42-Story Tower Plan Stalls After 14-Year Lawsuit Reopens
Developers and Jersey City officials face off in court over a disputed street vacation deed, halting the high-rise project near Journal Square.
By Sienna Foster ·

A proposed 42-story high-rise at 500 Summit Avenue in Jersey City has stalled again as developers and city officials head to court over a settlement from 14 years ago.
On October 8, 500 Summit Avenue Owner LLC filed a lawsuit against Jersey City in the Hudson County Superior Court. The LLC is based in the same offices as New York real estate firm Madison Realty Capital. The suit is linked to a preliminary site plan application filed in late 2025 by SP 500 Summit-Dev Co LLC, an affiliate of Jersey City developer Panepinto Properties.
The complaint alleges the city unlawfully withheld a physical deed of vacation for a portion of West Street. It states that the city council adopted an ordinance vacating part of the street in February 2018, but officials failed to sign and deliver the final deed required to record the title transfer.
In its response, the city argues that a 2020 settlement nullified the 2012 agreement and the 2018 ordinance. The city also claims the current developers lack standing because a 2023 bankruptcy and liquidation of the previous owner wiped out prior claims without transferring them in the deed. Additionally, the city contends the planning board application is defective because it relies on municipal property for setbacks, vehicle turning, and drainage without city consent.
Eugene Paolino, the attorney for SP 500 Summit-Dev Co, told the Jersey City Planning Board that the application has been carried more than eight times since it was filed in December 2025. At the board’s regular meeting on October 27, Paolino said the city filed a complaint on Friday, October 23, and presented arguments to Superior Court Judge David B. Katz that same day.
Paolino reported that Judge Katz indicated the board may not consider circulation and drainage on West Street as part of the application, but did not bar the board from reviewing it. The property on West Street is not part of the application, but the project requires a circulation feature on that road. The applicant filed a separate action to secure the vacation of West Street, which city council approved more than eight years ago.
Santo Alampi, the board’s attorney, recommended carrying the application to the regular meeting on December 8. This date is just a few days after the developer and the city are scheduled to appear before Judge Katz. The board concurred with Alampi and carried the application, despite Paolino saying he could not consent to the carry, even though he agreed with the logic.
Court filings show the 2012 settlement stemmed from a dispute between the city and Robinhood Plaza, the assemblage’s then-owner. Robinhood Plaza sued the city because the redevelopment plan adopted in 2010 left the developer with no development potential. The settlement allowed the building to rise 42 stories, adding 17 stories to the height restrictions at the time. In exchange, the developer agreed to deliver a one-acre park and public plaza between Summit and Baldwin Avenues.
The 2012 settlement required the city to vacate a portion of West Street. The current plaintiff alleges the city did not enforce this vacation. In 2018, after a subsequent lawsuit, the city passed an ordinance enacting the vacation but never executed the deed. The plaintiff claims it acquired title to the assemblage in 2024 as part of a bankruptcy proceeding related to a liquidation of 500 Summit Mazal LLC. The assets included rights to the West Street portion from the 2012 settlement.
The city argues that 500 Summit Mazal LLC, which acquired the property from Robinhood Plaza in 2016, did not transfer the rights to the West Street properties. In 2018, the city and 500 Summit Mazal went to court over redevelopment disputes before settling in 2020. The court order allegedly stated that all prior agreements, including the 2012 deal and the 2018 street vacation ordinance, were merged, waived, superseded, and replaced in total. The city’s attorneys have asked the court to declare the planning board application defective and bar the owner from developing the site ahead of the early December appearance.
Source: Jersey Digs · original report published
More News · Jersey City news · Report a business · Got a Story?






