The Jersey City Independent "

Share/Save

Photo: Steve Gold

Ward C councilwoman Nidia Rivera Lopez’s claim to her seat is safe.

A legal challenge against Lopez filed after the May election alleged that she did not establish residency in New Jersey at least one year prior to the election, making her ineligible to hold office here. Hudson County Superior Court Judge Maurice Gallipoli filed a 16-page decision in the suit on Friday, in which he found that Lopez “intended” to reside in Jersey City, “and that intention was objectively confirmed” by the facts in the case.

Norrice Raymaker, who ran against Lopez in the May election, joined a legal challenge against Lopez in August; the suit was originally filed by Raymaker’s fellow Ward C candidate Jimmy King, but Raymaker joined the suit when it became clear that King would drop it because of federal corruption charges pending against him.

Lopez’s residency was called into question after it came to light that she had not paid New Jersey state taxes for a number of years. Lopez lived in Florida from 1994 until about 2001, and she continues to own a home in Orlando. From 2001 until this year, she paid her federal income taxes as well as corporate taxes on her Hoboken-based dental consulting business in Florida. Lopez also claimed Florida residency and improperly received a homestead rebate on her property taxes there. Raymaker’s lawyer argued in court that these actions as well others — including the renewal of a Florida driver’s license and a vote in Florida by absentee ballot — showed that Lopez never “abandoned her domicile” in Florida or “evidenced her intention to establish a new domicile” in New Jersey.

Lopez’s attorney produced an array of documents in court in order to prove that she did intend her domicile to be New Jersey, including a voter profile, medical records and a variety of correspondence mailed to Lopez’s Corbin Avenue address. Lopez also testified that she has served as a commissioner for the Jersey City Parking Authority and that she is an active member of a Jersey City church. When asked in court why she did not pay New Jersey taxes and claimed an improper exemption in Florida, Lopez stated that she wasn’t aware of the matter because she entrusted her tax affairs to her accountant.

Based on the evidence presented and his determination that the burden of proof in the case lies with the plaintiff, Gallipoli ruled that Lopez was a resident of New Jersey as of one year before her election to public office.

However, he did not spare the court his opinion of Lopez’s actions. Writing that he was “mystified” by her “apparent lack of attention to many details of her personal and financial affairs,” Gallipoli said that it might be explained by “any number of reasons, running the gamut from the dumb to the negligent to the criminal.”

Lopez’s attorney William Northgrave told JCI that he and Lopez are “happy that Judge Gallipoli … sustained Ms. Lopez.” Calling the challenge an “unnecessary and unwarranted distraction,” Northgrave said that Lopez will “continue serving her constituents.”

Diana Jeffrey, who along with Howard Myerowitz represents Raymaker, says that she will appeal. The argument Myerowitz made in court that Lopez never abandoned her Florida domicile was “overlooked” by Gallipoli, she says.

“This decision is nothing that Nidia Lopez should be proud of,” Jeffrey said. “It’s not a victory to have a judge say that you might be dumb, negligent, or a crook — but you live in New Jersey.”

In a statement, Raymaker “urges everyone not to be discouraged by this decision.” Although the residency challenge was not upheld, Raymaker said that the case “exposed … a nine-year scheme” in which Lopez “maintain[ed] a separate identity in Florida so she could duck her responsibilities.” Raymaker continues to call for Lopez’s resignation and asks the community — and Mayor Healy — to do the same.

But Mayor Healy, who headed the election ticket on which Lopez was elected and has supported her throughout the trial, told JCI that he is “happy that this case is closed and that the outcome is positive.”