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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-0344-25 A-0345-25 AYANA MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PATERSON, Defendant-Respondent. JERRY LABOZZO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PATERSON, Defendant-Respondent. _________________________ Submitted October 7, 2026 – Decided October 27, 2026 Before Judges Currier and Marczyk. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Docket Nos. L-1298-25 and L-1299-25. Ameri Law Firm, attorneys for appellants (Nima Ameri, on the briefs). Rothstein Mandell Strohm Halm & Cipriani, attorneys for respondent (Michael S. Nagurka, on the briefs). PER CURIAM In these two matters, calendared back-to-back for the purpose of issuing a single opinion, plaintiff Jerry Labozzo appeals from the trial court's August 14, 2025 order directing defendant City of Paterson to comply with plaintiff's document request under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), N.J.S.A. 47:1A- 1 to -13, but denying his requests for a declaration defendant violated OPRA and for attorney's fees and civil penalties. Likewise, plaintiff Ayana Miller appeals from the trial court's August 14, 2025 order denying the same relief. We vacate the orders and remand for the reasons set forth in this opinion. I. A. In early January 2025, Labozzo submitted an OPRA request for correspondence regarding him exchanged between Paterson's former mayor, business administrator, and economic development director from January 2013 A-0344-25 2 through December 2017. The parties exchanged several communications to narrow the search terms in the OPRA request. After the parties agreed on the search terms, defendant did not respond to the request within the requisite statutory period, prompting Labozzo to file a complaint. 1 In June 2025, the trial court entered an order to show cause and subsequently held oral argument on August 14, 2025. On that date, the court ordered defendant to comply with Labozzo's OPRA requests within two weeks but denied his request for attorney's fees and the imposition of civil penalties. Less than a week later, Labozzo moved for leave to appeal, arguing the interest of justice warranted immediate review, seeking an order compelling production of the requested communications, and imposing sanctions on defendant. On September 29, 2025, we denied the motion. Labozzo then filed this plenary appeal. B. Miller's appeal arises from her December 2, 2024 OPRA request seeking video footage related to a November 2024 motor vehicle accident in which she sustained injuries. She alleges defendant did not respond. According to Miller, 1 Plaintiff initially filed the complaint in Bergen County, but the case was eventually transferred to Passaic County upon defendant's request. A-0344-25 3 she submitted a second request on February 6, 2025. Again, she claims defendant did not respond. Subsequently, on February 18, 2025, Miller filed a complaint claiming defendant was in violation of OPRA. 2 A week later, defendant sent Miller certain video footage with an expiring link, 3 but Miller stated the link was inaccessible, as a username and password were required. The court subsequently entered an order to show cause and scheduled a hearing. On August 14, 2025, the court heard oral argument. Defendant represented it sent Miller another link, which Miller's counsel acknowledged he was able to access. However, counsel advised the court the video defendant provided was not the correct one. The court concluded Miller's requests for "all footage" was overly vague and broad, making it difficult for defendant to identify and provide the specific video Miller sought. Accordingly, the court ordered defendant, "to the extent not already provided, [to] provide the body camera footage . . . related to the accident/incident dated November 19 [], 2024, within two . . . weeks of the entry of this order." (Emphasis in original.) Furthermore, the court denied Miller's request for a declaration defendant 2 This matter was also initially filed in Bergen but later transferred to Passaic County. 3 An expiring link is a web address that stops working after a certain period of time. A-0344-25 4 violated OPRA, and it also denied Miller's request for attorney's fees and civil penalties. Miller then moved for leave to file an interlocutory appeal, which we denied. Miller subsequently filed this plenary appeal. II. Plaintiffs generally advance the same arguments in support of their appeals. They argue the trial court erred by failing to enter an order finding defendant violated OPRA and by declining to award attorney's fees and imposing civil penalties. According to plaintiffs, the OPRA requests were sufficiently specific and defendant failed to comply, but the trial court improperly accepted defendant's explanation for its noncompliance. They further contend defendant never made a reasonable effort to comply with the OPRA requests, and instead of granting defendant additional time to produce the requested information, the court should have entered an order declaring defendant was in violation of the statute. Plaintiffs maintain defendant faced no consequences for failing to comply with their OPRA requests. 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 A-0344-25 5 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, recently 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 attorney's fees, but rather, make an award of fees discretionary unless the court determines the defendant "unreasonably denied access, acted in bad faith, or knowingly and willfully violated" OPRA.4 Ibid. See also Brennan v. Bergen Cty. Prosecutor's Off., 233 N.J. 330, 337 (2018) (noting a court must determine whether the records custodian violated OPRA and whether the party requesting the records is entitled to attorney's fees). 4 N.J.S.A. 47:1A-11 also provides for civil penalties when a public official "knowingly and willfully violate[s]" OPRA. A-0344-25 6 In rendering its oral decision, the trial court did not make adequate findings under Rule 1:7-4(a) as to whether defendant violated OPRA and whether plaintiffs were prevailing parties. The court also did not address whether plaintiffs were entitled to counsel fees or whether civil penalties were warranted. Accordingly, we are unable to discern the basis for the court's denial of plaintiffs' requests in the orders entered in these matters. 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 regarding whether plaintiffs were prevailing parties, as well as the issues of counsel fees and civil penalties. Vacated and remanded for further proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction. A-0344-25 7