Filed Complaint with Exhibit

25 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment against Defendants as follows: A. Declaring that the Board’s denial of the Application was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and contrary to the MLUL, the Zoning Ordinance, and the lawful rights of the Plaintiff; B. Declaring that the Resolution memorialized by the Board was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and contrary to the MLUL, the Zoning Ordinance, and the lawful rights of the Plaintiff; C. Granting Plaintiff preliminary and final major site plan and conditional use approval and bulk variance relief, which approval shall expressly include the right of Plaintiff to develop the Property with a three (3) story, mixed-use building with 12 residential units and approximately 900 sq.ft. of commercial space; and D. Awarding such other and further relief as this Honorable Court may deem equitable and just, including attorney’s fees and costs of suit. COUNT VII In Denying the Application, the Board Improperly Rejected the Testimony and Proofs Presented in Support of the Application. 127. Plaintiff incorporates all of the foregoing paragraphs by reference as if same were fully set forth at length herein. 128. As set forth above and in the record, Plaintiff presented factual, lay, and expert testimony establishing that the Application, including bulk variances, could be granted in accordance with the requirements of the MLUL. 129. The record established is devoid of credible evidence or testimony that contradicts the evidence and testimony presented by Plaintiff’s witnesses and the Board’s own professional staff. 130. In reviewing the Application, the Board’s professionals did not raise any significant issues that might support a denial. 131. While the Board may appropriately weigh or reject expert testimony, it may not doESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 25 of 32 Trans ID: LCV2025492774

26 so unreasonably, based only upon bare allegations, unsubstantiated beliefs or net opinion. 132. Plaintiff’s expert testimony was clear, informative, and demonstrative of the necessary proofs. 133. The Board’s rejection of the testimony and evidence presented by Plaintiff was improper, unsupported and in direct violation of the MLUL, other statutory provisions, and governing case law. 134. The failure of the Board to properly consider the evidence in support of the Application was a violation of law and contrary to the Board’s statutory obligations and the lawful rights of Plaintiff. 135. Plaintiff’s interests have been adversely affected by the Board’s arbitrary and irrational application of its planning, zoning, and land use powers, which have been exercised in violation of governing law. 136. The Board’s actions relative to the Application were contrary to the fundamental principles of sound planning and violated the spirit and intent of the MLUL. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment against Defendants as follows: A. Declaring that the Board’s denial of the Application was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and contrary to the MLUL, the Zoning Ordinance, and the lawful rights of the Plaintiff; B. Declaring that the Resolution memorialized by the Board was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and contrary to the MLUL, the Zoning Ordinance, and the lawful rights of the Plaintiff; C. Granting Plaintiff preliminary and final major site plan and conditional use approval and bulk variance relief, which approval shall expressly include the right of Plaintiff to develop the Property with a three (3) story, mixed-use building with 12 residential units and approximately 900 sq.ft. of commercial space; andESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 26 of 32 Trans ID: LCV2025492774

27 D. Awarding such other and further relief as this Honorable Court may deem equitable and just, including attorney’s fees and costs of suit. COUNT VIII The Denial of the Application by the Board and the Memorializing Resolution are in Contravention of the MLUL. 137. Plaintiff incorporates all of the foregoing paragraphs by reference as if same were fully set forth at length herein. 138. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10g requires that “[t]he municipal agency shall include findings of fact and conclusions based thereon in each decision on any application for development and shall reduce the decision to writing.”2 139. The minimal and selective factual findings and legal conclusions of the Board set forth on the record and contained within the Resolution reflected a disregard of the evidence and testimony presented by Plaintiff in support of the Application. 140. The Board completely ignored the testimony presented that the Proposed Development was in line with other mixed-use bulk standards and matched the setbacks of other properties along Main Street. The Board also ignored the testimony that at eye-level, the Proposed Development met the setback requirements to neighboring residential properties. 141. The Board also ignored testimony that all other commercial uses along the Main Street corridor are situated at the property line, the Applicant was meeting the neighborhood scheme with the Proposed Development variance request. 142. To this end, the Resolution explicitly attempts to justify the Board’s decision based on concerns that were directly and adequately addressed by the Applicant at the Hearing. 143. Furthermore, the legal conclusions of the Board set forth on the record and contained within the Resolution are improper as a matter of law and are in direct violation of the 2 See N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10g.ESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 27 of 32 Trans ID: LCV2025492774

28 MLUL, other statutory provisions, and governing case law. 144. There is no credible evidence in the record to indicate that the variances sought by Plaintiff would cause substantial detriment to the surrounding properties or substantial impairment of the zone plan. Rather, the testimony and evidence demonstrated that despite the bulk variances, the Proposed Development would be able to comfortably comply with the required setbacks where it mattered, and would better fit in the immediate surrounding area. 145. The Board’s denial of the Application and the Resolution memorializing its decision inappropriately relied upon issues unrelated to the specific relief requested by Plaintiff, and, as such, are in contravention of the MLUL. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment against Defendants as follows: A. Declaring that the Board’s denial of the Application was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and contrary to the MLUL, the Zoning Ordinance, and the lawful rights of the Plaintiff; B. Declaring that the Resolution memorialized by the Board was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and contrary to the MLUL, the Zoning Ordinance, and the lawful rights of the Plaintiff; C. Granting Plaintiff preliminary and final major site plan and conditional use approval and bulk variance relief, which approval shall expressly include the right of Plaintiff to develop the Property with a three (3) story, mixed-use building with 12 residential units and approximately 900 sq.ft. of commercial space; and D. Awarding such other and further relief as this Honorable Court may deem equitable and just, including attorney’s fees and costs of suit. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment against Defendants as follows:ESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 28 of 32 Trans ID: LCV2025492774

29 A. Declaring that the Board’s denial of the Application was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and contrary to the MLUL, the Zoning Ordinance, and the lawful rights of the Plaintiff; B. Declaring that the Resolution memorialized by the Board was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and contrary to the MLUL, the Zoning Ordinance, and the lawful rights of the Plaintiff; C. Granting Plaintiff preliminary and final major site plan and conditional use approval and bulk variance relief, which approval shall expressly include the right of Plaintiff to develop the Property with a three (3) story, mixed-use building with 12 residential units and approximately 900 sq.ft. of commercial space; and D. Awarding such other and further relief as this Honorable Court may deem equitable and just, including attorney’s fees and costs of suit. Respectfully submitted: PRIME TUVEL & MICELI Dated: February 28, 2025 By: /s/ Benjamin T.F. Wine BENJAMIN T.F. WINE, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiff, 410 Main St Holdings, LLCESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 29 of 32 Trans ID: LCV2025492774

30 DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL Please take notice that, pursuant to Rule 4:5-1(c), BENJAMIN T.F. WINE, ESQUIRE, is hereby designated as trial counsel on behalf of Plaintiff, 410 Main St Holdings, LLC, in connection with the above-captioned matter. PRIME TUVEL & MICELI Dated: February 28, 2025 By: /s/ Benjamin T.F. Wine BENJAMIN T.F. WINE, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiff, 410 Main St Holdings, LLCESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 30 of 32 Trans ID: LCV2025492774

31 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 4:5-1 The matter in controversy is not the subject of any other action pending in any court or of any other pending arbitration proceeding, and no other action or arbitration proceeding is contemplated. Furthermore, there are no other parties which need to be joined. 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. Respectfully submitted: PRIME TUVEL & MICELI Dated: February 28, 2025 By: /s/ Benjamin T.F. Wine BENJAMIN T.F. WINE, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiff, 410 Main St Holdings, LLCESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 31 of 32 Trans ID: LCV2025492774

32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 4:69-4 Verbatim hearing transcripts and/or recordings of Defendant, Township of West Orange Planning Board, relating to the application of Plaintiff, 410 Main St Holdings, LLC, on dates June 5, August 7, September 4, November 6, December 4, and December 11, 2024 have been ordered. There are no other hearing transcripts that are known to be required. I accordingly certify that all necessary transcripts of local agency proceedings in this case, to the extent that they exist, have been ordered. I further 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. Respectfully submitted: PRIME TUVEL & MICELI Dated: February 28, 2025 By: /s/ Benjamin T.F. Wine BENJAMIN T.F. WINE, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiff, 410 Main St Holdings, LLCESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 32 of 32 Trans ID: LCV2025492774

Civil Case Information Statement Case Details: ESSEX | Civil Part Docket# L-001637-25 Case Caption: 410 MAIN ST HOLDINGS , LLC VS WEST ORANGE PLANNI Case Initiation Date: 02/28/2025 Attorney Name: BENJAMIN T F WINE Firm Name: PRIME & TUVEL, LLC DBA PRIME LAW Address: 14000 HORIZON WAY STE 325 MOUNT LAUREL NJ 08054 Phone: 8562738300 Name of Party: PLAINTIFF : 410 Main St Holdings, LLC Name of Defendant’s Primary Insurance Company (if known): Unknown THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS FORM CANNOT BE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE CASE CHARACTERISTICS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF CASE IS APPROPRIATE FOR MEDIATION Do parties have a current, past, or recurrent relationship? NO If yes, is that relationship: Does the statute governing this case provide for payment of fees by the losing party? NO Use this space to alert the court to any special case characteristics that may warrant individual management or accelerated disposition: Do you or your client need any disability accommodations? NO If yes, please identify the requested accommodation: Will an interpreter be needed? NO If yes, for what language: Please check off each applicable category: Putative Class Action? NO Title 59? NO Consumer Fraud? NO Medical Debt Claim? NO I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from documents now submitted to the court, and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the future in accordance with Rule 1:38-7(b) 02/28/2025 Dated /s/ BENJAMIN T F WINE Signed Case Type: ACTIONS IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRITS Document Type: Complaint Jury Demand: NONE Is this a professional malpractice case? NO Related cases pending: NO If yes, list docket numbers: Do you anticipate adding any parties (arising out of same transaction or occurrence)? NO Does this case involve claims related to COVID-19? NO Are sexual abuse claims alleged by: 410 Main St Holdings, LLC? NOESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV2025492774ESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV2025492774

ESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV2025492774ESX-L-001637-25 02/28/2025 2:34:16 PM Pg 2 of 2 Trans ID: LCV2025492774