Is the Waterfront Commission Sunk? - The Story Continues … - Update: September 7, 2022 - - See Below
Originally published by Thomas A. Tormey, Jr. - August 19, 2020
Updated: December 28, 2020 - (See below)
Updated: February 4, 2021 - (See below)
Updated: March 8, 2021 - (See below)
Updated: October 21, 2021 - (See below)
Updated: November 23, 2021 - (See below)
Updated: September 7, 2022 - (See below)
Original Post - Is the Waterfront Commission Sunk? - August 19, 2020
The United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit dismissed the lawsuit brought by the Waterfront Commission against the Governor of the State of New Jersey, thereby clearing the way for New Jersey to withdraw from the Commission. Is this the end of the Waterfront Commission? The answer is not so clear.
Discussion
On Friday, June 5, 2020, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor's lawsuit against the Governor of New Jersey. The Commission brought that suit to keep New Jersey from unilaterally withdrawing from the Commission.
On the day that decision was handed down, my phone started ringing off the hook with clients, former clients, and even people who have never hired this firm calling to find out if this meant that the Waterfront Commission was finished.
The answer was, and still is, I don't know.
Let me explain.
· New Jersey Decides to Withdraw from the Waterfront Commission
In December of 2017 and January of 2018, the New Jersey Assembly and the Senate voted, almost unanimously, to withdraw from the Waterfront Commission, the bi-state agency that came into being in 1953.
Back in the early 1950s, the states of New York and New Jersey realized that problems plagued the waterfront, including unfair hiring issues due to a lack of systematic hiring practices. In addition, there existed a host of evils involving unsavory individuals who were engaging in a broad range of unlawful and criminal acts. As a result, the two states agreed to try and rectify these problems. That agreement is now known as the Waterfront Commission Compact. After the two states agreed to work together, with each state having a 50-50 say in how the Commission would act, the United States Congress approved the Compact, and the Waterfront Commission Act ("Act") was born.
The provisions of the Waterfront Compact ("Waterfront Commission Act" or "Act") established the Waterfront Commission ("Commission") as the governing agency and authorized it to see to the implementation of the provisions of the Act. The Commission consists of two Commissioners, with one appointed by the Governor from each state. Any decision of the Commission, to be effective, must be made by a unanimous decision of both Commissioners.
Since its formation, the Commission has been regulating the hiring practices on the waterfront, investigating instances of criminal activity, and generally overseeing the entire industry. At times, both labor leaders and the legislators of New Jersey believed that the Commission's activities intruded on the industry to such a degree that their actions and decisions were causing harm to New Jersey's commerce.
Since the Commission came into being, the entire industry shifted its operation methods, with many piers relocating to New Jersey. Due to containerization and an increase in the size of the ships entering the harbor, most of the industry moved to New Jersey, where the deep waters could accommodate the larger container ships. The problem with this scenario is that it is the port employers who are the ones who pay for the operating costs of the Commission. With most of the industry now taking place in New Jersey, the New Jersey companies are paying the lion's share (90%) of the operating budget of the Commission. So, while New Jersey is now funding 90% of the costs of the Commission, New York State continues to exercise the same degree of control over the activities of the Commission and the industry as the state of New Jersey.
The New Jersey Legislature and the Governor believed that New Jersey was getting the short end of the stick, at least from a monetary point of view. In addition, they felt that the Commission was acting in a manner that was detrimental to the commercial interests of the State of New Jersey. Because of this, the New Jersey legislature determined that it was time to withdraw from the Commission. New Jersey decided that, instead of the Commission regulating the industry, the investigations, and the hiring practices, it would be more beneficial to New Jersey to assign those matters to New Jersey State Police. Not only would New Jersey make the decisions that would affect its own citizens and businesses, but it would also benefit from receiving the fees that the port employers are presently paying to the Commission. So, on January 15, 2018, after the legislature passed the law pulling New Jersey out of the Commission, Gov. Christie, on his last day in office, signed the bill into law. See, New Jersey Law Chapter 324 (N.J. Stat. Ann §§32:23-229 – 230).
· The Commission Sues the Governor of New Jersey and Wins
The very next day, January 16, 2020, the Waterfront Commission sued incoming Gov. Philip Murphy in federal court, claiming that New Jersey had no right to withdraw from the Commission unilaterally. The Commission sought a declaration that the New Jersey Bill was invalid, and it asked the court for a preliminary injunction that would prevent Gov. Murphy from implementing or enforcing the new law.
The Commission won that case in the lower court when on June 1, 2018, District Court Judge, Susan D. Wigenton, granted the Commission's motion for Summary Judgment and granted the Commission a Preliminary Injunction. See, Waterfront Comm'n of N.Y. Harbor v. Murphy, No. 18-650 (SDW) (LDW) (D.N.J. June 1, 2018). In that decision, Judge Wigenton stated that New Jersey did not have the right to unilaterally withdraw from the bi-state Compact, even though the Compact itself does not say anything about how a state may withdraw from it or end the Commission. This decision did not end the story, however.
· The Governor of New Jersey Appealed the Lower Court Decision to the Court of Appeals and Won a Reversal
The Governor of the State of New Jersey, as well as the Senate and the Assembly, which had intervened in the federal court action, appealed Judge Wigenton's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
On June 5, 2020, the Court of Appeals reversed Judge Wigenton and, in a precedential opinion, the court ordered that the lawsuit brought by the Commission be sent back down to the lower court for dismissal. See, Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor v. Governor of New Jersey, No. 19-2458 (3d Cir. 2020). The appellate court said that even though the Commission had sued Gov. Murphy, it was, in reality, suing the State of New Jersey, and the Appeals Court ruled that this was improper because the lawsuit infringed on the sovereignty of the State of New Jersey. The court went on to hold that the lower court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, and they sent the case back down to the lower court for dismissal.
Did that mean that the Waterfront Commission was now out of business? No.
· The Procedure After the Appeals Court Decision
Once the Court of Appeals ordered the dismissal of the Commission's case against the New Jersey Governor, my phone started ringing off the hook. People were calling to see if the Commission was going down with the ship. Now, here is where a lot of procedure comes in.
The order of the Court of Appeals sending the case back down to the lower court for dismissal did not go into effect until 14 days after it was issued, and for two weeks, nothing happened. Then, at the eleventh hour on June 19, 2020, the Commission filed a Petition in the appellate court asking for a Rehearing En Banc. Such a Petition is like a request for a do-over. The Commission was requesting that the court rehear and reconsider the arguments and then hopefully reverse itself. The "En Banc" part means that the Commission wanted to argue the case before all the judges of the Circuit. Just three judges decided the original appeal, and now the Commission was asking for all the judges (23) to decide the case. This petition by the Commission put everything on hold.
Eventually, on July 8, 2020, the Court of Appeals denied the Commission's request. It was not going to rehear the case.
Again, people started calling me for information. Was this the death knell for the Commission? Well, not quite yet. Under the Rules for Appellate Procedure, the mandate of the appellate court that ordered the dismissal of the case would not take effect for seven days, and the Commission still had options available to it. Maybe the Commission would seek to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of the United States. Perhaps the Commission would ask the State of New York to sue the State of New Jersey to keep them in the Commission. (This is called a case of original jurisdiction and would be litigated in the Supreme Court of the United States.) The problem for the Commission was that the Preliminary Injunction, which prevented Gov. Murphy from implementing the law, was going to be dismissed. New Jersey could then start the process of withdrawing from the Commission, which, up until now, it could not do because of the lawsuit that the Commission brought against the Governor.
So, to prevent the dismissal of the Preliminary Injunction, the Commission acted quickly and filed a motion in the Court of Appeals asking the Court to stay the mandate that dismissed the case and the preliminary injunction. In effect, the Commission asked the court to put its decision on hold. The Commission told the court that it was going to seek permission to appeal its decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. This action by the Commission is called filing a petition for a Writ of Certiorari (Sur-shee-uh-rar-ree). To be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Court must grant the Commission permission to appeal. If the Supreme Court does not permit the Commission to appeal (called "Denying Cert"), the case is over.
The usual time limit for seeking a Writ of Certiorari is 90 days, starting from the date of the denial of the rehearing (with a possible extension of up to 60 days). At present, however, the Supreme Court has extended the deadlines for all cases to 150 days due to the COVID-19 crisis. The Commission argued in the Court of Appeals that without a stay, the Commission would suffer irreparable harm, and therefore a stay was necessary to maintain the status quo. The Commission asked for a full 150-day stay.
On July 20, 2020, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Commission a stay of the mandate, allowing the Commission to seek permission to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of the United States without having to worry that their case and the preliminary injunction would be dismissed in the meantime. The Court of Appeals informed the parties that they must notify the court when the petition for a writ of certiorari is filed and then again when the Supreme Court rules on the petition. As I indicated above, if the Supreme Court denies cert, then the case will be over. But, if the Supreme Court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari and agrees to hear the case, the stay will remain in effect until the Supreme Court's final decision. See, Fed. R. App. P. 41(d)(2)(B)(ii).
· Conclusion
So, what does this mean for the Commission?
While it may look like the Commission's boat has a few holes in it and is taking on water, it is still afloat. What is going to happen now, going forward, is anyone's guess, but whatever is going to happen, it is not going to happen for at least 150 days from July 20, 2020, which is December 17, 2020.
So, mark your calendars for December 17, 2020, and then feel free to give me a call. Maybe we'll have more to talk about then.
Update - December 28, 2020
On December 8, 2020, the Waterfront Commission attorneys filed their petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the Supreme Court. The Court has given the attorneys for New Jersey's Governor until January 7, 2021, to file their response.
After the Governor’s attorneys file their response, the case will then be briefed by each of the Justice’s clerks who will make a recommendation as to whether or not certiorari should be granted. Based on the briefs and the clerks' recommendations, the Chief Justice prepares a list of cases that he feels warrants consideration. These cases are then discussed by the justices. Only four justices need to agree in order to grant certiorari. If cert is granted, a briefing schedule will be set up and eventually, the matter will be placed on the court’s calendar. If cert is not granted, the stay of the mandate dismissing the case and the preliminary injunction will be lifted and New Jersey will be able to begin withdrawing from the Commission.
But, that doesn’t mean that it’s over. There are still other legal actions that can take place, such as a case of original jurisdiction, where New York State sues the State of New Jersey in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Considering the size and scope of the Commission, it would seem to me that the Commission is not going to just walk away. But, instead, it is likely that it will attempt further legal action to prevent New Jersey from pulling out of the Commission.
But first, let’s see if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the Commission’s case. That’s the first step in this process. Check back for further updates.
©Thomas A. Tormey, Jr. – August 19, 2020. Updated December 28, 2020.
Update – February 4, 2021
On January 5, 2021, the attorneys for Governor Murphy filed a Waiver in the Supreme Court. This is merely a statement that the Governor does not intend to file a response to the Commission’s petition for a writ of certiorari. This filing pertained only to the Governor and no other party.
Thereafter, on January 13, 2021, the attorneys for the New Jersey Senate and all of the remaining parties also filed a Waiver in the Supreme Court. Like the Waiver described above, the attorneys for the Senate, the President of the Senate, and the Assembly, have informed the court that they will not be filing papers in response to the Commission’s petition for a writ.
On that same date, January 13, 2021, the court distributed the writ for conference on February 19, 2021.
As was detailed above, this means that the writ will now be briefed by the clerks for the Justices who will then determine whether or not they think certiorari should be granted. In other words, should the Supreme Court hear the case.
After the clerks and their judges file their recommendations, the Chief Justice will then decided whether the case warrants consideration. If the Chief Justice decides that the case does warrant consideration, it will be discussed during the Conference on February 19, 2021.
As I also mentioned above, only four justices need to agree to hear the case in order to grant certiorari. If cert is granted, a briefing schedule will be set up and eventually, the matter will be placed on the court’s calendar. If cert is not granted, the stay of the mandate dismissing the case and the preliminary injunction will be lifted and New Jersey will be able to begin withdrawing from the Commission.
But, as I also talked about above, the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor is a huge entity with tremendous revenues flowing into its accounts. Thus, I suspect that if the Commission is denied certiorari we should probably expect to see some further legal gymnastics in order to keep the place afloat.
Check back after February 19th for more information.
Update – March 8, 2021
After the attorneys for the Governor of New Jersey and the Senate filed written their waivers with the court, which were described above, and after the clerk of the Supreme Court distributed the writ for a conference on February 19, 2021, the Supreme Court took the infrequent step of requesting the attorneys for Governor Phil Murphy to file a response to the Petition for a Writ.
The Supreme Court denies the vast majority of petitions seeking a Writ of Certiorari, so a request for a response is not particularly common. Since the petition for a writ is just a brief asking the court to hear the case, the response to the petition must provide reasons why the court should not hear the case. The response does not need to address whether or not the decision below was correct. It can and usually does, but the response only needs to set forth the reasons why the court should not consider the case.
In this case, the Court gave the attorneys for the Governor and the Senate until March 1, 2021, to file their response to the petition, and on the scheduled date, the attorneys did file their response. The Governor's Response is a lengthy document. You can find the Response on the Supreme Court's website if you're interested in reading it. Essentially, the response tells the court that they should not hear the case because it does not meet the criteria necessary for Cert to be granted.
The attorneys showed the court that there was no split between Circuit Courts of Appeals as alleged by the Waterfront Commission. The Governor's attorneys also showed the court that the Commission dramatically overstated the consequences of denying Certiorari. The opposition papers also demonstrated that the decision below was correct.
Lastly, Governor Murphy's attorneys explained to the Court that this is not a good case to review because the Commission acted without authority when they brought the suit in the beginning. The lawyers for Governor Murphy explained that the Commission did not have the New Jersey Commissioner's consent to bring the lawsuit in the first place. While the Commission argues that the New Jersey Commissioner, Michael Murphy, had recused himself from the decision-making process, Commissioner Murphy himself withdrew his recusal after conferring with the New Jersey State Ethics Commission.
For all the above reasons, the attorneys argued that the Supreme Court should deny the Waterfront Commission's request for certiorari.
Now the case will be conferenced with all the judges and their clerks. If four judges agree to grant certiorari, then the court will calendar the case for argument and ask for briefs from all parties. If the Commission cannot get four judges to agree to hear the case, then the case will be sent back down to the Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals will dismiss the stay that is keeping New Jersey from carrying out the law as enacted. Then, when the stay is lifted, New Jersey will begin the process of withdrawing from the Commission.
Of course, the Waterfront Commission still has other options available to try and stop this from happening. As described above, the Commission may very well ask the Governor of New York to authorize the State of New York to sue the State of New Jersey, at which point the process will begin again. A lawsuit by one state against another state is known as a suit of "original jurisdiction" and is heard in the United States Supreme Court. Of course, Governor Cuomo has a lot on his plate at this time, so who knows how a request to sue the State of New Jersey may be received.
Stay tuned for further updates.
Update – October 21, 2021
On April 5, 2021, the Supreme Court “invited” the Acting Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States as it relates to whether the Court should hear the appeal of the Waterfront Commission. The Solicitor General is the attorney for the United States of America. A brief of this kind is known as an Amicus Curiae brief, which is Latin for “Friend of the Court.”
An Amicus Curiae brief is a brief that is submitted by a person or an organization who is not part of the litigation but who is permitted by the court to advise the court with respect to some matter of law that is related to the litigation.
On October 19, 2021, the Acting Solicitor General submitted its brief to the Supreme court. In that brief, the Acting Solicitor General advised the Supreme Court that it should deny the Waterfront Commission’s Writ of Certiorari. In other words, the Solicitor General has advised the court that it is the opinion of the United States that the court should not hear the appeal of the Waterfront Commission.
While the court is not bound by the opinion of the Solicitor General, the Solicitor General’s opinion is persuasive, nonetheless.
The Court now has the duty to consider whether it will hear the appeal of the Waterfront Commission or not. If it decides to hear the appeal, the case will be put on the calendar, a briefing schedule will be set up, briefs will have to be prepared and submitted, an oral argument held, and eventually, a decision will be rendered. This process will, in all likelihood, take many months.
If the Court decides not to hear the appeal, then the decision of the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the Waterfront Commission’s case against the Governor of the State of New Jersey, will stand and the stay halting the process of dismantling the Waterfront Commission will be lifted. This will begin the process of closing the offices of the Waterfront Commission.
Of course, as was mentioned in the article below, the Commission, which is a multi-million-dollar agency, is not likely to just weigh anchor and sail off into the sunset without a fight. There are many other actions the Commission may take, such as negotiating with the State of New Jersey or asking the State of New York to sue the State of New Jersey directly in an action of original jurisdiction. If New York agrees to bring such an action, it could take many years before a decision is reached. In such a case, the Commission will continue as is until the conclusion of that case.
Whatever happens, however, this brief by the Solicitor General is a shot across the bow of the Waterfront Commission which will now have to begin seriously considering its next steps in these proceedings.
Stay tuned for further updates.
Important Update: November 23, 2021
The Supreme Court Refuses to Hear the Waterfront Commission’s Appeal
Yesterday, the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor suffered a significant loss in its attempt to keep New Jersey from withdrawing from the Commission.
On November 22, 2021, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the Waterfront Commission’s appeal of the decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals dismissing the Waterfront Commission’s case against Governor Murphy. That suit sought to prevent Governor Murphy from carrying out the New Jersey Legislature’s mandate to withdraw from the Commission.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the Waterfront Commission’s appeal means that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the Commission’s case against Governor Murphy now takes effect. Not only is the Commission’s lawsuit against the Governor dismissed, but the Stay that prevented New Jersey from withdrawing from the Commission is also vacated, clearing the way for New Jersey to begin the process of withdrawing from the Commission.
The dismissal of the Stay means that the 90-day transition period has begun. During this time, overseeing and policing the port is supposed to be transferred from the Waterfront Commission to the New Jersey State Police.
Will that happen, and does this signal the end of the Waterfront Commission? It’s the opinion of this office that it’s still just too soon to tell. There are still other options available to the Commission to prevent this from happening, such as an original action by the State of New York against the State of New Jersey. Another possible way to avoid the demise of the Commission might be for New York to attempt to renegotiate the terms of the Compact, just like renegotiating a contract.
There are still so many questions that must be answered before we know what will happen.
The International Longshoreman’s Association (ILA), for many reasons, does not want the Commission to continue in its present form, and it may even want to see the Commission utterly abolished. An original action by New York against New Jersey may prevent that from happening, but will a newly appointed Democratic Governor of New York who is running for election against a strong field of opponents want to go against the wishes of a major labor union and risk losing its support?
What about renegotiation? Is New Jersey interested in renegotiation? Can New York even attempt to renegotiate any changes to the Compact since New Jersey enacted a law removing itself from the Commission, or does the New Jersey Legislature have to repeal the new law before any renegotiation can occur?
Whatever happens, one thing is sure, changes to the way the Commission operates are very likely to occur. That is one thing that both the shippers and the longshoremen would like to see.
Let’s keep watching and see what develops.
Important Update: September 7, 2022 – The Waterfront Commission is Still Afloat but is Taking on Water Rapidly.
Hello, everyone.
It's been a while since I've written about New Jersey's attempt to leave the Waterfront Commission. My last post about the battle between New Jersey and the Commission was on November 23, 2021, and a lot has happened since then.
A Quick Review of the Facts
Just to re-cap, you may remember that the New Jersey legislature unanimously voted to withdraw from the Waterfront Commission. The legislation they enacted authorizing this withdrawal also empowered the New Jersey State Police to perform all the activities that the Waterfront Commission is currently conducting.
After the NJ legislature acted, Gov. Christie signed the bill into law on his last day in office.
After this, the Commission sued the new, incoming governor of New Jersey, Gov. Philip Murphy, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Commission claimed New Jersey had no right to withdraw from the Commission without the permission of New York and the Commission sought a preliminary injunction preventing New Jersey from enforcing the law they had just enacted.
You may also remember that the Waterfront Commission won that case in the District Court, but the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decision after New Jersey took an appeal.
After the Third Circuit reversed and dismissed New York’s case, thereby permitting New Jersey to withdraw from the Compact, the Commission sought leave to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. After both sides submitted briefs, you may recall that the Supreme Court asked for the Solicitor General to provide an opinion on the issue. The Solicitor General is the attorney for the United States of America.
Surprisingly, the Solicitor General advised the Court that it should deny the Commission's request for an appeal.
In response, the Supreme Court, on November 22, 2021, denied the Commission's petition for a Writ of Certiorari. In layman's terms, they rejected the Waterfront Commission's request for an appeal and dismissed the stay that was in effect. This decision to deny the Commission's request for an appeal effectively began the running of the 90-day period of transition.
New Jersey then announced that as of March 28, 2022, it would withdraw from the Waterfront Commission, and the Commission, as we know it, would cease to exist.
New York and The Waterfront Commission Try for a "Hail Mary."
On March 14, 2022, just two weeks before the Commission would finally slip beneath the waves, New York filed a motion in the Supreme Court of the United States seeking permission to file a Bill of Complaint, also known as an "original action." A motion to file an original action means that New York State asked the Supreme Court for permission to sue the State of New Jersey. An original action must be brought in the United States Supreme Court. In addition to asking the Court for permission to sue New Jersey, New York also asked the Court for "preliminary relief" to prevent New Jersey from enforcing the law that authorized it to withdraw from the Commission.
On March 24, 2022, the Supreme Court granted New York's request for preliminary relief and enjoined the State of New Jersey from enforcing the law that allowed it to withdraw from the Commission. The Court agreed to keep the status quo, temporarily halting the Commission's closing. Then on June 21, 2022, the Court permitted New York to sue New Jersey.
In response, New Jersey answered New York's complaint, and then, on August 22, 2022, New Jersey moved for a judgment on the pleadings. A motion for a judgment on the pleadings means that New Jersey was asking the Court to dismiss the original complaint without the need for any type of hearing. New Jersey argued that the Waterfront Commission Compact does not prohibit it from withdrawing and reclaiming its sovereign powers within its borders. Thus, New Jersey argued that New York could not force New Jersey to participate in an interstate compact that it no longer wanted to be a member of and that no longer serves its interests.
The Final Nail in the Coffin?
On August 29, 2022, the Court received a flurry of filings of Amicus Curiae briefs. Amicus Curiae (Cure -ee- aay) means "friend of the Court." It is a brief filed by a person who is not a party to the action but has a strong interest in the matter. These briefs are offered to assist the Court in making its decision. Amicus Curiae briefs were filed by the State of Texas, Law Professors, Metro Marine Contractors, and other port businesses and entities.
Most importantly, the Solicitor General of the United States also filed an Amicus Brief. The Solicitor General's brief set forth the position of the United States of America as to whether New Jersey should be permitted to withdraw from the Compact, and this may be the most critical Amicus Brief filed.
In the Solicitor General's brief, the United States government took the position that the Compact allows New Jersey to withdraw from the Commission unilaterally. In other words, it is the opinion of the United States of America that New Jersey can withdraw from the Commission without needing the permission of New York. The United States government's position was that each state has the sovereign power to enter into a compact with another state and that the Compact itself is essentially a contract governed by contract law. As such, the United States believes that the Waterfront Commission "Compact establishes a framework that enables either party to veto the Commission's ongoing operations effectively. That framework suggests that the parties also enjoy the more direct power to withdraw."
Wow. The United States of America just advised the Supreme Court that New Jersey can withdraw from the Waterfront Commission and that it doesn't need the permission of the State of New York to do so.
So, what happens now?
Well, having the United States government stand firmly on the side of New Jersey has got to be encouraging for everyone who wants New Jersey to withdraw from the Commission and take the matters concerning the port into its own hands. But the decision is still up to the Supreme Court of the United States, so no one will know what will happen until that time.
But I would imagine that the Commission has to be concerned after reading the Solicitor General's brief.
As for me? I'm hedging my bets. Just to be safe, I have applied to be admitted to practice law in the State of New Jersey. I am doing this so that I can continue to represent workers, businesses, members of the ILA, and anyone else who may have issues on the waterfront that previously would have put them in the cross-hairs of the Waterfront Commission.
As always, if you have any questions regarding what's happening with New York, New Jersey, and the Waterfront Commission, feel free to call. It will be my pleasure to discuss this with you in detail.
Keep tuned to see what happens.
© Thomas A. Tormey, Jr., August 19, 2020, Updated December 28, 2020, Further Updated February 4, 2021. Further updated, March 8, 2021.© Thomas A. Tormey, Jr., August 19, 2020, Updated December 28, 2020, Further Updated February 4, 2021 and March 8, 2021. Further Updated November 23, 2021.
