This is the independent WEB site for the Society Hill at Piscataway Condominium Association, located in Piscataway, NJ. This site is not sponsored, endorsed, or supported by the Association, the Board of Trutees, or the Managment Company. It is run by a member of the Board of Trustees.
Much of the content from the prior Association's WEB site has been moved here. However, since this site is not connected to the management systems, it no longer supports on-line service requests, reminders, on-line payments and account history, and owner/tenant/vehicle updating.
If you are looking for the Association's official new WEB site, they don't really have one - it's just a payment portal for the monthly fees.
2026 Election Update and Another Lawsuit by Kevin Wine, Mar 22, 2026, 12:43 AM, reply, branch, edit
I have been meaning to send an update for the last few weeks but have been dealing by more drama that started at the March 4, 2026 Special Meeting of the Board. The meeting only had about 8 homeowners in attendance, and the Board and Management were too busy sending updates about the weather and other random things that they didn't get around to confessing what they did at that meeting, and thus most of you have no idea what happened. This is going to be another long update. Sorry - but a lot has happened in the last 6 weeks.
The "2025 Election Litigation Update"
-------------------------------------
The day after my February 6th message, the Board decided to send it's own election litigation update, in which they essentially blame me for fact that we can't use electronic voting this year, and the additional cost of having to use an outside third-party election administrator. They screwed up, broke multiple laws, got caught, and of course it's all Kevin's fault. If you missed their propaganda, it's here:
https://www.savethehill.org/Legal/ElectionLitigationUpdate.pdf
The Board threw their former legal counsel, Susan Radom, squarely under the bus and deservedly so for this and many other reasons, claiming they were the innocent victims of her defective legal advice, which of course they followed blindly. I warned them repeatedly in early 2025 when former Trustee Tsacnaris and others were pushing to provide electronic voting, that the Bylaws do not currently authorize electronic voting, and an amendment was required. All they had to do was send out another one of their "rejection-proxy" Bylaw amendments and most likely it would have passed. But no, they decided not to listen to me again, and went ahead anyway. The Board has only themselves to blame for the loss of electronic voting this year.
They go on to cry about "the significant additional expenses" that have resulted from the election lawsuit, and can't resist spreading some insurance paranoia with "the Board is hopeful that this matter will not adversely impact the Association's insurance coverage or future insurance rates." The Board submitted a claim against their Directors and Officers policy, which defended them against their actions. The premium for that policy is small - around a few thousand a year - so any negative impact would be minimal, but that doesn't stop them from trying to scare everyone.
The entire election will have to be conducted by an outside third-part election administrator, which the Board selected at the March 4, 2026 Special Meeting. Their pervious propaganda implied that the cost would be at least $20k (see the February 10th, 2026 meeting agenda), but they ended up finding a law firm that was willing to administer the election for $7,500, plus copying and mailing costs. They have released a proposed election timeline, with the candidate nomination deadline set for late April. They wanted to schedule the "Meet the Candidates" event on the same day as the election mailing goes out in mid-May, but due to a schedule conflict with VP Mohiuddin Syed, it is likely this event will be moved a week sooner (!), which then creates another conflict with Trustee/Candidate Anthony Blanco. Traditionally, the Candidate's Night event has been held several days AFTER the election mailing goes out, so homeowners have time to receive the mailing and read the profiles.
They completely neglect to mention the other 13 violations of law that the Board committed in running the 2025 election, mainly the fact that they left one candidate entirely off the paper ballots, and that they didn't put the candidates in the correct alphabetical order by last name on both the paper and electronic ballots. They also didn't say that me and Trustee Anthony Blanco agreed to shorten our already shortened term and combine the 2026 elections where we are up for election, with the re-done 2025 election. If we didn't agree to do this, there would have been two elections this year instead of one! The rumor I hear circulation is that I have cost he Association $40k as a result of the election lawsuit. I have no idea where they are getting that number - the insurance claim deductible was $5k, and the third-party election administrator is $7.5k plus copying/mailing. All this could have been avoided if they just followed the rules, but instead they are still in denial, and now are lying to us about what really happened.
Voted off the Island
--------------------
After multiple threats over the last few months, I thought I was going to be the first board member that the current Board leadership was going to "vote off the island", but no, instead they turned their sights on Board member Vincent Marchitto, and sent him adrift. At the March 4, 2026 Special Meeting of the Board, President Matt Philips, Vice President Mohiuddin Syed, Treasurer Mark Kelsey, and Secretary Monna Wan voted to "suspend" trustee Marchitto from the Board after a verbal dispute between him and the property manager Sonia Danquah that occurred on February 26th. The dispute was over Trustee access to the "board only" portion of the management companies website. Trustee Marchitto was elected on November 5, 2025, and as of February 26, 2026 still didn't have access to the board only pages. The issue was finally resolved shortly after - it turned out there was either a miss-communication or lack-of-communication on the correct login username.
The Board lacks the legal authority to eject other board members from the Board, except in very limited circumstances, none of which applied here. Since the members of the Association are the ones that elect members to the Board, only the Association members are the ones allowed to remove members. The Board was advised of this by Mr. Marchitto's counsel two days prior to the removal, and I warned the Board again at the March 4th meeting, but they didn't listen and proceeded anyway.
In the following days, the Board showed no interest in correcting their error, and instead were trying to coerce Mr. Marchitto into accepting Alternative Dispute Resolution in the form of arbitration, with an arbitrator selected by the Board. Arbitration is typically binding, meaning that the decision of the arbitrator is the final word and cannot be appealed. So on March 19th, a lawsuit against the Association was filed for another blatant, intentional, and willful violation of the Association's governing documents. I had hoped the Board would have taken some lesson from the election lawsuit, but unfortunately they didn't.
The preliminary hearing was on Monday March 23rd. Both Mr. Marchitto and I are co-plaintiffs on the complaint since we have some common grievances relating to our treatment as trustees (access to documents, power to request special meetings, and agenda item requests), and I have "derivative claims" on behalf of me and all the other Association members that supported, voted for, and elected Mr. Marchitto to represent their interests on the Board, and now that member has been illegally removed. We had asked for "temporary restraints" to return Mr. Marchitto to the Board immediately, however the Court felt we didn't meet the threshold, but the Court did sign the order requiring the Board to explain to the Court on April 23rd why their actions should not be reversed and Mr. Marchitto returned to the Board. In the meantime, the Board has now requested ADR from us, which we are apparently required to honor, so some form of ADR will likely be taking place prior to April 23rd. It might be possible to come to an agreement, however if everyone was really "working in the best interests of the Association" as they like to claim, the Board would immediately fix what it did wrong and settle this without the need for any arbitration/mediation/litigation.
There were three attorneys at the zoom hearing - two from the Board's new law firm, Becker, and another from the insurance company who defended the Board in the prior election lawsuit. The Board now has a total of six (yes - I said SIX) attorneys involved in some form or another on this case. Trustee Anthony Blanco attended to observe, and Board President Matthew Phillips was there too, as a defendant. In the election lawsuit, I was "being nice" and intentionally did not individually name the four Board members that violated state statutes and our Bylaws. Trustees are well protected from personal liability for their actions a Board members, however those protections dissolve they they intentionally and willfully violate the law. After very publicly trying to blame me for wasting $40k with the election lawsuit, in the new lawsuit the four Board members responsible for violating the law have been named individually as defendants. Their violations are just so blatant and they have zero respect for the law, that a point needs to be made. The management company and the attorney were not named as defendants, although they probably should have been as it is very clear that they have a hand in the drama as well.
All these lawsuits are a matter of public record, so anyone can go and look them up and read. The docket number is MID-C-50-26. For everyone's convenience, here is a link to all the documents which we filed, if you want all the details:
https://www.savethehill.org/Legal/C-50-26/CaseSummary.pdf
https://www.savethehill.org/Legal/C-50-26/OrderToShowCause.pdf
The draft minutes of the March 4, 2026 Special Meeting of the Board are available here:
And here was the agenda for the March 4, 2026 meeting. They knew they were going to bring this up, but they didn't put it on the agenda, and instead added it to the agenda during the meeting. Incidentally, the Board has an internal policy in which "any matter involving the employment, promotion, discipline or dismissal of a specific officer, contractor or employee of the Association" is supposed to be kept confidential, so this really should have been handled in executive session. But in this case, it's fine to put everything on full display at a public meeting - they are exempt from their own rules.
https://www.savethehill.org/Board/Agendas/2026/Agenda_3-4-2026_SpecialMeeting.pdf
Past News Archives
Create a new topic.