Posted by Ali Aljaludi.

In late 2023 and early 2024, a proposed adult use cannabis dispensary and lounge at 475 Greenwich Street in Manhattan became the subject of significant community opposition and zoning scrutiny. The building is a mixed use condominium located in Tribeca, with residential units above a limited number of commercial spaces. According to Tribeca Citizen, neighbors organized a petition and appeared before Manhattan Community Board 1 to oppose the application, citing the site’s proximity to a daycare, preschools, Hudson River Park, and other child centered uses. The proposal was required to appear before the Community Board as part of the cannabis licensing and land use review process, which must occur before final determinations are made by state regulators and before any zoning or building approvals can realistically proceed (Tribeca Citizen).

This dispute highlights the continued role of zoning and land use law in shaping development outcomes even after cannabis retail was legalized in New York. While cannabis dispensaries are lawful under state statute, they remain a regulated land use subject to siting requirements, distance buffers, and compatibility analysis. As reported by Cannabis Business Times, New York regulators have struggled with dispensary location guidance, particularly regarding distance requirements from schools and other sensitive uses. In fact, errors in location measurements led to more than one hundred dispensaries statewide being flagged for potential noncompliance. This broader regulatory context underscores that zoning and land use considerations remain decisive factors in determining where cannabis businesses can realistically operate.

The proposed dispensary at 475 Greenwich Street raised these same issues at the local level. Because the building is a mixed use condominium, zoning analysis extended beyond whether retail use was generally permitted. The application first required review by the local Community Board, which serves as an advisory but critical gatekeeping body in the land use process. While Community Boards do not issue zoning approvals or licenses, their recommendations are considered by state regulators and often influence whether an application advances to zoning, building, and licensing stages. In this case, the Community Board review functioned as the initial forum where land use compatibility, infrastructure feasibility, and public safety concerns were evaluated.

I attended the Community Board hearing in February 2024 in my professional capacity as a representative of Taube Management Realty and on behalf of the 475 Greenwich Street Condominium. My role was to present building specific and zoning related concerns regarding the feasibility of the proposed cannabis dispensary and lounge within the existing structure. My testimony focused on the fact that the existing HVAC infrastructure serving the commercial unit was never designed to support a cannabis operation, particularly one involving on site consumption. Cannabis uses require significant odor and smoke mitigation through dedicated exhaust systems that must vent outside the building in a compliant manner.

I explained that upgrading the HVAC system to meet these requirements would require extensive structural modifications and extraordinary cost. More importantly, even if such upgrades were attempted, there was no viable location to discharge exhaust air at a safe and compliant distance from a nearby daycare and from areas where children regularly enter and exit the building. This created a direct conflict between building code requirements, cannabis operational standards, and land use compatibility rules. These were not subjective concerns about neighborhood character, but objective constraints tied to infrastructure, safety, and zoning feasibility. When the proposed tenant, their attorney, and their investors were unable to present a reasonable technical solution or counterargument, the Community Board effectively concluded that the proposal could not move forward.

This case demonstrates how zoning operates as more than a checklist of permitted uses. Zoning and land use law require that a proposed development be realistically capable of operating in a way that does not undermine surrounding uses or create unavoidable conflicts. Even though cannabis retail is legal in New York, that legality does not override building limitations, proximity to sensitive uses, or the realities of mixed use development. The 475 Greenwich Street proposal illustrates how zoning, infrastructure, and regulatory compliance intersect to act as a gatekeeper for development, particularly in dense urban environments like Manhattan.

Ultimately, this situation reflects the tension between state level legalization policies and neighborhood scale land use control. Community Boards, while advisory, play a critical procedural role by identifying zoning and feasibility issues before applications proceed further into the regulatory process. In this instance, zoning compatibility, HVAC limitations, and proximity to a daycare combined to render the proposed cannabis use impractical. This confirms that zoning law continues to shape real estate development outcomes even after a use becomes legal under state law.

Ali is a graduate student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Works Cited

Tribeca Citizen. “Fighting a Legal Cannabis Shop for Greenwich and Watts.” Tribeca Citizen, 30 Jan. 2024, https://tribecacitizen.com/2024/01/30/fighting-a-legal-cannabis-shop-for-greenwich-and-watts/ Links to an external site..

Cannabis Business Times. “New York Cannabis Regulators Messed Up Dispensary Location Guidance, 152 Stores Impacted.” Cannabis Business Times, 29 July 2025, https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/us-states/new-york/news/15751742/new-york-cannabis-regulators-messed-up-dispensary-location-guidance-152-stores-impacted Links to an external site.

Posted by Andrew Ejiofor.

A local developer has filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts Land Court challenging the City of Cambridge’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, which is part of the city’s zoning code. The ordinance requires that developers of new residential projects either include affordable units on-site or set aside a portion of the development for income-restricted housing. Under Cambridge’s policy, developers must allocate 20% of the floor space of qualifying projects to below-market-rate units or income-capped rents, a requirement the plaintiff argues is overly burdensome and illegal. The lawsuit, brought by Columbia St LLC, with representation by the Pioneer New England Legal Foundation, claims that this mandate unfairly singles out developers to shoulder the costs of addressing the city’s housing affordability crisis; a burden the plaintiff contends should be supported more broadly by the public or through other mechanisms.

The city has defended the ordinance as a legitimate tool to promote socioeconomic diversity and expand affordable housing in a market where housing costs are high. Cambridge points out that inclusionary zoning has been used for decades and is a model for other high-cost communities seeking to ensure that new development contributes to broader affordability goals. Supporters of the policy argue that without such requirements, it would be significantly harder for low- and moderate-income residents to gain access to housing in Cambridge’s competitive real estate market.

The Cambridge inclusionary zoning lawsuit highlights a persistent tension in land-use policy between public interest goals and private property rights. On one hand, cities like Cambridge face acute housing affordability challenges, and inclusionary zoning is a tool to ensure that new development doesn’t exclusively benefit wealthier households or investors. By requiring developers to provide a share of affordable units, the city attempts to align private profit incentives with broader social goals. Without such mandates, market forces alone are unlikely to produce housing accessible to lower-income residents in expensive urban areas. In my opinion, this approach reflects a principled and necessary attempt by local government to intervene in a market that has proven highly exclusionary and inequitable.

However, the legal challenge also raises valid questions about fairness and economic feasibility. Developers argue that high mandatory inclusionary requirements can make projects financially unviable or deter investment, potentially slowing the overall pace of housing production. This tension is especially present in markets like Cambridge where construction costs, land values, and regulatory hurdles are already high. If developers are unable to pencil deals because of steep affordability obligations, the result could reduce the total supply of housing, including affordable units, which would undermine the goal the policy seeks to achieve.

Ultimately, finding a balance that ensures robust housing production while meaningfully addressing affordability requires both proper policy design and constructive engagement among stakeholders. Relying solely on litigation as the mechanism for resolving disputes risks creating adversarial dynamics that can stall progress on pressing housing needs. A more collaborative process, like including phased requirements, targeted subsidies, or impact fee alternatives, might help cities like Cambridge preserve both development incentives and equitable access to housing.

Andrew is a graduate student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/12/5/cambridge-zoning-lawsuit

Posted by Carelythia Laguer.

A recent legal challenge to New York City’s “City of Yes for Housing Opportunity” zoning reform highlights the legal and political complexities of large-scale development policy. The proposal seeks to address the city’s housing shortage by increasing allowable density, encouraging office-to-residential conversions, and reducing parking requirements across many neighborhoods. While city officials argue the reform is necessary to increase housing supply and modernize outdated zoning laws, a coalition of community groups and elected officials has filed lawsuits claiming the city failed to properly comply with state environmental review laws. The challengers argue that the environmental analysis did not adequately consider cumulative impacts on infrastructure, neighborhood character, and public services, and that the public engagement process was insufficient.

In my opinion, this case reflects the ongoing tension between the urgent need for housing and the procedural safeguards built into land use law. New York City’s housing crisis is well documented, and zoning reform is one of the few tools capable of producing housing at scale. However, when reforms are implemented too broadly or too quickly, they can trigger legitimate concerns about whether environmental review and public input are being treated as formalities rather than meaningful steps in the process. The lawsuit suggests that even well-intentioned policies can lose public trust if stakeholders feel excluded or overlooked.

From a real estate development perspective, legal challenges like this often create uncertainty that can delay projects and discourage investment. Even if the city ultimately prevails in court, the time and cost associated with litigation can slow implementation and complicate underwriting assumptions for developers. At the same time, environmental review laws exist for a reason. Courts tend to scrutinize claims involving procedural compliance closely, especially when large-scale zoning changes could affect entire neighborhoods. In that sense, the legal challenge may force the city to strengthen its analysis and clarify mitigation strategies, which could improve the policy in the long run.

Overall, this situation highlights an important lesson for developers and policymakers alike. Growth-oriented zoning reform must be paired with transparency, thorough environmental review, and genuine public engagement. Treating these requirements as obstacles rather than safeguards can backfire and result in delays that undermine the very goal of increasing housing supply. As cities continue to pursue aggressive development strategies, cases like this will shape how future zoning reforms are structured and how developers assess legal risk before moving forward.

Carelythia is a graduate student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

https://queensledger.com/2025/04/10/over-100-officials-challenge-city-of-yes-zoning-reform

Posted by Adityaa Raju.

I came across a recent legal challenge involving a proposed data center development in Taylor, Texas, that highlights how complicated real estate and zoning issues can become when community interests clash with economic development. Blueprint Data Centers is planning a 135,000‑square‑foot facility near a major Samsung chip plant, but local residents especially in nearby historically Black and Latino neighborhoods have pushed back. They argue that the land was originally intended for park use, that city officials moved too quickly through the zoning process, and that the project could put extra strain on natural resources like water. A lawsuit was filed challenging the permits and zoning approvals, though a lower court dismissed it; the challengers are now appealing and pushing for more transparency and accountability from the city.

What stood out to me about this case is that it shows both sides of these kinds of disputes. On one hand, projects like data centers can bring jobs, investment, and economic growth to a region. For areas trying to attract industry and build tax bases, this kind of development can seem like a big opportunity. On the other hand, the residents’ concerns are very real. When a project is rushed through without clear communication or community involvement, people understandably worry about long‑term quality of life, environmental impacts, and whether their voices actually matter. It’s not just a legal issue it’s a community issue.

In my opinion, part of the problem comes down to how decisions are made and how much residents are included in those decisions. If city officials had engaged with the community earlier and shared more information about environmental studies or resource use, the residents might not feel like they have to go to court just to be heard. Legal challenges like this one aren’t about stopping progress they’re about making sure that progress is fair, sustainable, and respectful of the people who live nearby. To me, zoning and development need to be about more than just law and economics; they need to be about trust and justice too.

Adityaa is a graduate student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Article Link: https://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/data-center-taylor-samsung-21213023.php

Posted by Keira Smith.

A recent legal dispute in the New York metropolitan area highlights the ongoing tension between municipal zoning authority and real estate development. In October 2025, Heatherwood Communities, a real estate developer, filed a federal lawsuit against the Town of Hempstead on Long Island, seeking more than $160 million in damages. The lawsuit stems from the town’s decision to repeal its Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) zoning district, which had previously permitted higher-density, mixed-use development near LIRR stations. Heatherwood had planned a 309-unit residential and retail development near the Inwood station, relying on the TOD zoning framework that was in effect at the time of its planning and investment.

According to reporting by Long Island Business News, the Town of Hempstead initially adopted the TOD zoning to encourage growth near transit hubs, address housing shortages, and promote economic development. However, following community opposition and concerns about density, traffic, and procedural compliance, the town imposed zoning moratoriums and ultimately repealed the TOD district altogether. Heatherwood argues that this reversal was unlawful and effectively destroyed the value of its proposed project after significant financial commitments had already been made. After a series of legal battles in state court, the developer escalated the dispute to federal court, claiming that the town’s actions was an improper interference with vested development rights.

I feel, this case illustrates the importance of consistency and predictability in land-use regulation. While municipalities have the right and responsibility to respond to community concerns, reversing zoning policies after developers have reasonably relied on them undermines confidence in the planning process. Whereas transit-oriented developments are often promoted by governments as a solution to housing shortages and environmental concerns, and it is problematic when political pressure leads to policy reversals that contradict those intended goals. Developers need a stable regulatory environment to justify the financial risks associated with large-scale projects, especially those near transit infrastructure.

In addition, community opposition should not be dismissed. Residents do raise legitimate concerns about the strain on local infrastructure, environmental impacts, and changes to the neighborhood. However, these issues are best addressed through comprehensive planning, environmental review, and public engagement before zoning changes are adopted. These issues should not be raised after developers have relied on them. In this case, the conflict suggests that Hempstead’s planning process may have lacked sufficient foresight and clarity, resulting in costly litigation rather than collaborative problem-solving.

Ultimately, the Hempstead zoning dispute demonstrates how poorly managed land-use decisions can lead to prolonged legal challenges that harm both municipalities and developers. A more transparent and deliberate approach to zoning can be one that balances community input with long-term planning goals. An approach that could help prevent similar conflicts in the future and promote responsible development in high-demand regions like the New York metropolitan area.

Keira is a graduate student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Heatherwood seeks $160M from town in new federal lawsuit, Long Island Business News, October 24, 2025.
https://libn.com/2025/10/24/heatherwood-hempstead-zoning-lawsuit/ Links to an external site

Posted by Tristan Dixon.

Forensic accountants play a very important role in litigation by using their skills of extensive financial expertise with investigation skills to be able to serve as an expert on a specific case. Due to the lack of knowledge judges, juries, and sometimes attorney’s sometimes don’t have in financial knowledge its amazing to have a forensic accountant serve as an expert when needed to be able to breakdown complex financial situations and break it down into clear English for others who are not in that field understand. The role is more than just analysis, there are usually very detailed reports that are created, testimony for the explanation of financial issues and support to back up any conclusions drawn from the research.

These experts greatly strengthen legal strategies across different cases, including corporate disagreements, personal injury claims, and etc. By tracing financial activity and explaining economic impacts forensic accountants help either side to try and explain all financial matters in the case and clear as possible. They assist attorneys in discovery, deposition questions, and trial prep with all that being said that further assists what I had addressed before with the forensic accountant explaining the financials of the situation to help also come to an outcome in a trial.

Going past the courtroom the forensic accountant supports law enforcement, mediation by providing unbiased financial analysis. The ability to provide unbiased financial information makes them even more vital and enhances creditability to make sure both parties feel what is taking place is fair, Sometimes the analysis even can lead to settlements happening before trial. Overall the article is getting the point across of the importance of forensic accountants through the legal process in totality combining financial expertise with justice.

Tristan is a graduate student in accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

https://www.cpabr.com/article-analysis-testimony-forensic-accountant

Posted by Alexa Pennino.

This Fox News article covers the backlash that PwC received or how they decided to announce and handle their application process. PwC stands for PricewaterhouseCoopers which is one of the largest accounting firms in the world. They are known for their valuable and trustworthy services in the business world. This article goes into detail about the controversy surrounding the company as they released their invitation for college students to begin applying for jobs at this company. As the company tries to seek out excelling college students that would be a great match for their company, they encourage “any array of racial backgrounds to apply but leaves out Caucasian people and East Asians” (Fox Business).

It is clear that the company is favoring specific races over the others. According to PwC, their application process is “grounded in data and accountability, supports measurable progress and helps create an environment where everyone feels valued and empowered” (Fox Business). When this was released, Fox Business questioned them, and for a while they did not reply because clearly what they said raises a lot of questions. It is admirable that PwC wants to create more accessible opportunities for those of different races, but what does not quite make sense is how they fail to mention Caucasians and East Asians. After the Black Lives Matter riots that happened back in 2020, race based programs became very safe places for those who work at large corporations. These programs are the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Although these programs have been set in motion to help people, they are being questioned because now companies overcompensate for people who are of color, and they treat them differently than Caucasian or East Asian people.

As an accounting major, I am nervous to begin my career in an industry like this. Hearing about this only raises concerns because as they’re trying to do something that might benefit a certain group of people, they are also hurting another. Not only am I an accounting major, but I am also Mexican. If I were in this position right now, I would not want any handouts from anyone. I believe that companies should not ask your race or ethnicity, therefore everyone has a fair chance. Personally, I would not want any extra help from anyone to get a job. If I am going to get a job, I want it to be on my own merit and because I genuinely deserve it. Even though this process gives more people more opportunities, it also takes them away from other people. This article is extremely informative as it brings awareness to a massive issue in the business industry.

Alexa is an accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2028.

Posted by Damian Pan.

Apple has reached a settlement agreement to pay $95 million in response to a lawsuit alleging that its Siri voice assistant recorded private conversations without consent from its users. The lawsuit accused Apple of secretly gathering audio data through Siri, which was shared with third parties such as advertisers. Users were reportedly targeted with ads related to private topics, like medical treatments, conversations, and products they had mentioned. An Apple spokesperson told FOX Business, “Siri has been engineered to protect user privacy from the beginning. Siri data has never been used to build marketing profiles and it has never been sold to anyone for any purpose”. Despite denying any wrongdoing, Apple settled to avoid protracted litigation, asserting that it always strives to protect user privacy and does not use the data for marketing purposes.

The lawsuit covers Siri users from September 17, 2014, to December 31, 2024, and claims that Apple used users’ private conversations for third-party gain. Users affected may receive up to $20 per device, however Apple argues that this settlement is in both parties’ best interest. Apple maintained that no data was sold to third parties or used for marketing purposes. However, the settlement barely affects Apple as their revenue was $93 billion last year. This case highlights the growing concerns over the security of voice assistants and their users.

While this settlement seems like a resolution to the lawsuit, the larger issue of data privacy in technology is still a concern. The lawsuit is part of the many distresses that have arisen over how companies like Apple and Google handle user data. Apple’s settlement with the plaintiffs is relatively small compared to its earnings, however it sends a message about the responsibility these corporations have when it comes to user privacy. As a consumer, this case addresses the need for stronger regulations and clearer protection for individuals’ data.

Damian is a business administration major at Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2028.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/apple-pay-95-million-siri-spying-lawsuitLinks to an external site.

Posted by Sophia Miceli.

Chegg is an online learning platform that helps students with homework and tutoring and provides textbook rentals. Chegg is provided through Google, the most popular search engine in the world. On Monday, February 24th, Chegg filed suit in federal district court against Google. Chegg is claiming that AI summaries from Google search results are diminishing the platform’s revenue and success. Chegg “depends on referrals from Google’s monopoly search engine,” and as a result, a large portion of Chegg’s revenue stems from their original content. So, Google’s Open AI ChatGPT machines using Chegg’s content are causing Chegg to lose money as it is cutting into Chegg’s growth.

Chegg is currently worth less than $200 million and on Monday, the stock was trading only just above $1 per share. There is a reported 24% decline in this company with a $6.1 million net loss on the $143.5 million in fourth-quarter revenue. This is a lot less than what analysts expected for this company to have in revenue. Google abuses monopoly power by using other platforms’ content for the AI machine results without paying for the costs of the other platforms. Chegg is stating that this reduces financial incentives to continue to publish their original content as their content is being used without them gaining the revenue they deserve.

Chegg is engaging with Goldman Sachs to consider strategic options of “getting acquired and going private.” The lawsuit states that Google’s actions violate sections one and two of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. Google intends to defend itself against Chegg’s suit by stating that its intentions are to provide an excellent user experience and that its AI feature sends traffic to many sites. While I do think the technology of artificial intelligence is very impressive and beneficial, I do not think it should take over everything, steal other platforms’ original content, and run them out of business. This suit will determine the answers to the future of AI usage and fair compensation.

Sophia is an accounting major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2028.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/24/chegg-sues-google-for-hurting-traffic-as-it-considers-alternatives.html

Posted by John Martini.

On February 27, 2025, KPMG won a ruling in the Arizona Supreme Court granting them a license to operate a law firm within the state of Arizona. The decision was granted with the condition that KPMG doesn’t sell legal services to any of the firm’s audit clients. The firm is also prohibited from providing legal advice to clients outside of Arizona and will be reliant on co-counseling and referral relationships in order to service its clients outside of the state.

Within Arizona, KPMG will be able to wholly own a law firm subsidiary, making it the first Big Four firm to operate any such subsidiary, as it has previously been against both the law and business norms in most states for a law firm to be operated in a traditional corporate structure and owned by outside parties, who historically have been effectively barred from owning percentages of firms. However, outside the U.S., in countries such as the UK and Australia, Big Four firms have been engaged in providing legal services for some time.

KPMG Law will likely be focused on complementing its existing accounting and consulting services, as well as more economically complementing its in-house legal needs. It is perhaps because of this potential business synergy that KPMG’s Vice Chair for Tax, Rema Sefari, has said, “KPMG Law US is uniquely positioned to transform the delivery of legal services.”

My personal opinion is that this move paves the path for the legalization and normalization of outside ownership of law firms and the eventual death of perhaps our nation’s most prestigious profession. Though I did for some time believe that non-law firms would eventually find their way into the industry, I also previously believed it would be private equity firms spearheading this tragedy. While I personally have never had any aspiration to enter the legal profession, I now pity anyone who must enter it in these dark times. I do expect that if these events result in the trend which I fear, this country will soon see a significant cheapening of legal services, as well as their eventual outsourcing to developing economies, and with this, a corresponding drop in quality, as well as this nation’s capacity for intelligent lawmaking and legal interpretation.

John is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2027.

Link: https://chatgpt.com/c/67c35dc1-0aa8-800d-b418-dfc3a8e9d4ca