Get Smart!
The Solomon Report Is Out: Why We Think That Maraziti is Wrong
June 11, 2026
Contrary to what some media reports suggested, Former Justice Solomon did not say Asbury Park cannot sue to take back the Casino. He said the City can sue if there are still unfulfilled construction obligations, and there are: $33.6 million worth of promised work that was never done.
Solomon actually found that Asbury Park can sue to take back the Casino. The confusion comes from how his opinion was reported and from one extra agreement the City later asked him to review.
_____________________________________
Here’s the full story:
In March of 2026, the City of Asbury Park hired Retired Justice Solomon from the law firm of Archer and Greiner to review the redevelopment documents and contracts, and determine if the City had the legal authority to take action and take back the boardwalk buildings. He delivered his opinion on June 10, 2026, which you can read on the City’s website here.
To understand his decision, you only need three documents:
- The 2002 Redeveloper Agreement with Asbury Partners (iStar)
- The 2006 Dispute Resolution Agreement (DRA)
- The 2010 Subsequent Developer Agreement with Madison Marquette
Attorney Tom De Seno - long-time Asbury Park advocate and supporter - submitted a nearly 900‑page brief and appendix, and Justice Solomon questioned Attorney De Seno for two hours on March 26. On April 23, Solomon issued a written opinion to the City.
First, Solomon agreed that the Casino and Power Plant are still governed by the 2002 contract with Asbury Partners, unlike Convention Hall, which is under the 2010 Madison Marquette contract. That means Asbury Partners is still the one responsible for redeveloping the Casino.
He then confirmed that, under the 2002 agreement, the City can sue Asbury Partners if they default on the Casino. The City’s options include:
- Buying back the Casino for what Asbury Partners paid: $1.5 million
- Going to court to force a fix
- Ending Asbury Partners’ rights in the Casino and taking other legal steps
So on the face of the 2002 contract, the City clearly has the power to sue and take the Casino back.
The City then delayed releasing his April 23 opinion. First they said they needed to make redactions so they wouldn’t “give away strategy,” even though the developer has the same contracts and laws. Then they delayed again, because they sent Solomon a third document: the 2006 Dispute Resolution Agreement (DRA).
The DRA was a 2006 settlement between the City and Asbury Partners. It required about $1.3 million in asbestos removal and minor repairs for the Casino, Carousel, and Power Plant, plus a major rehab of the 5th Avenue Pavilion. Solomon later issued a May 28 opinion on this DRA.
In that opinion, he said:
- The 2006 DRA covered only this $1.3 million in specific repair work.
- Most of that work was done, and any leftover odds and ends were folded into the 2010 Madison Marquette agreement.
Because that limited work is considered finished, the City cannot declare a default under the 2002 agreement for that $1.3 million of repairs alone.
But Solomon also made something very important clear: if there are any other Casino construction obligations from the 2002 agreement that were not included in the 2006 DRA, the City can still default the developer on those and use the 2002 agreement’s remedies.
He wrote, in substance: if any redevelopment obligations remain under the 2002 Casino agreement that were not listed in the 2006 DRA, then the 2002 contract still controls the remedies for default. In other words, anything beyond that $1.3 million is still fair game.
Solomon also said he was not going to investigate whether those extra obligations exist or whether the developer is in default on them. He stated that checking for remaining obligations or default was beyond the scope of what he was hired to do. The City only paid him to read the 2002 agreement, the 2010 agreement, and then, later, the 2006 DRA, all as written.
So we are left with the key question: did the 2002 contract ever get updated to include a specific construction plan and cost for the Casino? The answer is yes.
The 2002 contract itself says that the developer must have a professional firm prepare a full report on the Casino and Power Plant. That report must:
- Review the condition of each building
- Recommend rehab or partial demolition
- Provide the full cost of the work
- Include a detailed construction schedule
The City and the developer then have 120 days from receiving the report to agree on a schedule of renovations that the developer will carry out after closing.
In 2004, the developer did exactly that. Clarke Caton Hintz prepared a roughly 300‑page report with a detailed construction plan and cost estimate for the Casino. It set out about $33.6 million in repair and reconstruction work, including a new three‑story retail section and restoration of the building’s historic interior and exterior. The report itself says it was prepared to satisfy section 3.5 of the 2002 agreement, which means it became part of that contract.
Just 62 days after that report was issued, the Casino was sold to the developer, exactly as section 3.5 contemplated. The report’s construction schedule runs from 2004 to 2007. It is now roughly two decades later, and the developer has not performed that 33.6 million dollars of work on the Casino.
That $33.6 million in work is the “remaining redevelopment obligations” that Solomon said would still be governed by the 2002 agreement. He did not go looking for them, because he was not hired to do that; instead, he expressly left that question to the City and its advocates.
So, contrary to what some media reports suggested, Solomon did not say Asbury Park cannot sue to take back the Casino. He said the City can sue if there are still unfulfilled construction obligations under the 2002 agreement that were not wiped out by the 2006 DRA, and there are: $33.6 million worth of promised work that was never done.
That is the legal and factual basis for the City to sue, declare default, buy back the Casino for $1.5 million, and transfer it to a new developer who will finally restore it and return this piece of Asbury Park’s history to the community.