Full Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0346-25 HOSSEIN AMERI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PATERSON, Defendant-Respondent. Submitted October 7, 2026 – Decided November 12, 2026 Before Judges Currier and Puglisi. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Docket No. L-1295-25. Ameri Law Firm, attorneys for appellant (Nima Ameri, on the brief). Rothstein, Mandell, Strohm, Halm & Cipriani, PA, attorneys for respondent (Michael S. Nagurka, on the brief). PER CURIAM Plaintiff Hossein Ameri appeals from an August 14, 2025 order denying his request for a declaration that defendant City of Paterson was in violation of the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13, and for attorneys' fees. We vacate the order and remand for the following reasons. Plaintiff served an initial OPRA request on defendant on February 5, 2025. Relevant to this appeal, 1 the request stated: Please send Jason M. Santarcangelo, Esq. contract and RFP as well as all ordinances and approvals for his position and defining roles, as well as any City document appointing authority or position to him. Include further all other candidates RFP's which were rejected in that RFP. Please include all requests of proposals and all resolutions referencing [him] in 2022 to present. According to plaintiff, defendant did not answer within seven business days, as required by N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(i)(1). On February 18, 2025, plaintiff filed an action in lieu of prerogative writs seeking an order requiring defendant to comply with the OPRA request, a declaratory judgment stating defendant failed to timely comply, and attorneys' fees. Seven days later, defendant 1 The request also sought "personal files, investigative reports and otherwise" for eight city inspectors. Plaintiff's brief does not address this section of the request. A-0346-25 2 responded to the OPRA request with a zip drive, which plaintiff purportedly could not access. In March 2025, the trial court entered an order to show cause. During the subsequent show cause hearing, defendant's counsel represented there was no hiring letter between the city and Sarcantangelo because Sarcantangelo was hired by the city's corporate counsel, not the city itself. Counsel confirmed plaintiff was provided with a copy of Sarcantangelo's job application from which he had been hired, but the city had no other responsive documents. Counsel stated he would provide an affidavit confirming there was no employment contract between the city and Sarcantangelo. The court then noted the forthcoming affidavit of completion should satisfy plaintiff's request. The court entered an order: requiring defendant to file an affidavit of completeness certifying the documents sent to plaintiff comprised the full record; denying plaintiff's request for a declaratory judgment defendant was in violation of OPRA; and denying plaintiff's request for sanctions and/or penalties. Following our denial of a motion for leave to appeal the order, plaintiff filed a plenary appeal. Plaintiff contends the trial court erred by failing to enter an order requiring defendant to fully comply with the OPRA request, refusing to rule defendant A-0346-25 3 violated OPRA, and denying plaintiff's request for sanctions and/or civil penalties. Pursuant to Rule 1:7-4(a), a "court shall, by an opinion or memorandum decision, either written or oral, find the facts and state its conclusions of law thereon . . . on every motion decided by a written order that is appealable as of right." "[J]udges are under a duty to make findings of fact and to state reasons in support of their conclusions." Heinl v. Heinl, 287 N.J. Super. 337, 347 (App. Div. 1996) (citing R. 1:7-4). "Meaningful appellate review is inhibited unless the judge sets forth the reasons for [their] opinion." Salch v. Salch, 240 N.J. Super. 441, 443 (App. Div. 1990). "Naked conclusions do not satisfy the purpose of R[ule] 1:7-4." Curtis v. Finneran, 83 N.J. 563, 570 (1980). N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6, amended effective September 2024, in pertinent part, provides: "The public agency shall have the burden of proving . . . the denial of access is authorized by law. If it is determined . . . access has been improperly denied, the court . . . shall order that access be allowed. A requestor who prevails in any proceeding may be entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee." The 2024 OPRA amendments no longer mandate an award of attorneys' fees, but rather, make an award of fees discretionary unless the court determines the defendant A-0346-25 4 "unreasonably denied access, acted in bad faith, or knowingly and willfully violated" OPRA.2 Ibid. The amendment also provides: If the records sought are produced by the public agency within seven business days of service of an action in Superior Court . . . the matter shall be dismissed without prejudice and the requestor may be entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee if the custodian knew or should have known that the denial of access violated [OPRA]. In rendering its oral decision, the trial court did not make adequate findings under Rule 1:7-4(a) as to whether defendant timely responded to plaintiff's request or if the delay was unreasonable, in bad faith, or a knowing and willful violation of OPRA. The court also did not address whether plaintiff was a prevailing party entitled to counsel fees or whether civil penalties were warranted. Accordingly, we are unable to discern the basis for the court's denial of plaintiff's requests in the orders entered in this matter. For these reasons, we are constrained to remand for further proceedings. On remand, the court shall make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing plaintiff's requests for relief. 2 N.J.S.A. 47:1A-11 also provides for civil penalties when a public official "knowingly and willfully violate[s]" OPRA. A-0346-25 5 Vacated and remanded for further proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction. A-0346-25 6