Contaminated groundwater and soil discovered by the state Department of Environmental Protection next to Ponzio’s Diner could cost approximately $1 million to clean up.
But there is uncertainty of who will be responsible for the cleanup.
Ponzio’s is suing the South Jersey Chinese Community Center, which now owns the property. Two dry cleaning operations occupied the adjacent building on Route 70 before it was donated to the South Jersey Chinese Community Center.
Previously, a trial court ruled SJCCC would be responsible for a clean up of the property, which is estimated to cost $985,000, according to court documents.
SJCCC says the $985,000 cost is “exorbitant and includes work which is premature or unnecessary,” court documents say.
An appellate court has since sent the ruling back to the trial court.
“Really, where we are is the appellate has sent [the judgment] back to the trial judge to review details not specifically addressed in the first judgment,” said Louis Giansante, the attorney representing Ponzio’s.
According to the court document, SJCCC filed a motion arguing excusable neglect, citing it had not been properly served.
According to the document, “the defendant [SJCCC] simply sat on their hands and did nothing.” Additionally, the court maintains the organization was properly served.
A 2005 investigation revealed dry cleaning materials affected the soil and groundwater at levels exceeding DEP standards.
Currently, GEI Consultants is assigned to the property’s case to further investigate the potential hazards.
GEI officials declined to comment on the case.
The ruling states the SJCCC has no real assets, other than a small amount of cash raised from fundraisers, and the organization lacks the funds to properly investigate the matter.
As a result, according to the document, in limited situations, a party may be entitled to relief from a default judgment.
“They’re using rule 4:50–1 Section F, which is a broad general section and a rarely used provision,” Giansante said.
In Giansante’s opinion, he believes SJCCC knowingly accepted the contaminated property.
“There’s a hot spot on the property, that anyone looking at the data can see,” Giansante said. “They sat on their rights for two and a half years.”
Additional issues include the vacant property, which has become “an eyesore.”
“It needs to be demolished because it’s unsafe,” Giansante said.
Giansante noted if the property were to be demolished and repaved, it would only be a temporary fix, and the issue of contaminated groundwater and soil would still need to be addressed.
“The main issue is future prevention of materials spreading,” Giansante said.
According to Giansante, the court will be holding a management conference “very soon” to set a court date for the proceeding.
“We think the end result will be the same as the first decision,” Giansante said.
Lance D. Brown, SJCCC’s attorney, could not be reached for comment.
