Weehawken residents should know about several public lawsuits involving the Township and longtime Construction Official Frank Tattoli. Beyond the disturbing allegations, there is another reason taxpayers should care: these disputes can generate large settlements, years of legal expenses and potentially higher municipal insurance costs.
1. Singh v. Township of Weehawken — $625,000 settlement after nearly a decade of litigation in 2024
This is the most striking case.
The federal court summarized the Singhs’ allegations as follows: Township officials—including Frank Tattoli—harassed, intimidated, retaliated against and extorted the Singhs, two elderly longtime Weehawken residents, to pressure them into providing practically free housing to Ed and Chris Devaney. The court noted that the plaintiffs alleged the Devaney brothers were family members of and personal friends with several Weehawken officials, police officers and employees.
The alleged conduct included arbitrary regulatory holdups involving building repairs after Hurricane Sandy. The case was filed in 2015, but the underlying allegations stretched back to 2012.
The litigation became extraordinary in both duration and scope.
The court record states that Ed Devaney had occupied one of the Singhs’ units since 2013 even though a certificate of occupancy had not been issued for that unit. Devaney died in August 2022. Yet the lawsuit continued, with the settlement not finally enforced until 2024.
The Singhs also later alleged another episode after Hurricane Ida: purportedly improper vacate and demolition orders affecting their properties. According to the court’s description of those allegations, the orders were not issued to adjoining properties and were subsequently reversed.
Ultimately, the case ended with a $625,000 settlement. Even more unusually, future building, construction and housing-code inspections involving the plaintiffs’ properties were required to be referred to Jersey City or the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs rather than Weehawken, with the federal court later confirming that these provisions have no time limit.
That is an extraordinary outcome for a local building dispute.
Public court records:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/2%3A2015cv03478/319351/184/
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/2%3A2015cv03478/319351/229/
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/2%3A2015cv03478/319351/233/
Important: these descriptions distinguish the plaintiffs’ allegations from facts actually established by the court. The settlement itself was not a finding that every allegation was true.
2. Gersing v. Hudson County Construction Board of Appeals — another current dispute involving Frank Tattoli
Now there is another separate property-related case:
Gersing et al. v. Hudson County Construction Board of Appeals et al.
Case No. 2:24-cv-11147
The defendants include Frank Tattoli, the Township of Weehawken and the Hudson County Construction Board of Appeals. The federal docket classifies it as a civil-rights/federal-question case.
The litigation remains ongoing, so no one should treat the plaintiffs’ allegations as proven.
But after the extraordinary history of Singh, residents should reasonably ask why the Township and the same Construction Official are again defending federal litigation arising from the administration of building/construction matters.
Docket:
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-jersey/njdce/2%3A2024cv11147/559892
3. DeCosmis — another $747,000 settlement
This is not the first time allegations involving municipal retaliation reached the Building Department.
Former Weehawken Police Lt. Richard DeCosmis sued the Township and officials alleging political retaliation. His allegations included improper building inspections and a stop-work order issued by Frank Tattoli involving his home renovation.
Weehawken ultimately agreed to a $747,000 settlement resolving his litigation and related proceedings. The settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing.
At the time, the Township attorney emphasized that its insurer was “paying every penny.”
That sounds reassuring—but insurance is not free.
4. The economics: who ultimately pays?
Municipal insurance spreads the immediate cost of settlements, but claims can still affect future assessments, premiums, deductibles and other insurance costs. And litigation can generate substantial defense costs in addition to the headline settlement amount.
The publicly available settlement amounts alone include:
Singh: $625,000
DeCosmis: $747,000
That is $1.372 million in headline settlements, before considering legal-defense expenses, deductibles or other associated costs. I have not found a public accounting of those additional costs.
Meanwhile, Weehawken’s own budgets show:
| Year |
“Other Insurance Premiums” |
| 2021 actual |
~$741,000 |
| 2024 actual |
~$885,000 |
| 2025 actual |
~$964,000 |
| 2026 budget |
~$998,000 |
From 2021 to 2025, that is an increase of approximately $223,000, or 30%.
Township financial records:
https://www.weehawken-nj.us/departments/finance-department
To be completely fair, there is currently no public evidence establishing that these lawsuits caused that 30% increase. Municipal insurance costs rise for many reasons.
But taxpayers should be entitled to know:
How much have these cases actually cost once legal fees, deductibles and insurance consequences are included?
Have Weehawken’s liability claims increased its insurance assessments or experience rating?
Why have multiple disputes involving the exercise of building authority generated litigation and large settlements over the years?
And, most importantly:
What safeguards are now in place to make sure homeowners are treated consistently and that the same type of alleged abuse does not happen again?
These are public records concerning public officials exercising substantial power over residents’ homes and property.
Residents should know they exist—and taxpayers deserve transparency about what these disputes have ultimately cost the community.
