercial lease agreement with the Defendant’s on
August 16, 2020.
299. Pursuant to the terms of the lease, the Agreed Used of the Premises is for
“Business Branding and Retail Component.
300. The Lease states, “Lessee shall use and occupy the premises only for the Agreed
Use, or any other legal use which is reasonably comparable thereto, and for no other
purpose.”
301. Plaintiff, Danielle Joseph, an African American, owns a consulting firm, DEJ
Creative Consulting, LLC (hereinafter “DEJ”).
302. Defendants agreed to the purpose of the lease and agreed to allow Plaintiff to
operate the premises as a Business Branding and Retail enterprise.
303. Defendants agreed to the proposal submitted by the Plaintiff prior to her signing
the lease where she explained what her business model.
304. Defendants negotiated in bad faith as they are now suing the Plaintiff for the very
business model they agreed to prior to the lease being signed.
40
videography, business consulting, and business seminars and teach backs, interactive
“think hub”.
306. At no time has Plaintiff violated the agreed use of the subject premises.
307. At no time has Plaintiff violated any of the terms of the commercial lease
agreement.
308. Defendants only decided to evict the Plaintiff once the Defendants learned the
race of the Plaintiff was African-American.
309. Defendants never provided a Notice to Quit indicating that Plaintiff was using the
premises for a purpose that was not agreed upon.
310. Defendants failed to give the Plaintiff any opportunity to cure and perceived
fraudulent violations of the lease agreement.
311. Defendants refused to negotiate in good faith to allow Plaintiff time to cure and
perceived fraudulent deficiencies, nor did Defendants give Plaintiff an opportunity to remind
the Defendants of the details of her business as she had submitted to them earlier in the
proposal prior to renting the location.
312. Defendants do not treat Caucasian tenants of commercial properties the same as
the Plaintiff was treated in this case.
41
313. Defendant’s actions were a violation of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.
314. Plaintiff was forced to leave the property due to Defendant’s unlawful actions.
315. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of Defendant,
Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer economic damages and losses, pain and
suffering, mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation, and other intangible injuries.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs have incurred additional costs and expenses which would not
have been incurred but for Defendants unlawful conduct.
e. Interest;
f. Counsel fees;
g. Cost of suit;
COUNT SEVEN
FRAUD
316. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each statement made in the preceding paragraphs
as if the same were set forth at length herein.
317. Defendant Gorcey had full knowledge of Plaintiff’s business and proposed use of the
subject property at the time the commercial lease was entered into.
42
318. At no time did Plaintiff breach the lease, nor did Plaintiff use the subject property in a
manner other than what was agreed upon.
319. At no time did Defendant Gorcey provide a Notice to Quit indicating that Plaintiff was
using the property other than agreed upon.
320. At no time did Defendant Landlord provide Plaintiff an opportunity to cure any perceived
fraudulent deficiencies in how the Plaintiff was using the property.
321. As a direct result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and her business were fraudulently
forced out of their premises and prevented from acting in furtherance of the commercial
lease agreement.
322. Defendant Gorcey has fraudulently misrepresented facts and lied about the reasons
Plaintiff needed to be evicted.
323. Defendants committed fraud when they took possession based on the fraudulent pretense.
324. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of Defendant, Plaintiff
has suffered and will continue to suffer economic damages and losses, pain and suffering,
mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation, and other intangible injuries. Furthermore,
Plaintiffs have incurred additional costs and expenses which would not have been
incurred but for Defendants unlawful conduct.
e. Interest;
43
f. Counsel fees;
g. Cost of suit;
COUNT EIGHT
MISREPRESENTATION
325. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each statement made in the preceding paragraphs as if the
same were set forth at length herein.
326. Defendant Gorcey Landlord was on notice of the intended use of the subject property at
the time the parties entered into the lease agreement.
327. At no time did Plaintiff use the premises for any purpose other than the agreed upon
purpose.
328. When the Defendant Gorcey sent the notice to quit to the Plaintiff, she indicated it was
due to the tinting used on the windows and a dividing wall.
329. At no time did Defendant Gorcey inform the Plaintiff that Plaintiff was using the property
for purposes other than the agreed upon use.
330. Only once the Defendant Gorcey learned that Plaintiff was African-American and her
clientele did the Defendant attempt to evict the Plaintiff.
331. Defendant’s misrepresentations to Plaintiff of the reasons for the eviction caused the
Plaintiff to suffer severe monetary damages.
332. Plaintiff was forced to leave the location due to Defendant Gorcey’s unlawful
misrepresentations.
44
e. Interest;
f. Counsel fees;
g. Cost of suit;
COUNT NINE
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
335. Defendant Gorcey is withholding from Plaintiff at this time all of her security deposit on
the property.
336. The Plaintiff left the property in good condition, with no reasonable conditions for the
security deposit to be withheld in part or in full.
337. Defendant Gorcey is required by law under the Security Deposit Law to have returned the
security deposit within 30 days of Defendant’s departure from the premises. Despite
leaving more than 30 days ago, Plaintiff still has not received back her full security
45
deposit and she requested it be returned on several occasions.
338. Defendant Gorcey would be unfairly and unjustly enriched by being allowed to withhold
the Plaintiff’s security deposit from her, and Plaintiff is entitled to all legal and equitable
remedies available under the law.
339. Additionally, Plaintiff spent money improving the property and Defendant is now reaping
the rewards of the improvements and the security deposit.
340. Defendant Gorcey is currently renting the space to two tenants, due the wall Plaintiff put
up.
341. Defendant Gorcey are not seeking damages from Plaintiff for the wall even though they
are making more money with two tenants in the space.
342. Plaintiff was forced to leave the location based upon Defendants unlawful conduct as
indicated in this Complaint.
343. The Defendant are unjustly enriched with money that legally belongs to the Plaintiff.
46
e. Interest;
f. Counsel fees;
g. Cost of suit;
LEGAL CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT CITY OF ASBURY PARK AND

POLICE DEPARTMENT
COUNT TEN
RACIAL PROFILING
346. Defendant City of Asbury Park Police Department has continually entered onto
Plaintiff’s premises claiming they are responding to complaints that make no sense and
are false reports.
347. Plaintiff is an African American and therefore in a protected class.
348. Defendant Desane from Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department came
to the property on November 21, 2020, at 8:00 PM. He banged on Plaintiff’s door.
349. Plaintiff was meeting with a client, so another client opened the door for him.
350. Defendant Desane stated that the gentleman who answered the door smelled like
marijuana. He said that he would come back in 15 minutes.
351. The person who answered the door was black.
352. Plaintiff waited outside until Defendant Desane came back.
353. When he returned, with four other officers from Defendants City of Asbury Park and its
Police Department to only speak with the Plaintiff, Defendant Desane made race-based
47
comments and insulting accusations without reasonable suspicion, probable cause or any
justification.
354. He falsely accused Plaintiff’s business of being a social club and that he knew it was not
a consulting firm.
355. Defendant Desane also falsely accused without reasonable suspicion, probable cause or
any justification whatsoever, Plaintiff of not having the necessary credentials and
licensing to have a consulting firm in that part of town.
356. Defendant Desane stated that there were a lot of “ins and outs” by guys wearing hoodies.
He was talking about the black people. Defendant Desane stated he let the grand opening
slide and that he spoke with Plaintiff’s landlord, Defendant Elizabeth Gorcey.
357. Defendant Desane stated that Plaintiff would receive a letter advising that Plaintiff could
only do business 9:00AM to 5:00 PM.
358. Plaintiff continued to ask Defendant Desane for his lawful reason for being at her
business and he would and could not provide an answer.
359. Plaintiff advised that she was being harassed by the City of Asbury Park Police
Department including him.
360. Defendant Desane then had the audacity and temerity to ask if Plaintiff knew the meaning
of the word harassment!!!!!
361. Plaintiff still does not know why Defendant Desane came with 4 other officers to her
place of business.
362. Defendant Casey came to Plaintiff’s place of business and stated that he received a noise
complaint on November 27, 2020.
48
363. However, when he walked up, Defendant Casey did not hear anything, nor did he even
know Plaintiff’s business was open.
364. Although Defendant Casey did not hear anything, he stated he would have to document
that he came to Plaintiff’s business.
365. She was again not charged with violating any laws.
366. On May 15, 2021, at 6:00 PM Officers Salerno and Ritler from Defendants City
of Asbury Park and its Police Department barged into Plaintiff’s place of business
indicating there was noise complaint. They refused to use the main door.
367. They did not come for an emergency, no one was hurt.
368. The Hot Dog House, the space above Plaintiff’s has a band that was practicing at
that time.
369. There were other businesses, with white tenants, on the same street playing music
outside of their businesses'.
370. The band's music was louder than Plaintiff’s music.
371. She was not even playing music outside.
372. The officers from Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department also
told the Plaintiff that her clients could not smoke there even though its legal.
373. Neither the Plaintiff nor were her clients smoking marijuana.
374. The officers from Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department
falsely accused the Plaintiff and her clients of smoking marijuana. They did this
because they were black. The officers were assuming a racial negative stereotype
upon the Plaintiff and her clients that should not be assumed.
49
375. Plaintiff has a permit for a sidewalk/cafe access where she is permitted to have
vendors sell products outside of her business. Music is permitted as well.
376. Her music could not be heard.
377. All the businesses owned by white people or tenants who were white and
similarly situated were not told to turn down their music even though it was
louder than the Plaintiff’s.
378. More importantly, she was permitted to play music. There was no reason for the
police from Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department to have
entered her place of business.
379. On the same night, the white business owners on the block who were similarly situated to
Plaintiff were able to have parties, use their locations not for their intended business
purposes and make loud noises.
380. These activities were in contrast to Plaintiff, who was actually only conducting business
on this night.
381. The Cigar Shop next door to Plaintiff’s business was past the 10:00pm covid restriction
time and making lots of noise, yelling, etc.
382. The majority of the people who patron this Cigar social club are white. The 5 white
police officers from Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department did not
say anything to them.
383. Johnny Macks, who is similarly situated to Plaintiff, is a local bar on the corner of the
same street as Plaintiff’s business that is open past 10:00pm often with drunk patrons.
50
384. The majority of the people who patron this bar are white. The 5 white police officers
from Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department did not go to this
establishment.
385. Additionally, there is a rock and roll band directly upstairs from Plaintiff’s space at the
Hot Dog House.
386. They place their music very loudly and it can be heard from outside, while Plaintiff is
inside her space.
387. Everyone who attends this rock and roll studio is white. The 5 white police officers from
Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department did not say anything about
their noise violations.
388. Smoking marijuana is often erroneously associated with black people by the police.
389. Neither the Plaintiff nor any of her clients were smoking when the police came to her
premises.
390. Smoking is not even illegal in New Jersey.
391. Defendant officers’ actions were taken under color of the state and the Defendant City of
Asbury Park a government agency and Defendant Asbury Park Police Department a
department within the City of Asbury Park..
392. Every police officer from Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department
were acting in furtherance of their employer the Asbury Park Police Department and the
City of Asbury Park.
393. Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department are vicariously liable for the
actions of their employees, including all police officers and Defendants Desane and
Casey.
51
394. The Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department are government agencies
in the State of New Jersey.
395. Yet when the police officers from Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police
Department had no valid reason for showing up at Plaintiff’s property they stuck to racial
stereotypes and statements about people wearing hoodies, neither of which are valid
reasons for their visits.
396. Based on the race-based comments that were made and the lack of ability to state a
logical reason for their visits Plaintiff believes that she was being racially profiled by the
police officers from Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department in
violations of the state constitutions, her civil rights N.J.S.A. 10:6-2 et. seq.
397. Through the actions described herein above, the Defendants City of Asbury Park and its
Police Department have engaged in and continue to engage in a pattern or practice of
conducting racial profiling by law enforcement officer that deprives the Plaintiff of rights
privileges or immunities secured or protected by and in violation of the Constitution of
the New Jersey or the Laws of New Jersey.
398. Through the actions described herein above, the Defendants City of Asbury Park and its
Police Department have engaged in and continue to engage in a pattern and practice of
conducting racial profiling that subjects the Plaintiff to discrimination on the basis of race
in violation of the anti-discrimination provisions in the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination, New Jersey Civil Rights Act N.J.S.A. 10:6-2 et. seq., and the New Jersey
Constitution.
399. Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department violated the Plaintiffs civil
right by depriving her opportunity to obtain all the advantages, facilities and privileges of
52
her place of business which is other real property without discrimination because of race
and source of lawful income used for rental payments under the NJ Law Against
Discrimination. N.J.S.A 10:5-4.
400. Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department violated the Plaintiffs rights
by discrimination against her based on race in terms, conditions or privileges of the rental
or lease of real property in violation of the Law Against Discrimination. N.J.S.A. 10:5-12
(11) (g) (2).
tenant from Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department based on race.
lease based on race.
403. Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department, Desane and Casey acting
under the color of law as a government agency as outlined in this complaint deprived and
interfered with the Plaintiff’s equal protection rights, substantive privileges or immunities
secured by the New Jersey Constitution, laws of the New Jersey and the New Jersey Civil
Rights Act N.J.S.A. 10:6-2c through racial profiling and threats, intimidation, and
coercion.
53
c. Loss of income;
f. Interest;
g. Counsel fees;
h. Cost of suit;
COUNT ELEVEN
SELECTIVE ENFORCMENT BASED ON RACE IN VIOLATION OF NEW
JERSEY CONSTITUTION AND NEW JERSEY CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (N.J.
Statute § 10:6-1 et seq.,)
406. The New Jersey Civil Rights Act N.J.S.A. 10:6-1, et seq., protects against the deprivation
of any substantive due process or equal protection rights, rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the New Jersey Constitution, or any substantive rights, privileges or
immunities secured by the New Jersey Constitution or the laws of New Jersey.
407. Plaintiff was continually subject to police visits from Defendants City of Asbury Park
and its Police Department despite no violations ever occurring or being recorded.
408. Plaintiff was continually threatened by Defendants from Defendants City of Asbury Park
and its Police Department that she was violating the law despite her actions never being
54
in violation and despite similarly situated white tenants not being reprimanded for the
same actions who were located on the same street.
410. Defendant police officers from Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police
Department continually entered Plaintiffs premises alleging that there were noise
complaints even though Plaintiff did not play music that was audible outside of her
premises.
411. Many of Plaintiff’s neighbor tenants, who were white, played music that was clearly
audible outside.
412. Defendant police officers did not require the white tenants to stop or visit them, even
though they were made aware of this by the Plaintiff. Defendant police officer never took
any action against any of the white tenants who were actually violating the law due to the
noise outside and not comporting to the intended use of their facilities.
413. The Defendant officers told her she would have to call in a noise complaint if she was
bothered by the noise of the white tenants and they would come back out. They failed to
enforce the law even though the white tenants were clearly violating it in front of their
face.
414. Defendant officers’ actions were taken under color of the state and the Defendant City of
Asbury Park a government agency and Defendant Asbury Park Police Department a
department within the City of Asbury Park.
415. Defendants threatened Plaintiff with supposed violations of the law.
416. Defendants entered Plaintiff’s premise falsely accusing her and other black individuals on
the premises of smoking marijuana.
55
417. Marijuana was not illegal at the time, but Defendants used the claim as a justification to
make a visit and go inside of the premises without probable cause.
418. The Defendant police officers had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to enter the
Plaintiff’s place of business.
419. The Defendant’s police officers harassed Plaintiff due to her race.
420. Defendant’s racial profiling and unwarranted visits were done under color of law of the
state and constituted wrongful conduct.
421. Every police office was acting in furtherance of their employer the Defendants City of
Asbury Park and its Police Department.
Casey.
424. It appears that these frequent visits were meant to intimidate Plaintiff in violation of the
law.
425. Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department denied the Plaintiff the ability
to hold an event on Cookman Ave. claiming that it was not possible due to permits,
despite other white tenants doing the same and not being enjoyed.
426. In doing so Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department acted under color
of law and denied Plaintiff the equal rights and privileges of being a tenant on Cookman
Ave. as her fellow white tenants had.
427. Plaintiff has consistently been subject to stricter enforcement and unnecessary policing
56
on account of her race.
428. Plaintiff’s business is not allowed to operate outside of 9-5 hours while other white
owned businesses on the same street can and do operate outside of the hours.
429. Defendants’ actions caused Plaintiff to experience unequal treatment based on race when
she was a tenant on Cookman Ave. and ultimately to move out due to the unequal
treatment.
430. Through the actions described herein and above in Paragraphs 202 to 270 the Defendants
Asbury Park Police Department and the City of Asbury Park have engaged in and
continue to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct of selective enforcement based on
race by law enforcement officer that deprives the Plaintiff of rights privileges or
immunities secured or protected by and in violation of the Constitution of the New Jersey
or the Laws of New Jersey.
431. Through the actions described herein and above in Paragraphs 202 to 270, Defendants
City of Asbury Park and its Police Department, Desane, and Casey have engaged in and
continue to engage in a pattern and practice of conduct, selective enforce of the law based
on race that subjects the Plaintiff to discrimination on the basis of race in violation of the
anti-discrimination provisions in the New Jersey Civil Rights Act N.J.S.A. 10:6-2 et.seq.
and the New Jersey Constitution.
432. The illegal, unconstitutional, and discriminatory acts of the Defendants City of Asbury
Park and its Police Department, Desane, and Casey constituted acts of a de facto policy to
discriminate through selective enforcement of the law, use unlawful force, falsely arrest,
or detain and illegally search Plaintiff’s premises. The actions of the Defendant Police
Department aforesaid also represent a de facto policy to deny Plaintiff her rights to equal
57
protection, contract and privacy. All of these violations contravene Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights under the New Jersey state Constitution including but not limited to
Article 1, Par. 1, Article 1, Par. 5, Article 1 Par. 7 and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act
N.J.S.A 10:6-2, et. seq.
433. Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department, Desane, and Casey acting
Rights Act N.J.S.A. 10:6-2c through selective enforcement of the law based upon race
and threats, intimidation and coercion.
c. Loss of income;
f. Interest;
58
g. Counsel fees;
h. Cost of suit;
COUNT TWELVE
DISCRIMINATION IN A COMMERCIAL LEASE BASED ON RACE IN
VIOLATION OF NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION AND NEW JERSEY
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (N.J. Statute § 10:6-1 et seq.,) AND THE NEW
JERSEY LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (N.J. Statute § 10:5-12, et
seq.,)
436. Article I, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution provides that “all persons are by
nature free and independent and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which
are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and
protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.”
437. Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department, Desane, Casey and other
police officers interfered with Plaintiff’s ability to possess property as granted to her
under the Constitution and laws of the state of New Jersey.
438. Defendants Desane, Casey and other police officers were acting under color of law when
they entered Plaintiff’s premises unlawfully on multiple occasions, as they were working
for the Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department a government agency.
439. Plaintiff was denied equal rights and privileges of being a tenant on Cookman Ave. as her
fellow white tenants had.
441. Plaintiff has consistently been subject to stricter enforcement and unnecessary policing
59
on account of her race.
police officers denied Plaintiff the ability to play solely music within her own premises
due to a supposed noise complaint when other similarly situated white tenants were able
to play music clearly loud and audible outside
police officers denied Plaintiff the ability to use Cookman Ave. for business purposes,
despite other similarly situated white tenants being able to do so even though the Plaintiff
had the appropriate permits, and the other white tenants were also clearly operating
outside of their business purposes.
444. Every police office was acting in furtherance of their employer the Asbury Park Police
Department and the City of Asbury Park.
Casey.
police officers’ actions caused Plaintiff to experience unequal treatment based on race
when she was lawfully possessing property on Cookman Ave. in exercise of her
constitutional rights.
448. Plaintiff ultimately to move out due to the disparate unequal treatment based on race.
449. Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department, Desane and Casey’s actions
60
violated N.J.S.A. 10:-5-12, et seq., N.J.S.A. § 10:6-2, et seq. and Article 1, Par. 1, Article
1, Par. 5, Article 1 Par. 7 of the New Jersey Constitution.
450. Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department, Desane and Casey sought to
deprive Plaintiff of beneficial enjoyment of the premises.
451. Plaintiff had a constitutionally protected right to lease the property that she was
occupying without unlawful police interference.
452. Through the actions described herein above the Defendants City of Asbury Park and its
Police Department, Desane and Casey have engaged in and continue to engage in a
pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officer that deprives the Plaintiff of
rights privileges or immunities secured or protected by and in violation of the
Constitution of the New Jersey or the Laws of New Jersey.
453. Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department, Desane and Casey violated
the Plaintiffs civil rights by depriving her opportunity to obtain all the advantages,
facilities and privileges of her place of business which is other real property without
discrimination because of race and source of lawful income used for rental payments
under the NJ Law Against Discrimination. N.J.S.A 10:5-4
454. Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department, Desane and Casey violated
the Plaintiffs rights by discrimination against her based on race in terms, conditions or
privileges of the rental or lease of real property in violation of the Law Against
Discrimination. N.J.S.A. 10:5-12 (11) (g) (2).
455. Through the actions described herein above, Defendants City of Asbury Park and its
Police Department, Desane, Casey and other police officers have engaged in and continue
to engage in a pattern and practice of conduct that subjects the Plaintiff to discrimination
61
on the basis of race in violation of the anti-discrimination provisions in the New Jersey
Law Against Discrimination N.J.S.A. 10:5-12 et.seq, New Jersey Civil Rights Act
N.J.S.A. 10:6-2 et.seq. and the New Jersey Constitution.
456. Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department, Desane and Casey acting
Rights Act N.J.S.A. 10:6-2c through force her out of her lease and to leave the
commercial property based upon race and threats, intimidation and coercion.
lease based upon her race.
c. Loss of income;
62
f. Interest;
g. Counsel fees;
h. Cost of suit;
COUNT THIRTEEN
RACE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF NEW JERSEY LAW
AGAINST DISCRIMINATION (N.J. Statute §§ 10:5-12.5, et seq.,)
460. Plaintiff was denied the ability to hold her Black Market event outside due to supposed
restrictions on tenants using the Cookman Ave. land outside of their property premises.
462. The other tenants, all white owned businesses, regularly use the land on Cookman Ave.
for their own events.
463. Mike Manzella, City Deputy Manager called Plaintiff on June 17, 2021, notifying her of
these restrictions despite other tenants having an established practice of using Cookman
Ave. for events.
464. Mr. Manzella is an employee and agent of the Defendant City of Asbury Park.
465. He acted on behalf of his employer and within the scope of his employment with the City
of Asbury Park.
466. The Defendant City of Asbury Park is a government agency in the State of New Jersey.
467. Defendant City of Asbury Park is vicariously liable for the actions of their employees,
including Mr. Manzella a city employee.
468. Mr. Manzella called Plaintiff to discuss whether her event within the scope of her permit.
63
469. It was therefore a violation of the law for him to treat Plaintiff differently than other
similarly situated white tenants.
470. In the phone call Mr. Manzella’s claimed that he would notify the other similarly situated
white tenants of these restrictions.
471. To Plaintiff’s knowledge the other white tenants were not notified.
472. The other similarly situated white tenants were notified of the ability to secure
advertising space on Cookman Ave.
473. Plaintiff was never notified and was unable to secure advertising space.
474. Plaintiff was accused by Mr. Manzella of not handling her garbage correctly.
problem paying for even though she was never informed of garbage pick-up by her
64
479. As such her business has been treated unequally in the regulation of State and City by
Defendant Asbury Park City employees.
480. Through the actions described herein above the City of Asbury Park have engaged in and
continue to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by government officials that
deprives the Plaintiff of rights privileges or immunities secured or protected by and in
violation of the Constitution of the New Jersey or the Laws of New Jersey.
481. Defendant’s City of Asbury Park violated the Plaintiffs civil rights by depriving her
opportunity to obtain all the advantages, facilities and privileges of her place of business
which is other real property without discrimination because of race and source of lawful
income used for rental payments under the NJ Law Against Discrimination. N.J.S.A
10:5-4.
482. Defendant’s City of Asbury Park violated the Plaintiffs rights by discrimination against
her based on race in terms, conditions or privileges of the rental or lease of real property
in violation of the Law Against Discrimination. N.J.S.A. 10:5-12 (11) (g) (2).
483. Through the actions described herein above, defendants have engaged in and continue to
engage in a pattern and practice of conduct that subjects the Plaintiff to discrimination on
the basis of race in violation of the anti-discrimination provisions in the New Jersey Law
Against Discrimination, New Jersey Civil Rights Act, the criminal law and the New
Jersey Constitution.
484. Plaintiff was subjected to unequal treatment based on race.
485. The actions of Mr. Manzella were based on race and therefore illegal.
65
as a tenant.
lease.
c. Loss of income;
f. Interest;
g. Counsel fees;
h. Cost of suit;
COUNT FOURTEEN
RETALIATION UNDER THE NEW JERSEY LAW AGAINST
DISCRIMINATION
66
490. Plaintiff was accused by Mr. Manzella of not handling her garbage correctly.
problem paying for even though she was never informed of garbage pick-up by her
495. Plaintiff threatened to sue the Defendant City of Asbury Park due to her race. She told
Mr. Manzella about her intentions.
496. Plaintiff was retaliated against by the Defendant City of Asbury Park for her threatening
to sue them over racism she experienced by them not picking up her garbage.
67
497. Failing to pick up her garbage and put her business on the sign are adverse actions in
violation of NJLAD.
498. She had to move from the premises due to the racial harassment.
499. Plaintiffs’ complaints about discrimination, harassment and retaliation are the reason why
they were targeted for unlawful discriminatory actions by the Defendant City Asbury
Park.
500. Plaintiffs engaged in a protected activity when they said she was going to file complaints
against the Defendant City of Asbury Park for discriminatory behavior in accordance
with the NJLAD.
501. The Defendants were aware and had knowledge of Plaintiff’s complaints as they reported
illegal activity to the Mr. Manzella directly who work for the Defendant City of Asbury
Park.
502. By reason of the continuous nature of Defendant City of Asbury Park retaliatory conduct
against Plaintiffs due to their protected activity, in violation of the NJLAD and other laws
as stated herein, Plaintiffs are entitled to the application of any continuing violation
doctrine to all of the violations alleged herein.
503. Defendant City of Asbury Park claim of a neutral reason are neither credible nor the true
determinative factor in taking the adverse action.
504. Defendant’s City of Asbury Park true motivating reason for its adverse action of
termination was to retaliate against Plaintiffs’ for complaining about unlawful conduct, in
violation of the NJLAD.
505. There is a causal nexus between the complaints, the protected activity and the adverse
action of the Plaintiff.
68
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendant for the following:
c. Loss of income;
f. Interest;
g. Counsel fees;
h. Cost of suit;
COUNT FIFTEEN
NEGLIGENCE
508. Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department, Defendants Desane and
Casey and other police officers owed Plaintiff a duty of care to protect and serve and
enforce the laws equally against other white tenants as they did against her.
69
Casey and other police officers failed to do so. They continually alleged Plaintiff was
creating a noise nuisance when her music could not be heard outside yet numerous other
tenants were playing loud music outside.
Casey and other police officers did not make any efforts to curb the loud noise that came
from drunken patrons or late-night parties of the other tenants. They failed in their duty of
care.
Casey and other police officer went beyond enforcing the 10:00pm covid curfew to
requiring that Plaintiff close at 5:00pm.
Casey and other police officers did not enforce a curfew against the other white tenants
on the same street as the Plaintiff. The Defendants breached their duty of care by not
enforcing the laws equally among white and black tenants on the street.
Casey and other police officers did not even enforce the covid curfew against other white
tenants on the same street as the Plaintiff. The Defendants breached their duty of care by
not enforcing the laws equally among white and black tenants on the street.
514. Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department Defendants Desane and Casey
and other police officers breached their duty of care in treating Plaintiff differently than
the other white tenants on the same street as the Plaintiff.
70
Casey and other police officers prohibited Plaintiff from holding an event on Cookman
Ave. because of permit restrictions.
Casey and other police officers did not require the other white tenants to get permits to
use the space and they did not police their lack of permits.
517. Due to the actions of Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department,
Defendants Desane and Casey and other police officer’s unequal enforcement of laws
Plaintiff’s business has suffered from shorter hours, and reduced ability to hold
community events.
518. Defendants Desane and Casey and other police officers acted on behalf of their employer
and within the scope of their employment with the Defendant City of Asbury Park.
519. Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department are government agencies in
the State of New Jersey.
negligent actions of their employees including Defendants Desane and Casey and other
police officers.
521. Plaintiff’s business has not been able to thrive because of Defendants City of Asbury
Park and its Police Department, Defendants Desane and Casey and other police officers’
actions.
522. Plaintiff has lost business revenue due to the Defendants City of Asbury Park and its
Police Department, Defendants Desane and Casey and other police officers’ actions.
71
as a tenant.
525. Plaintiff has demonstrated that Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police
Department, Defendants Desane and Casey and other police officers knowingly departed
from the standard of care and failed to exercise the degree of care, precaution, prudence,
and vigilance which a reasonably prudent person would under the same or similar
circumstances.
harm, she demonstrated that the Defendants actions were based upon race.
c. Loss of income;
72
f. Interest;
g. Counsel fees;
h. Cost of suit;
COUNT SIXTEEN
NEGLIGENT TRAINING, HIRING, RETENTION
529. Defendant had a duty to ensure that their employees who were hired and retained are
trained. They breached this duty.
530. Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department breached their duty due to
their employees being unfit for service as they were enforcing requirements
inconsistently between Plaintiff, who is black, and other tenants on her road who are
white.
531. Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department breached their duty when on
multiple occasions the police officers wrote up reports of visits to Plaintiff’s premises but
were no able to charge her with any violation of the law – because she quite simply had
not violated the law!
532. Furthermore, Defendant Desane’s November 12, 2020, visit to Plaintiff’s premise
included 4 other white officers.
533. These individuals were not acting covertly when they were illegally discriminating and
impose unjust restrictions on Plaintiff’s business.
534. Plaintiff stated during this visit, in the presence of the four other officers, that she
73
believed she was being harassed.
535. There are records on their visits to Plaintiff’s property despite the lack of any violations
of the law, something which the Police Department should have taken note of and acted
to correct.
536. Furthermore, on June 17, 2021, she received a call from Mike Manzella, City Deputy
Manager from Defendant City of Asbury Park looking to get some information about her
“Black Market” event in celebration of Juneteenth.
537. Mr. Manzella left the Plaintiff a voicemail and his calls should be on record with the
department.
538. While speaking with the Plaintiff, Mr. Manzella claimed that businesses were not allowed
to sell goods in the streets. He then said he would send an email notifying business of this
rule.
539. If that email ever did go out, Plaintiff was not on it, and the Defendant City of Asbury
Park should have been aware of this discriminatory treatment.
540. Plaintiff was treated differently based upon her race regarding her garbage at the
commercial space. Mr. Manzella handled this issue as well.
541. In fact, her garbage was not picked up in retaliation for her indicating that she would sue
the Defendant City Asbury Park for race discrimination.
542. The Defendant City of Asbury Park breached its duty when it failed to train, hire and
retain employees who enforced the law without regard for race.
543. All unlawful actions against the Plaintiff constitute negligence on behalf of the City of
Asbury Park.
74
544. Defendants Desane and Casey, other police officers and Mr. Manzella acted on behalf of
their employer and within the scope of their employment with the Defendants City of
545. Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department are government agencies in
the State of New Jersey.
negligent actions of their employees including Defendants Desane and Casey, other
police officers and Mr. Manzella.
547. Plaintiff’s business operations were restricted improperly and unfairly by the actions of
both parties.
as a tenant.
lease.
550. Plaintiff has demonstrated that Defendants knowingly departed from the standard of care
and failed to exercise the degree of care, precaution, prudence, and vigilance which a
reasonably prudent person would under the same or similar circumstances.
harm, she demonstrated that the Defendants actions were based upon race.
75
c. Loss of income;
f. Interest;
g. Counsel fees;
h. Cost of suit;
LEGAL CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT CHRISTOPER SEIGEL AND

ASBURY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT
COUNT SEVENTEEN
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
554. Plaintiff had a contract to lease of commercial space with Defendant Gorcery, Hillbe
Management and Gorcery Properties.
555. Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department, Desane, Casey and Seigel
knew that Plaintiff was leasing the premises. Defendant Desane spoke to the landlord
and he confirmed same with the Plaintiff. Defendant Seigel also spoke to the landlord and
76
confirmed same with Plaintiff.
556. Defendant Seigel intentionally, and maliciously and with motive to harm and without
justification interfered with the contract by lying to Defendant Gorcery about what the
Plaintiff was doing at the premises, hitting her brother’s car, interrupting her grand
opening and other acts as alleged in the facts above in paragraphs of this within
complaint.
557. Defendant Seigel did this to the Plaintiff because of her race.
558. Based on information and belief, Defendant Seigel did this for the economic benefit of
the Defendant Gorcey and himself.
559. Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department intentionally and maliciously
and with motive to harm and without justification interfered with the contract by racially
harassing the Plaintiff regarding false reports of noise complaints during her grand
opening and several unlawful visits to the property. Defendant Desane spoke to her
Defendant Gorcery as well and relayed lies to the landlord in an effort to interfere with
her lease.
560. Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department, Desane and Casey did this to
the Plaintiff because of her race.
561. Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department, Desane, Casey and Seigel
interference led to loss for Plaintiff. Plaintiff was forced to move out of the premises as a
result of the racial discrimination she faced as a tenant by the Defendant Seigel and
Defendants City of Asbury Park and its Police Department. They caused the contract to
terminate though intimidation and racial harassment.
562. Based on information and belief, Defendants did this for the economic benefit of the
77
Defendant Gorcery and possibly themselves so she could rent to a white tenant.
lease due to her race.
564. Plaintiff sustained injury to her business in terms of loss of business revenue and moving
expenses due the intentional actions of the Defendant Seigel and the Defendants City of
565. Plaintiff has demonstrated that all Defendants knew about the lease agreement between
her and the Defendant Gorcey, they intentionally, maliciously and without justification
interfered by racial harassment for the economic benefit of the owner Defendant Gorcey
or Defendant Seigel.
c. Loss of income;
f. Interest;
78
g. Counsel fees;
h. Cost of suit;
LEGAL CLAIM AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
COUNT EIGHTEEN
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
568. Defendant Gorcery and Seigel conduct as outlined above was outrageous and caused the
Plaintiff emotional distress.
569. Defendant Gorcery conspiring with Defendant Seigel and the Defendant the City of
Asbury Park police Department to harass her due to her race is outrageous conduct.
570. Defendant Gorcery failed to provide the premises in working order.
571. Defendant Gorcery had the Defendants Seigel and City of Asbury Park Police department
harass the Plaintiff regarding bogus issues in order for her to leave.
572. Defendant Gorcery failed to accept rent from Plaintiff after she offered to catch up the
rent.
573. Defendant Gorcery spoke down to the Plaintiff once she found out that she was black.
574. Defendant Seigel lied to Defendant Gorcery about what the Plaintiff was doing at the
premises, hitting her brother’s car, interrupting her grand opening and other acts as
alleged in the facts above in paragraphs in this within complaint.
Casey continually enforced supposed town rules against a Plaintiff in a manner which
79
they did not enforce against other white tenants.
576. The repeated visits from multiple different police officers suggests an intentional and
widespread pattern of discrimination within the department.
577. The City Deputy from Defendant City of Asbury Park called Plaintiff to notify her of
supposed restrictions that she had not been made aware of.
578. If her ever notified the other tenants of these same restrictions, they were able to apply
for permits in time so that they could better advertise their businesses.
579. This demonstrates a similar pattern within the Defendants City of Asbury Park and its
Police Department, one where white tenants were continually either given preferential
treatment or the existing restrictions were not imposed on them in the same way.
580. Plaintiff was reprimanded for noise complaints continually and told that she had to close
by 5:00pm, while other white businesses were never given the same warnings and were
able to stay open even past the covid restriction time of 10:00pm.
581. This behavior was so consistent as to become extreme and outrageous: Plaintiff received
multiple visits from Defendant Asbury Park Police Department within days of opening.
582. Plaintiff’s business was barged into by police officers insisting that they not use the front
door when there was only a supposed “noise complaint” and no one was injured, there
was no emergency.
583. Defendant City of Asbury Park’s restriction on Plaintiff’s ability to hold her Black
Market and failure to give her the same notice as other tenants to secure advertising was
extreme as it materially hurts her business’s ability to be competitive.
584. This demonstrates intentional or reckless action on the part of all Defendants to single out
Plaintiff and treat her business differently.
80
585. As a result of all of this behavior Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress: she has
had to handle several unwarranted visits from the police, accusations of unlawful
behavior, the police and other defendant’s disturbing her business meetings.
as a tenant.
587. The emotional distress was so severe that no reasonable person could have been expected
to endure such distress.
c. Loss of income;
f. Interest;
g. Counsel fees;
81
h. Cost of suit;
COUNT NINETEEN
CONSPIRACY
591. All Defendants and/or their representatives pursued the common goal of treating Plaintiff
differently from and less preferably than similarly situated Caucasian, tenants by not
subjecting them to discriminatory disciplinary, disparate treatment, harassment, unlawful
discipline, threatening them with violations of the law, and by allowing them to keep
their establishments open, disregard social distancing guidelines, regularly hold loud
gatherings at night, keep advertisements and hold events outside, and other forms of
discrimination and malicious conduct and/or acts in wanton and willful disregard of
Plaintiff’s rights.
592. All Defendants and/or their representatives agreed to and/or ratified the aforementioned
course of actions that were taken against the Plaintiffs.
593. All Defendants participated in a civil conspiracy to violate the law regarding the
Plaintiff’s tenancy
594. The civil conspiracy was to unlawfully harass and discriminate against Plaintiff to push
her out of her tenancy.
tenant. She believes that this discrimination was a plan between both Defendant Gorcey
and Defendants City of Asbury Park and Police Department.
82
lease.
c. Loss of income;
f. Interest;
g. Counsel fees;
h. Cost of suit;
COUNT TWENTY
FICTITIOUS PARTIES
598. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each of the statements set forth in the preceding paragraphs
as if the same were set forth at length herein.
83
599. Defendants John Does 1-10 are to date unknown and/or undiscovered individuals yet to
be discerned who were employed by any of the Defendants, or its related entities, and
who actively by Defendants, or its related entities, and who actively participated in and/or
aided and abetted in the unlawful conduct directed towards the Plaintiff.
600. Defendants ABC Corporations 1-10 are to date unknown and/or undiscovered entities
including both private organizations and any public or quasi-public bodies and-or
organizations yet to be discerned who were employed by the Defendants who actively
participated in and/or aided and abetted in the unlawful conduct directed towards the
Plaintiff.
601. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of Defendants John Does
1-10 and ABC Corporations 1-10 and all other Defendants Plaintiff has suffered and will
continue to suffer economic damages and losses, severe emotional distress, severe
anxiety, fear, physical and emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, depression,
embarrassment, humiliation, and other intangible injuries. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs
have incurred additional costs and expenses which would not have been incurred but for
Defendants unlawful conduct.
c. Loss of income;
f. Interest;
84
g. Counsel fees;
h. Cost of suit;
COUNT TWENTY-ONE
NEW JERSEY LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION
AIDING AND ABETTING
602. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each statement made in the preceding paragraphs as if same
were set forth at length herein.
603. Defendant’s Hilbe Management Company, Inc. and Gorcey Properties are businesses
operating in New Jersey and are owned by Defendant Gorcey.
604. Defendant Gorcey acted in the capacity of an owner of the businesses, the landlord and
supervisor of Defendant Christopher Seigel.
605. Defendant Hilbe Management Company, Inc., Gorcey Properties and Gorcey are the
employers of Defendant Christopher Seigel.
606. Defendant Christopher Seigel is an agent for Defendants Hilbe Management Company,
Inc., Defendant Gorcey Properties and Defendant Gorcey.
607. Defendant Seigel was the building manager or and operated daily activies and looked
after the properties owned by Defendants Hilbe Management Company, Inc., Gorcey
Properties and Gorcy
608. Defendants Hilbe Management Company, Inc., Gorcey Properties and Gorcey controlled
the Defendant Seigel’s workplace and owned the commercial property that Plaintiff
rented.
85
609. Defendants Hilbe Management Company, Inc., Gorcey Properties, Gorcey and Seigel’s
discriminated against the Plaintiff by forcing her to leave through racial harassment with
regard to her lease as outlined above in violation of in violation of the New Jersey Law
Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-5.1 et. seq. (NJLAD)
610. Defendant Seigel was acting within his scope of employment when he violated the
Plaintiff’s rights under the law by discriminated against the Plaintiff based on race with
regard to her commercial lease.
611. Defendant Gorcey knew about the unlawful behavior of Defendant Seigel and condone
same and failed to remediate it even after being told the truth by the Plaintiff.
612. Plaintiff was forced to leave the premises due to the racial harassment by all defendants
613. By engaging in this course of unlawful conduct, the Defendant Gorcey knowingly gave
substantial assistance and/or encouragement to Defendants’ Seigel, Hilbe Management
Company, Inc. and Gorcey Properties in violation of the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-5.1 et. seq.
614. By virtue of the acts set forth in this complaint, Defendants Gorcey, Seigel, Hilbe
Management Company, Inc. and Gorcey Properites aided and abetted and/or attempted to
aid and abet unlawful discrimination in violation of Plaintiff’s rights secured under the
New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et. seq.
615. Defendant Gorcey, Hilbe Management Company, Inc. and Gorcey Properities are liable
for the actions of Defendant Seigel who is a property manager for the businesses and
Defendant Gorcey under theory of vicarious liability.
616. Individual Defendants Gorcey and Seigel are liable as individual defendants by aiding
and abetting all other Defendant’s in discriminating against the Plaintiff based on race
86
regarding her commercial lease in violation of the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et. seq.
617. Defendants the City of Asbury Park and the City of Asbury Park Police Department
employed Individual Defendants Desane and Casey as well as City Manager Mike
Manzella and it controlled their workplace.
618. Individual Defendants Desane and Casey as well as City Manager Mike Manzella were
working for Defendant the City of Asbury Park and the Asbury Park Police Department
respectfully at all times when they discriminated against the Plaintiff based on race by
racial profiling, racial harassment, selective enforcement and disparate treatment based
on race as outlined in the within complaint regarding her commercial lease in violation of
the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-5.1 et. seq. (NJLAD)
619. Defendant the City of Asbury Park and the Asbury Park Police Department knew about
the unlawful behavior of Individual Defendants Desane and Casey as well as City
Manager Mike Manzella and condone same and failed to remediate it.
620. Plaintiff was forced to leave the premises due to the racial harassment by all defendants
621. By engaging in this course of unlawful conduct, the Defendant the City of Asbury Park
and the Asbury Park Police Department knowingly gave substantial assistance and/or
encouragement to Individual Defendants Desane and Casey as well as City Manager
Mike Manzella in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A.
10:5-5.1 et. seq.
622. By engaging in this course of unlawful conduct, the Defendant the City of Asbury Park
and the Asbury Park Police Department knowingly gave substantial assistance and/or
encouragement to Defendants Gorcey, Seigel, Hilbe Management Company, Inc. and
87
Gorcey Properties in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A.
10:5-5.1 et. seq.
623. By engaging in this course of unlawful conduct, Individual Defendants Desane and
Casey as well as City Manager Mike Manzella knowingly gave substantial assistance
and/or encouragement to Defendants Gorcey, Seigel, Hilbe Management Company, Inc.
and Gorcey Properties in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination,
N.J.S.A. 10:5-5.1 et. seq.
624. By virtue of the acts set forth in this complaint, the Defendant the City of Asbury Park,
the Asbury Park Police Department, Individual Defendants Desane and Casey as well as
City Manager Mike Manzella aided and abetted and/or attempted to aid and abet
unlawful discrimination in violation of Plaintiff’s rights secured under the New Jersey
Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et. seq.
625. Defendant the City of Asbury Park, the Asbury Park Police Department, are liable for the
actions of Individual Defendants Desane and Casey as well as City Manager Mike
Manzella who works for Defendant City of Asbury Park and the Asbury Park Police
Department respectively under theory of vicarious liability.
626. Individual Defendants Desane and Casey are liable as individual defendants by aiding
and abetting all other Defendant’s in discriminating against the Plaintiff based on race
regarding her commercial lease in violation of the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et. seq.
627. All Defendants were aware of their roles to discriminate against the Plaintiff based upon
her race and provided substantial assistance to Defendant Gorcery, Hilbe Management
Company, Inc. and Gorcery Properties to racially harass the Plaintiff.
88
628. All Defendants were aware of the discrimination-the wrongful conduct, they assisted in
perpetuating the discrimination against the Plaintiff by racially harassing her themselves.
629. They all had relationship with the landlord Defendant Gorcery who condoned the racial
harassment, and their intentional participation demonstrates their state of mind.
630. That as a result of the action of Defendants as aforesaid, the Plaintiff’s loss the use of the
commercial space, sustained a loss of income and was caused to sustain emotional and
psychological distress and harm, embarrassment and continuous and permanent
interference with prospective of future economic advantage and with the ability to obtain
future business.
631. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of all Defendants,
Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer economic damages and losses, severe
emotional distress, severe anxiety, fear, physical and emotional pain and suffering,
mental anguish, depression, embarrassment, humiliation, and other intangible
injuries. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has incurred additional costs and expenses which
would not have been incurred but for all Defendants unlawful conduct.
c. Loss of income;
f. Interest;
g. Counsel fees;
89
h. Cost of suit;
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO COUNTERCLAIM
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, Danielle Joseph, hereby files this Answer and

Affirmative Defenses to the Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs, Elizabeth Gorcey and Gorcey
Properties.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
1. Admit.
2. Admit.
3. Admit.
4. Admit.
5. Admit.
6. Admit.
7. Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 7.
COUNT ONE
BREACH OF CONTRACT/BREACH OF LEASE
90
13. Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of Count
One.
14. Admit.
One.
One.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND SEPARATE DEFENSES

AND NOW, having fully answered all Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff’s allegations
against Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant from their counterclaim, denied each and every
material allegation of the Counterclaim filed herein against him by Defendants/ Counterclaim
Plaintiff’s by which Defendants/ Counterclaim Plaintiff’s seeks to impose liability upon him and
affirmatively pleads that Plaintiff/ Counterclaim Defendant, Danielle Joseph, is in no way liable
to Defendants/ Counterclaim Plaintiff’s herein. Each affirmative defense is asserted as to all
claims against her. By setting forth these affirmative defenses, Plaintiff/ Counterclaim
Defendant, Danielle Joseph, does not assume the burden of proving any fact, issue, or element of
a cause of action where such burden properly belongs to Defendants/ Counterclaim Plaintiff’s.
Moreover, nothing stated herein is intended or shall be construed as an acknowledgement that
any particular issue or subject matter is relevant to Defendant’s allegations. As separate and
distinct affirmative defenses, Plaintiff, Danielle Joseph, avers as follows:
1. The Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant defends everything submitted in the original
complaint and amended complaint she filed against the Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff’s here.
91
2. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant repeats and re-alleges every pleading her original
complaint and amended complaint against the Defendant’s Counter-Plaintiff’s Counterclaim.
3. Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs breached the terms of the contract/lease and
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant owes no money to the Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.
4. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant was not given an opportunity to cure and correct any
perceived deficiencies.
5. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant’s security deposit was illegally withheld by
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff’s by forcing Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant to vacate the property via
Wrongful Eviction without an opportunity to cure.
6. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant denies all liability for all causes of action raised by
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
7. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff’s violated the Implied Covenant of Good faith and
Fair Dealing in contracts.
8. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff’s breached their contract with Plaintiff/Counter-
Defendant by not providing a valid Notice to Quit and not providing an opportunity to cure.
9. Defendant/Counter Plaintiffs breached their contract with the Plaintiff/Counter-
Defendant by submitting fraudulent statements regarding any violation of the lease, and forcing
the Plaintiff/ Counter-Defendant to leave the premises unlawfully based upon her race.
10. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff’s breached their contract with Plaintiff/Counter-
Defendant by violating several provisions in the lease including but not limited to the following
provisions: 7.4 Ownership, Removal & Restorations, 13- 13.2 Default Breach Remedies, 23.
Notices. 5. Security Deposits, 7. Maintenance Repairs Utility Installation Trade Fixtures and
Alterations 7.3 Utility Installations, Trade Fixtures and Alterations. 38. Quiet Possession.
92
11. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant has no obligations to Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff’s
under the contract agreement due to Defendant’s/Counter-Plaintiff’s material breach.
12. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff’s breached the contract with this Plaintiff/Counter-
Defendant and is barred from any damages claimed.
13. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs failed to comply with the specific provisions of the
contract and are barred from pursuing any claim for damages sought.
14. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs lacks standing to bring the complaint.
15. The answering Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant did not breach any term of the
contract/lease.
16. Any damages allegedly sustained by the Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs were
caused through the sole negligence of the Defendants, therefore the Defendants are barred from
recovery.
17. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff’s Counter complaint as to Plaintiff/Counter-
Defendant, and each separate count therein, are without any reasonable basis in law and cannot
be supported by any good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing
law and are therefore, in contravention of N. J. S. A. 2A: 15-59.1 and constitute a frivolous
action.
18. The answering Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant did not breach any agreements or
warranties with the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs, did not make false misrepresentations to the
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs and was not careless or negligent.
19. All of the acts for which Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs allege damages were
performed with the full knowledge and consent and acquiescence of the Defendants/Counter-
93
Plaintiffs. The Defendants should therefore be Estopped from asserting any claim against
Plaintiff herein.
20. The cause of action is barred by the application of the Statute of Limitations.
21. The Counterclaim alleges no violation of any duty that the Plaintiff/Counter-
Defendant may have owed to the Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.
22. The damages alleged in the Counterclaim are barred in whole or in part by the
failure of the Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs to mitigate same.
23. The conduct of the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant was privileged either absolutely
or conditionally.
24. The claims alleged in the Counterclaim are barred by the Entire Controversy
Doctrine.
25. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant did not breach any agreements, warranties covenants
or conditions with the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff and did not make false misrepresentations,
material incorrect or misleading representations to the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
26. The Defendant/Counter-Plaintiffs Complaint is barred by the Doctrine of Unclean
Hands.
27. The Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Complaint is barred in whole or in part by the
Doctrine of Waiver.
28. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Complaint is barred in whole or in part by the
Doctrine of Estoppel.
29. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant did not violate any duty owed to the
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff under common law, statute, regulations or standards.
94
30. If the damages of the Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs are true and proven, which
are denied, then such damages were not caused by any conduct of Answering Plaintiff/Counter-
Defendant, which was secondary and passive, but were caused by the primary and active conduct
of third parties over whom the Answering Plaintiff had no control.
31. The Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs have failed to set forth a cause of action upon
which relief can be granted. and the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, therefore, reserves the right to
move to dismiss the Complaint.
32. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs contract is barred in whole or in part by the failure
to comply with the Statute of Frauds.
33. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Complaint is barred by the Doctrine of Collateral
Estoppel.
34. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs committed fraud.
35. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs were unjustly enriched.
36. The Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Complaint is barred by reason of the Doctrine
of Accord and Satisfaction.
37. This Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant acted in good faith, without malice, and with the
reasonable belief that his actions were reasonable under the existing facts and circumstances.
38. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs are not entitled to any damages.
ADDITIONAL DEFENSES RESERVED

Plaintiff hereby gives notice that he may rely on other defenses if and when such
defenses become known during the course of litigation, and hereby reserves the right to
supplement and amend his answer to assert any other defenses as become known or available.
The Answering Plaintiff hereby reserves the right to interpose such other defenses as discovery
may disclose.
95
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant demands that the
Defendant’s/Counterclaim Plaintiff’s Counterclaim be dismissed and that Defendants takes
nothing by reason of the complaint on file herein, and that costs of suit, attorney fees and any
other relief that the Court may deem just and proper be awarded to the Plaintiff/Counterclaim
Defendant, Danielle Joseph.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands trial by jury to all matters herein.
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
Desha Jackson, Esq. has been designated as trial counsel on behalf of the Plaintiff(s) in the
above-captioned matter pursuant to R. 4:25-4.

Attorney for Plaintiffs Danielle Joseph
/s/ Desha Jackson

By: ______________________
DESHA JACKSON, ESQ.
Dated: September 27, 2023
DEMAND TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE
1. The Defendants is hereby directed and demanded to preserve all, documents, physical
and electronic information pertaining in any way to this matter, Plaintiff’s cause of action
and/or prayers for relief, to any defenses to same, and pertaining to any party, including,
but not limited to, electric data storage, closed circuit TV footages, digital images,
computer images, cache memory, searchable data, emails, spread sheets, memos, text
messages and any and all online social or work related websites, entries on social
96
networking sites (including, but not limited to, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc.) and
any other information and/or documents which may be relevant to any claim or defense
in this litigation.
2. Failure to do so will result in separate claims for spoliation of evidence and/or for
appropriate adverse inferences.

Attorney for Plaintiffs Danielle Joseph
/s/ Desha Jackson

By: ___________________
Desha Jackson, Esq.
CERTIFICATIONS
The undersigned hereby certifies pursuant to R. 4:5-1 that the matter in controversy is not the
subject of any other action pending in any other Court and is likewise not the subject of any
pending arbitration proceeding. The undersigned further certifies that she has no knowledge of
any action or arbitration proceeding which is contemplated regarding the subject matter of this
action and that she is not aware of any other parties who should be joined in this action.
I certify that confidential personal identifies have been redacted from documents now
submitted to the court, and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the future in
accordance with R. 1:38-7(b).
I hereby certify that the complaint and all documents annexed hereto comport with the
requirements of R. 1-4.8(a).
97
I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any
of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
___/s/ Desha Jackson___
Desha Jackson, Esq.
98

Danielle Joseph Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Danielle Joseph Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MON-L-000453-22 09/26/2023 11:58:16 PM Pg 1 of 98 Trans ID: LCV20232953175

Desha Jackson Law Group, LLC.

DANIELLE JOSEPH SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

vs. DOCKET NO. MON-L-000453-22

CITY OF ASBURY PARK, CITY OF CIVIL ACTION

RACE DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF

NJLAD, BREACH OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, CONVERSION,

SELECTIVE ENFORCMENT BASED ON RACE IN VIOLATION OF NJ

CONSTITUTION, RACIAL PROFILING, NEGLIGENT TRAINING,

HIRING, RETENTION, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL

Defendant landlord would not accept payment of rent either.

Plaintiff based on race.

of Asbury Park and Asbury Park Police Department.

renter/leasee of commercial space owned by the defendants Elizabeth Gorcey, Hilbe

Management Company, Inc. and Gorcey Properties.

2. At all times mentioned in this complaint, Defendants Gorcey, Hilbe Management

management services for rental services. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Hilbe”),

property building management company (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant

Management Companies”). At all times mentioned in this complaint, plaintiff and

located at 727 Cookman Ave, City of Asbury Park, New Jersey.

for rental services. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Properties”), which provides

company (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Management Companies”). At all times

Asbury Park, New Jersey.

the City of Asbury Park, County of Monmouth, State of New Jersey.

7. Defendant Elizabeth Gorcey (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Gorcey”) is an

conduct alleged in this complaint.

8. Defendant Christopher Seigel (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Seigel”) is an

conduct alleged in this complaint.

9. Defendant Desane (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Desane”) is an individual and at

10. Defendant Sergeant Michael Casey (hereinafter referred to as “ Defendant Casey”) is an

defendants JOHN DOES 1 through 10 (hereinafter referred to as “DOES”), inclusive, are

injuries and damages to plaintiff alleged in this complaint.

defendants ABC COPORATION 1 through 10 (hereinafter referred to as “ABC

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

Consulting, LLC (hereinafter “DEJ”).

15. Plaintiff is in a protected class as an African American.

opportunity was provided to allow businesses to create, collaborate, innovate and

Business launches, marketing and promotional services such as photography,

scheduled a time to take a tour of the property.

great food, bars and the beach.

would be great for the community.

process to obtain the rental property.

more services to the firm and the community.

27. Mr. Newarski acted as the landlord’s agent, as well as her’s.

Anthony Newarski and Plaintiff.

29. Defendant Elizabeth Gorcey is the landlord. She lives in California.

Newarski only after the lease was signed.

brands/business can come, collaborate and innovate.

show them the way.

willing to work at such an unfit and complex property.

there with people.

also a black man.

failed to advise and/or fix on her own.

repairs due to the dangerous conditions they created.

location. This made the smoke detectors go off.

screaming, being falsely accused of untrue things and threatened to be evicted.

and that they were not social distancing.

Seigel was saying was not true.

61. Defendant Gorcey called Plaintiff and they spoke.

purposely backed into Plaintiff’s brother’s car.

violations of the law.

owns the building.”

onward by Defendant Seigel, the property manager.