MARGARET TAYLOR FmUCANE One PATH Plaza Jersey City, New Jersey 07306 (201) 216-6370 (212) 435-7000 By: David Kromm, Esq. and Benjamin Noren, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff The Port Authority ofnew York and New Jersey ~ THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, vs. Plaintiff, CARDELLA TRUCKmG CO., mc. a/kia CARDELLA WASTE SERVICES, DAVID CARDELLA, individually, MICHAEL CARDELLA, individually, JOSEPH CARDELLA, individually, CHRIS CARDELLA, individually, MICHELE CARDELLA, individually, CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, individually and JOHN DOE 1-100, individually. FILED CUSTOMER SERVICE TEAM FEB 2 9 2012 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY COUNTY OF HUDSON CIVIL DIVISION #4 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION - HUDSON COUNTY DOCKET NO. / COMPLAINT - jtj?'5-)d- Defendants. Plaintiff, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (hereinafter the "Port Authority), having its principal office at 225 Park Avenue South, New York, New York 10003, by way of complaint against defendants CARDELLA TRUCKmG CO., mc. a/kia CARDELLA WASTE SERVICES (hereinafter "CARDELLA TRUCKmG CO., mc."), MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA, and CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, and JOHN DOE 1-100 says upon information and belief as follows:
PARTIES 1. The Port Authority, is a body corporate and politic created by Compact between the States of New York and New Jersey (154 Laws of N.Y., 1921; Ch. 151, Laws of N.J., 1921) with the consent of the Congress of the United States, and has a registered office at One Path Plaza, Jersey City, New Jersey 07306. 2. At all relevant times, the Port Authority, owned, operated, maintained and controlled certain premises known respectively as the George Washington Bridge, the Lincoln Tunnel, the Holland Tunnel, the Bayonne Bridge, the Outerbridge Crossing and the Goethals Bridge, which are all components ofthe Port Authority's Interstate Transportation Network. 3. That at all relevant times, the defendant, CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its last known place ofbusiness at 2400 Tonnelle Avenue, North Bergen, New Jersey, 07047. 4. That at all relevant times, the defendant, CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC., was licensed to do business in the State of New Jersey and was doing business in the State of New Jersey. 5. That at all relevant times, defendant MICHAEL CARDELLA, is a domicile ofthe State of New Jersey, with his last known address at 10 Knapton Hill Road, Mendham Township, New Jersey, 07945. 6. That at all relevant times, defendant JOSEPH CARDELLA, is a domicile of the State of New Jersey, with his last known address at 555 Overlook Drive, Wyckoff, New Jersey, 07481. 2
7. That at all relevant times, defendant CHRIS CARDELLA, is a domicile of the State of New York, with his last known address at 364 County Route 1, Warwick, New York, 10990. 8. That at all relevant times, defendant MICHELE CARDELLA, is a domicile of the State ofnew Jersey, with her last known address at 308 Woodside Avenue, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey, 07417. 9. That at all relevant times, defendant DAVID CARDELLA, is a domicile of the State of New Jersey, with his last known address at 10 Inwood Terrace, Fairfield, New Jersey, 07004. 10. That at all relevant times, defendant CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, is a domicile of the State of New Jersey, with her last known address 701 Sunderland Road, Teaneck, New Jersey, 07666. 11. That at all relevant times, defendant DAVID CARDELLA, was the founder, principal, owner and/or operator of defendant, CARDELLA TRUCKThTG CO., INC. 12. That at all relevant times, defendant MICHAEL CARDELLA, was the President or Vice President ofdefendant, CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., n~c. 13. That at all relevant times, defendant JOSEPH CARDELLA, was the Senior Vice President of defendant, CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. 14. That at all relevant times, defendant CHRIS CARDELLA, was the Chief Operating Officer ofdefendant, CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. 15. That at all relevant times, defendant MICHELE CARDELLA, was the General Counsel and Director ofhr of defendant, CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. 3
16. That at all relevant times, defendant DAVID CARDELLA, was the President or Vice President ofdefendant, CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. 17. That at all relevant times, defendant CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, was the Chief Financial Officer ofdefendant, CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. 18. That at all relevant times, MICHAEL CARDELLA's and DAVID CARDELLA's duties, as President of defendant, CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC., included soliciting business, overseeing all trucking operations, paying bills, hiring truck drivers, maintaining accurate records and otherwise carrying out and conducting the business of that entity. 19. That at all relevant times, JOSEPH CARDELLA's, CHRIS CARDELLA's, MICHELE CARDELLA's and CATHY WANG BICOFSKY's duties, as President, Vice President, Director of HR, and Chief Financial Officer of defendant, CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC., included soliciting business, overseeing all trucking operations, paying bills, hiring truck drivers, maintaining accurate records and otherwise carrying out and conducting the business ofthat entity. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 20. This is an action within the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to New Jersey Court Rules 4:3-1(4). 21. Venue is proper in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Hudson County pursuant to New Jersey Court Rules 4:3-2(a). BACKGROUND 22. No vehicular traffic is permitted to use the Port Authority's interstate bridges or tunnels "except upon payment of such tolls and other charges as may be from time to time prescribed by the Port Authority." N.J.S.A.32:1-154.2. 4
23. The Port Authority has set tolls for the use of its facilities and provided for their collection from motorists at its facilities. 24. Among the methods provided for the payment oftolls by motorists, is a method of electronic payment commonly known and referred to as E-ZPass. 25. The owner of any motor vehicle required to pay a toll for the use of the Port Authority's facilities is responsible for the timely payment ofthat toll. 26. The Port Authority'S implementation and use of the E-ZPass system is for the benefit of the general public and, when properly used, it allows the Port Authority to process a greater number of toll transactions more expeditiously, thereby easing traffic congestion and shortening travel times for motorists using the Port Authority'S bridges and tunnels. 27. The intentional and improper use of exclusive E-ZPass lanes for purposes of evading the payment of tolls deprives the Port Authority of toll income to which it is entitled, improperly burdens the operation of its electronic toll collection system and diminishes efficiency and effectiveness of the Port Authority'S investment in E-ZPass as a means of reducing the substantial traffic congestion at its interstate bridges and tunnels and otherwise adversely affects and improperly interferes with the operation and maintenance of the Interstate Transportation Network. 28. Exclusive E-ZPass lanes are clearly signed to inform motorists that the lanes are not for the use ofthose who would pay their tolls in cash. 29. Toll collectors are not assigned to staff the exclusive E-ZPass lanes, where collection of tolls is exclusively made via the electronic E-ZPass system. 30. The exclusive E-ZPass lanes are provided for use of those who have made prior arrangements to pay the toll through the use of valid E-ZPass equipment and have an 5
agreement by which they agree to use their assigned E-ZPass transponder device only when their E-ZPass account is in good standing and when their account has sufficient funds needed to pay the tolls as and when charged. 31. While other staffed toll lanes are provided and are still available to both E- ZPass and non-e-zpass patrons, E-ZPass patrons using the exclusive E-ZPass lanes are benefited by not being required to stop for a payment transaction with a toll collector. 32. Motorists who utilize the exclusive E-ZPass lanes of the Port Authority's bridges and tunnels without E-ZPass agreements and without the transponders actually needed to electronically pay the toll charges, and who do not otherwise pay the toll in cash at the time of crossing, are toll evaders. 33. Toll evaders and E-ZPass patrons who violate the terms of their agreements are responsible for the outstanding tolls plus an administrative fee, costs and attorney's fees for each improper use ofe-zpass toll collection lanes. 34. Because highly visible signage provides notice to motorists that exclusive E- ZPass lanes are not available for the payment of cash tolls, and motorists using E-ZPass are not required to, and do not, stop to make cash payments of tolls, motorists using the Port Authority's facilities are fully aware of, and on notice of, the restricted nature ofthe exclusive E ZPass lanes because each lane is clearly marked. 35. Motorists using the Port Authority's facilities are charged with knowing and understanding the foregoing aspects of E-ZPass and how it operates at the Port Authority's facilities. 36. The Port Authority employs a toll collection monitoring system that identifies motorists improperly using exclusive E-ZPass lanes wherein a toll due is not paid. 6
37. The owner of the vehicle identified as improperly using exclusive E-ZPass lanes is provided with a written citation identifying the violation or violations with specificity, including the amount oftoll due, the time and place ofthe violation and other details sufficient to identify the vehicle. 38. These citations are sent to the owner at the address provided on the offending vehicle's motor vehicle registration. 39. Such citations provide the owner of the vehicle with notice that the vehicle has used the Port Authority's facilities without paying the requisite toll, as well as advising that use of exclusive E-ZPass lanes is restricted to valid E-ZPass account holders as set forth in paragraphs 26 and 27, above. 40. Beginning on or about January 2,2001, and continuing through at least December 30, 2011, motor vehicles registered in the name of CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. improperly utilized exclusive E-ZPass lanes on 5,953 occasions. 41. CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. was sent 2 citations for each of these violations, totaling approximately 11,906 citations, and they were sent to defendant, CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC., at the address provided for in each motor vehicles' registration committing a violation. 42. The ongoing and continued conduct of operators of CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. in repeatedly evading tolls at the Port Authority'S bridges and tunnels was undertaken with the knowledge and consent of defendants, MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA, and CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, acting as the principal and/or agent of CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. 7
43. The identity of the drivers of CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INCo's vehicles on those occasions when payment of the tolls was evaded is not known to the Port Authority due to the nature of the conduct involved, and is identified in this Complaint as the fictitiously named defendants JOHN DOE I-tOO. 44. The owner of the vehicles are responsible for the conduct of the respective driver of the vehicle who evaded the payment of tolls when using the Port Authority's bridges and tunnels on each occasion when a toll evasion occurred that is the subject ofthis Complaint. 45. The amount due to the Port Authority for tolls due and fees for these violations that remains due and unpaid is $148,807.00. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC., MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA. JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA, CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, AND JOHN DOE 1-100 (Negligence) 46. The Port Authority restates and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-45 as iffully set forth herein. 47. At all relevant times, the defendant CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. was the owner ofa fleet ofmotor vehicles. 48. At all relevant times, MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA, and CATHY WANG BICOFSKY were acting as the principals and/or agents of CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. and consented and had knowledge of the ongoing and continued conduct of CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. in repeatedly evading tolls at the Port Authority's bridges and tunnels and failing to pay Port Authority administrative fees. 8
49. At all relevant times, the defendants JOHN DOE 1-100, and MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA, and CATHY WANG BICOFSKY operated the subject motor vehicles with the permission and consent ofthe defendant CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. 50. At the relevant times, the defendants CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC., MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA, CATHY WANG BICOFSKY and JOHN DOE 1-100 maintained the aforementioned motor vehicles. 51. At the relevant times, the defendants CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC., MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA, CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, and JOHN DOE 1-100 controlled the aforementioned motor vehicles. 52. Defendants owed a duty to the Port Authority to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, rules, and orders of every governmental agency having jurisdiction over the exclusive E-ZPass lanes or the activities or uses to be conducted on the exclusive E-ZPass lanes, including without limitation, those relating to payment of tolls, safety, transportation, and criminal activity. 53. Moreover, defendants had a continuing duty and obligation to the Port Authority to pay tolls for the use ofthe Port Authority's facilities and applicable administrative fees. 54. Defendants failed to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the performance of these duties and responsibilities by failing to pay tolls for the use ofthe Port Authority's facilities and failing to pay applicable administrative fees. 9
55. Because of defendants' breach of their duties, the Port Authority was repeatedly not paid for the use ofits facilities by defendants' motor vehicles. 56. Defendants knew or should have known that their failure to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in their operation of their motor vehicles at the exclusive E-ZPass lanes would result in harm to the Port Authority. 57. In addition, defendants knew or should have known that their failure to exercise ordinary and reasonable care by failing to pay tolls, and failing to act in compliance with applicable laws would result in harm to the Port Authority. 58. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of defendants, the Port Authority has incurred and will incur the following damages: WHEREFORE, the Port Authority demands judgment against defendants for damages as follows: a. Administrative fees due from nonpayment of tolls in the amount of $148,807.00 or such greater amount as may be due upon the proofs at trial. b. Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount greater than the obligations that would otherwise be due to the Port Authority in the circumstances if defendants had assumed the obligations ofan E-ZPass account holder so that the wrongful conduct ofthe defendants will be penalized and deterred. c. Attorney's fees. d. Costs ofsuit. e. Interest. f. Such other legal and equitable relief as may be proper in the circumstances. 10
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. (Breach of Contract) 59. The Port Authority restates and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-58 as if fully set forth herein. 60. At all relevant times, CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. entered into an E- ZPass Business Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement") with the Port Authority and/or another member of the 24 agencies that comprise of the E-ZPass Group and each such agency including the Port Authority, was an intended third party beneficiary ofsaid Agreement. 61. This Agreement was in effect at all relevant times. 62. The Port Authority and/or another member of the E-ZPass Group has performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required ofthe Agreement. 63. CARDELLA TRUCKll\lG CO., INC. breached its continuing obligations under the Agreement by failing to comply with Section (1)( d) of the Agreement, which specifically states, "You will comply with all applicable traffic laws, regulations, signs and signals, and the direction oftoll collectors and law enforcement officers." 64. By reason of the ongoing and continued conduct of operators of CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. in repeatedly evading tolls at the Port Authority's bridges and tunnels, CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. has repeatedly breached its agreement with the Port Authority and/or another member ofthe E-ZPass Group. 65. CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC.'s failure to comply with all applicable traffic laws, regulations, signs and signals, and the directions of toll collectors and law enforcement officers, as required by the Agreement also constitutes an ongoing and continued breach ofthe Agreement. 11
66. As a direct and proximate result of CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC.'s breach of its continuing obligations under the Agreement, the Port Authority has suffered expenses, losses, and damages, as set forth above. 67. Moreover, pursuant to Section 6 of the Agreement, the Port Authority is entitled to up to $50.00 (per occurrence) in administrative fees for tag misuse and/or failure to pay the proper tolls. 68. As CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. failed to pay the proper tolls on 5,953 occasions, the Port Authority is entitled to $148,807.00 in administrative fees. WHEREFORE, the Port Authority demands judgment against CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. for damages as follows: a. Administrative fees due from nonpayment of tolls in the amount of $148,807.00 or such greater amount as may be due upon the proofs at trial. b. Attorney's fees. c. Costs of suit. d. Interest. e. Such other legal and equitable relief as may be proper in the circumstances. AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC., MICHAEL CARDELLA. DAVID CARDELLA. JOSEPH CARDELLA. CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA, CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, AND JOHN DOE 1-100 (Trespass) 69. The Port Authority restates and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-68 as if fully set forth herein. 12
70. The Port Authority is the owner of the facilities utilized by CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC., MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA, CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, and JOHN DOE 1-100 in each ofthe 5,953 violations referred to in this Complaint. 71. Defendants' motor vehicles have been operated with its permission and consent on numerous occasions on the toll road facilities of the Port Authority without paying the requisite tolls and defendants are fully responsible for those actions and conduct. 72. The ongoing and continued uses of the Port Authority's toll road facilities by defendants' motor vehicles without paying the requisite tolls or administrative fees constitutes multiple trespasses upon the property ofthe Port Authority without its permission, in violation of lawful regulations. 73. These trespasses were committed for purposes of evading the payment of tolls on each such occasion, and each of the toll evasions was committed for the purpose and with the intent of avoiding CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC.'s obligations as an E-ZPass account holder. 74. The ongoing and continued failure to pay the requisite tolls also imposes liability on defendants for obligations to pay outstanding tolls and administrative fees, for each evasion, as well as attorney's fees incurred by the Port Authority for the collection oftolls. 75. Due to the wrongful conduct ofcardella TRUCKING CO., INC., MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA, CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, and JOHN DOE 1-100, the Port Authority has been required to pursue CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC., MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA, CATHY 13
WANG BICOFSKY, and JOHN DOE 1-100 for their wrongful and evasive conduct in order to attempt to recover delinquent toll monies due and owing to the Port Authority. 76. The ongoing and continued actions undertaken by the Port Authority due to the intentional and wrongful conduct of CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC., MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA, CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, and JOHN DOE 1-100 has caused substantial damage to the Port Authority and has resulted in the accrual of $148,807.00 in administrative fees together with reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the Port Authority. WHEREFORE, the Port Authority demands judgment against defendants for damages as follows: a. Administrative fees due from nonpayment of tolls in the amount of $148,807.00 or such greater amount as may be due upon the proofs at trial. b. Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount greater than the obligations that would otherwise be due to the Port Authority in the circumstances if defendants had assumed the obligations of an E-ZPass account holder so that the wrongful conduct ofthe defendants will be penalized and deterred. c. Attorney's fees. d. Costs ofsuit. e. Interest. f. Such other legal and equitable relief as may be proper in the circumstances. 14
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC., MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA, CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, AND JOHN DOE 1-100 (Unjust Enrichment) 77. The Port Authority restates and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-76 as if fully set forth herein. 78. Through the actions constituting the avoidance of tolls and E-ZPass obligations, CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC., MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA, CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, and JOHN DOE 1-100 have received a benefit equal to $148,807.00, this amount being the amount of fees not paid to the Port Authority for the use of its facilities. 79. Through its ongoing and continued breach of the E-ZPass agreement, CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC., MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA, CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, and JOHN DOE 1-100 have unjustly benefited and have incurred and are liable for administrative fees charged to account holders for failure to maintain account balances sufficient to pay tolls when due. The approximate amount of these administrative fees is $148,807.00 and CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC., MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA, CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, and JOHN DOE 1-100 have avoided the payment of these amounts and thereby received a benefit of equal value. 80. Defendants, CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC., MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA, CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, and JOHN DOE 1-100, retained such benefits under 15
circumstances that make it inequitable and an unjust enrichment for them to retain those benefits and have been unjustly enriched at the expense ofthe Port Authority. WHEREFORE, the Port Authority demands judgment against defendants for damages as follows: a. Administrative fees due from nonpayment of tolls in the amount of $148,807.00 or such greater amount as may be due upon the proofs at trial. b. Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount greater than the obligations that would otherwise be due to the Port Authority in the circumstances if defendants had assumed the obligations of an E-ZPass account holder so that the wrongful conduct ofthe defendants will be penalized and deterred. c. Attorney's fees. d. Costs of suit. e. Interest. f. Such other legal and equitable relief as may be proper in the circumstances. AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC., MICHAEL CARDELLA, DA YID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA. CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA. CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, AND JOHN DOE 1-100 (Fraud) 81. The Port Authority restates and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-80 as if fully set forth herein. 82. Through the repeated and intentional use of exclusive E-ZPass lanes, as alleged, the defendants have engaged in a prolonged course of conduct constituting a fraud against the Port Authority. 16
83. Signage providing notice that exclusive E-ZPass lanes are available only for E- ZPass account holders is presented at each of the Port Authority's bridges and tunnels and it is clear and evident to motorists using these facilities that the exclusive E-ZPass lanes are intended only as a means of paying the requisite toll electronically through a valid E-ZPass account in good standing. 84. The drivers of defendants' motor vehicles knew that they were operating vehicles on approximately 5,953 occasions in a manner intended to evade tolls and other obligations as alleged in this Complaint by the unlawful use of exclusive E-ZPass lanes and did so with the full intention of evading the tolls due. 85. Defendants through the actions described in the foregoing paragraphs are fully responsible for the conduct of the drivers oftheir motor vehicles in these circumstances. 86. Additional notice that exclusive E-ZPass lanes are available only for E-ZPass account holders was provided by the 11,906 citations mailed to CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. as a result of the 5,953 times that exclusive E-ZPass lanes were improperly utilized by defendants' motor vehicles. 87. Despite knowledge and notice of the improper use of exclusive E-ZPass lanes on each of the 5,953 occasions referred to in this Complaint defendants' motor vehicles continued to be operated through exclusive E-ZPass lanes as if they had the benefit of an ZPass account in good standing. 88. Such operation was intentional and intended to present the motor vehicles at the Port Authority's toll barriers as one entitled to utilize exclusive E-ZPass lanes for the payment ofthe tolls due for the use of the Port Authority's facilities. 17
89. The Port Authority is entitled by statute (N.J.S.A.32:2-25) to utilize its police force to arrest toll evaders on sight and without warrant; and, it could institute other steps to stop and confront E-ZPass toll evaders. but has withheld such actions for safety reasons and so as not to unreasonably interfere with legitimate E-ZPass users nor deprive the public of the numerous benefits ofthe system. 90. The Port Authority was deprived of its toll revenues through the actions of defendants described in the foregoing paragraphs. 91. The Port Authority was deprived ofthe benefits ofthe proper use of its E-ZPass toll facilities and its E-ZPass toll agreement through the actions described in the foregoing paragraphs. 92. Through the actions described in the foregoing paragraphs, defendants sought to wrongfully obtain the benefits of the use of exclusive E-ZPass lanes while avoiding tolls and other obligations. 93. Through defendants' actions in choosing exclusive E-ZPass lanes instead of manned toll booths where toll monies are required to be paid for use of the Port Authority'S interstate bridges and tunnels, and further through utilizing exclusive E-ZPass lanes as a means of absconding without paying the tolls, defendants have committed theft of transportation services through fraud I. WHEREFORE, the Port Authority demands judgment against defendants for damages as follows: NJ.S.A. 2c:20-8a. A person is guilty oftheft ifhe purposely obtains services which he knows are available only for compensation, by deception or threat, or by false token, slug, or other means, including but not limited to mechanical or electronic devices or through fraudulent statements, to avoid payment for the service. "Services" include... transportation,..., or other public service; accommodations in hotels, restaurants or elsewhere; entertainment; admission to exhibitions; use of vehicles or other movable property. Where compensation is ordinarily paid immediately upon the rendering of such service, as in the case of hotels and restaurants, absconding without payment or offer to pay gives rise to a presumption that the service was obtained by deception as to intention to pay. 18
a. Administrative fees due from nonpayment of tolls in the amount of $148,807.00 or such greater amount as may be due upon the proofs at trial. b. Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount greater than the obligations that would otherwise be due to the Port Authority in the circumstances if defendants had assumed the obligations of an E-ZPass account holder so that the wrongful conduct of the defendants will be penalized and deterred. c. Attorney's fees. d. Costs of suit. e. Interest. f. Such other legal and equitable relief as may be proper in the circumstances. AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST MICHAEL CARDELLA. DAVID CARDELLA. JOSEPH CARDELLA. CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA. CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, AND JOHN DOE 1-100 (New Jersey RICO) 94. The Port Authority restates and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-93 as iffully set forth herein. 95. That to date, insufficient payments for administrative fees have been made to the Port Authority by any of the defendants mentioned herein. 96. Defendants MICHAEL CARDELLA, DA VID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA, CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, and JOHN DOE 1-100, through the use oftheir enterprise CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC., knowingly and intentionally engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity for the purpose of enriching themselves in violation ofnj. Stat. 2C:41-1. et seq. 97. Between January 2, 2001 and through at least December 30, 2011, MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE 19
CARDELLA, CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, and JOHN DOE 1-100, through the use of their enterprise CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC., knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly committed theft of transportation services (see paragraph 93) in violation of N.J. Stat. 2C:4I-1. et seq. 98. This illegal racketeering activity enabled the aforementioned defendants to enrich themselves by increasing CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC.'s profits. 99. Defendants MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA, CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, and JOHN DOE 1-100, through the use of their enterprise CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC., knowingly and intentionally defrauded the Port Authority and illegally enriched themselves by deceiving the public, customers, and associates. 100. Defendants MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA, CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, and JOHN DOE 1-100 engaged in illegal racketeering activity to defraud the public, customers, associates, and others, including the Port Authority by knowingly and intentionally operating trucking deliveries and pick-ups in violation ofn.j.s.a. 2c:20-8a. 101. These illegal activities were performed by the aforesaid defendants multiple times at multiple locations, including but not limited to the George Washington Bridge, the Lincoln Tunnel, the Holland Tunnel, the Bayonne Bridge, the Outerbridge Crossing and the Goethals Bridge. 102. Each instance of these activities constitutes a distinct criminal violation which, when combined, forms a pattern of illegal racketeering in violation of N.J. Stat. 2C:4I-1. et seq. 20
103. These illegal racketeering activities caused the Port Authority to lose $148,807.00 in administrative fee revenue. as follows: WHEREFORE, the Port Authority demands judgment against defendants for damages a. Administrative fees due from nonpayment of tolls in the amount of $148,807.00 or such greater amount as may be due upon the proofs at trial. b. Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount greater than the obligations that would otherwise be due to the Port Authority in the circumstances if defendants had assumed the obligations of an E-ZPass account holder so that the wrongful conduct ofthe defendants will be penalized and deterred. c. An award oftreble damages pursuantto N.J. Stat. 2C:41-1. et seq. d. Attorney's fees. e. Costs of suit. f. Interest. g. Such other legal and equitable relief as may be proper in the circumstances. AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA, CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, AND JOHN DOE 1-100 (Conspiracy to Commit a Tort) 104. The Port Authority restates and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-103 as if fully set forth herein. 105. That to date, no payments have been made to the Port Authority by any of the defendants mentioned herein. 106. Defendants MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA, CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, 21
and JOHN DOE 1-100, through their enterprise CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC., conspired to commit theft of transportation services from the Port Authority. This illegal activity resulted in the aforesaid loss oftoll revenue sustained by the Port Authority. 107. Defendants MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA, CA THY WANG BICOFSKY, and JOHN DOE 1-100 conspired to defraud the public, customers, associates, and others, including the Port Authority, by knowingly and intentionally operating trucking deliveries and pick-ups in violation ofn.j.s.a. 2c:20-8a. 108. The aforesaid conspiracies to commit fraud enabled defendants to operate between the States of New York and New Jersey without paying the Port Authority $148,807.00 in administrative charges. WHEREFORE, the Port Authority demands judgment against defendants for damages as follows: a. Administrative fees due from nonpayment of tolls in the amount of $148,807.00 or such greater amount as may be due upon the proofs at trial. b. Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount greater than the obligations that would otherwise be due to the Port Authority in the circumstances if defendants had assumed the obligations of an E-ZPass account holder so that the wrongful conduct of the defendants will be penalized and deterred. c. Attorney's fees. d. Costs of suit. e. Interest. f. Such other legal and equitable relief as may be proper in the circumstances. 22
AS AND FOR A EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA. AND CATHY WANG BICOFSKY (piercing the Corporate Veil) 109. The Port Authority restates and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-108 as if fully set forth herein. 110. That at all relevant times, defendant, CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC., was a corporation specializing in transportation, waste management and trucking services. 111. That at all relevant times, defendants, MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA and CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, owned or controlled CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. 112. That at all relevant times, defendants, MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA and CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, were the president, vice president or principal operators of CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. and conducted and managed its day-to-day operations. 113. Defendants, MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA and CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, were fully aware of and authorized the conduct undertaken in carrying out the dayto-day operations of CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC., including the ongoing and continued evasion of the payment of tolls on the Port Authority's bridges and tunnels by operators of vehicles owned by or used by CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. 114. Defendants, MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA and CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, undercapitalized CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC., in an effort to defraud the Port Authority and other creditors. 23
lls. Defendants, MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA and CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, abused the corporate form to further their personal interests. 116. Defendants, MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA and CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, used CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC., to enter into contracts with third parties with the intent to avoid performance by use of the corporate identity as a shield against personal liability, and used the corporate identity as a subterfuge for illegal acts. 117. Defendants, MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA and CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, used CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC., to defeat the ends ofjustice, as justice would have required CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. to pay tolls that were repeatedly incurred by it in using the Port Authority'S bridges and tunnels 118. Injustice will occur if the Port Authority, a public agency is not allowed to recover its toll revenue, due and owing to it, in that such money will not be able to be used for public projects. 119. The above-referenced conduct of MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA and CATHY WANG BICOFSKY shows a level of control over CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. such that this corporation was a mere instrumentality, or alter ego, of the individual defendants. 120. The Port Authority reasonably anticipates that discovery will reveal that MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, 24
MICHELE CARDELLA and CATHY WANG BICOFSKY: (i) disregarded corporate formalities in their operation of CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC.; (ii) failed to maintain adequate corporate records with regard to the operation of CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC.; (iii) undercapitalized CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC.; and/or (iv) transferred assets from CARDELLA TRUCKING CO., INC. to a different company. 121. Accordingly, it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil and impose liability on MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA and CATHY WANG BICOFSKY. WHEREFORE, the Port Authority demands judgment against MICHAEL CARDELLA, DA VID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA and CATHY WANG BICOFSKY for damages as follows: a. Administrative fees due from nonpayment of tolls in the amount of $148,807.00 or such greater amount as may be due upon the proofs at trial. b. Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount greater than the obligations that would otherwise be due to the Port Authority in the circumstances if MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA and CATHY WANG BICOFSKY had assumed the obligations of an E-ZPass account holder so that the wrongful conduct of MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA and CATHY WANG BICOFSKY will be penalized and deterred. 25
", c. Piercing the corporate veil and imposing liability on MICHAEL CARDELLA, DAVID CARDELLA, JOSEPH CARDELLA, CHRIS CARDELLA, MICHELE CARDELLA and CATHY WANG BICOFSKY, as an individuals. d. Attorney's fees. e. Costs ofsuit. f. Interest. g. Such other legal and equitable relief as may be proper in the circumstances. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY The Port Authority demands trial by jury as to all issues involved herein. DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL Pursuant to R.4:25-4, David Kromm, Esq. is hereby designated Trial Counsel of this matter. MARGARET TAYLOR FnNUCANE Attorneys for Plaintiff THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY BYhl)~ David Kromm, Esq. Dated: February 29, 2012 26
RULE 4:5-1 CERTIFICATION To the best of my knowledge, at this time this matter is not the subject of any other action pending in any court or a pending arbitration proceeding, and no other action or arbitration is contemplated except as may be required to seek redress for continuing violations beyond the last violation referred to in this Complaint. Upon information and belief, there are no other persons, which need to be joined in this action at this time. The name of the defendant JOHN DOE 1-100 is fictitious and is intended to represent one or more drivers of the registered motor vehicle or vehicles of the named defendants. This action has been brought with the most current information available on the toll violations of the defendants at the Port Authority's facilities but should those violations continue past the date of the last violation cited in this Complaint, the Port Authority reserves its rights to pursue relief for such violations against the present defendants and such new defendants as may be held answerable for such violations as such continuing violations are beyond the control ofthe Port Authority but entirely within the control of the defendant violators. MARGARET TAYLOR FINUCANE Attorneys for Plaintiff THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY BY:~Ow\V~ David Kromm, Esq. Dated: February 29, 2012 27