Judicial Order Halts Progress on Journal Square High-Rise
A Superior Court judge has directed the planning board to exclude West Street circulation issues from its review of the stalled 42-story project.
By Julia Wang ·
A 42-story residential tower planned for Summit Avenue near the Journal Square PATH station is facing renewed legal delays as a Superior Court judge issued preliminary guidance to city officials. The dispute centers on a 2012 settlement that required Jersey City to vacate a portion of West Street to allow for additional height on the development site.
The history of the project dates back to 2010, when the city adopted a redevelopment plan that eliminated development potential for the then-owner, Robinhood Plaza. A subsequent lawsuit resulted in a 2012 settlement that permitted the building to rise 17 stories above previous limits. In exchange, the developer agreed to build a one-acre park and public plaza between Summit and Baldwin Avenues. A core condition of that deal was the vacation of a section of West Street to accommodate the design.
The city council passed an ordinance to vacate that street section in February 2018. However, officials never signed the final deed required to record the title transfer. The property changed hands multiple times, including a 2016 sale to 500 Summit Mazal LLC and a 2024 acquisition by 500 Summit Avenue Owner LLC following a bankruptcy liquidation. The current owner filed a lawsuit on October 8 in Hudson County Superior Court, alleging the city unlawfully withheld the deed.
City attorneys responded by arguing that a 2020 settlement between the city and the previous owner nullified the 2012 agreement and the 2018 ordinance. They further claimed the current developer lacks standing because the rights to the West Street properties were not transferred during the 2023 bankruptcy proceedings. The city also contends the preliminary site plan is defective because it relies on municipal property for setbacks and drainage without proper consent.
On October 27, Judge David B. Katz heard arguments regarding the case. He instructed that the planning board may not consider circulation and drainage on West Street as part of the application. The judge did not bar the board from reviewing the site plan entirely. Eugene Paolino, the attorney for the developer, stated that the board had carried the application more than eight times since its filing in December 2025.
At the October 27 planning board meeting, city attorney Santo Alampi recommended carrying the application to the next regular session on December 8. The board agreed to the motion, a decision made just days before the parties are scheduled to appear before Judge Katz again. The city has asked the court to declare the application defective and prevent development of the site until the legal dispute is resolved.
