A Bayonne property owner is suing the city, alleging that the building department is utilizing an illegal fee system where they tried to make him pay as much as $28,000 for a Temporary Continued Certificate of Occupancy (TCCO).
37 East 15th St. in Bayonne. Photo via Google Maps.
By John Heinis/Hudson County View
The five-count amended lawsuit, filed in Hudson County Superior Court on September 14th by Perrault Jean-Paul and his company, Syntax Services LLC, against the City of Bayonne says he has owned 37 East 15th St. since August 4th, 2017.
“On or about June 2025, the Property passed all four final City inspections — electrical, plumbing, building, and fire. The City has never issued a Certificate of Occupancy for the Property. In communications with the City’s Building Department, Perrault Jean-Paul has been advised that the City does not issue a Certificate of Occupancy,” the court filing contends, also noting the property has remained vacant this entire time.
“The City’s stated policy accordingly charges the recurring monthly TCCO fee until the occurrence of a condition — issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy — that the City, by its own account, does not perform. As structured and administered by the City, the recurring monthly charge has no attainable endpoint.”
Jean-Paul is technically representing himself, though Syntax is represented by Mount Laurel-based attorney Licardo Giwa.
The suit claims the TCCO fees began to be assessed on a monthly basis from late April 2017, and as a result, Jean-Paul owes the city some amount between approximately $11,000 and $28,000 in fees.
However, the exact amount is unclear since the fee has been listed inconsistently, between $100 a month and $250 a month, with a relevant Open Public Records Act (OPRA) Jean-Paul submitted to the city still not fulfilled as of the litigation’s filing date.
“Perrault Jean-Paul disputed the TCCO fees in writing to the Bayonne Corporation Counsel by letter dated July 12, 2019, noting that the Property was vacant and unoccupied; that he had never requested a TCCO; that no provision of the New Jersey Uniform Construction Code (N.J.A.C. 5:23) mandates a TCCO for a vacant building; and that no City ordinance authorizes or mandates a recurring ‘TCCO,’” the lawsuit asserts.
“Perrault Jean-Paul sent a follow-up letter to the Bayonne Corporation Counsel on August 1, 2019, again requesting identification of the legal authority for the mandatory TCCO fee. The City never provided a substantive response and never identified a valid ordinance authorizing the fee.”
Further, Jean-Paul says, through the suit, that said he inquired to the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs’ Office of Regulatory Affairs about Bayonne’s TCCO practice, to which they said only legal action could dispute a local ordinance.
They also allegedly said that a TCCO is “not related to the N.J. Uniform Construction Code.”
“The City’s ordinances do not authorize a recurring monthly ‘TCCO’ fee. Ordinance 35-4.7 governs certificates of occupancy and authorizes only a discretionary Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (‘TCO’) where a portion of a building is safe for occupancy and the owner seeks to occupy it while work continues — a provision inapplicable to a vacant, unoccupied building where no occupancy is sought,” the lawsuit also alleges.
“The term ‘Temporary Continued Certificate of Occupancy’ does not appear in the City’s zoning or construction ordinances.”
Further, the court filing proclaims that the TCCO fee is applied to other property owners on the same monthly basis over many years, therefore, plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the complaint, “including to assert class allegations” after obtaining records via discovery.
Overall, the suit contends illegal extraction, unjust enrichment, that the city received monies it was not entitled to receive, unauthorized municipal extraction, and a lack of identified authority.
As a result, the plaintiffs are seeking a full accounting of the TCCO fees recorded at 37 East 15th St., awarding restitution for all TCCO fees paid, vacating and discharging any outstanding TCCO fees, declaring that the city lacked authority to assess or collect TCCO fees, costs of suit, and any other relief the court deems just and equitable.
City spokesman Joe Ryan did not return an email seeking comment, though the city typically does not comment on pending litigation.
