A dispute over the denial of a street closure permit for a local festival has led to claims of racial discrimination against municipal officials, but the court found no evidence to support these allegations and upheld the city’s decision based on public safety considerations.
Philip Carrington, who owns and operates a business on Martin Luther King Drive in Jersey City, filed a complaint in Hudson County Superior Court on January 30, 2023, naming the City of Jersey City and William O’Donnell as defendants. Carrington alleged that his application to hold the “Chocolate City Caribbean Festival 2022” was unlawfully denied for discriminatory reasons.
According to court documents, Carrington applied in June 2022 for permission to close a section of Martin Luther King Drive from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on July 23, 2022, to host his festival. He claimed that city officials prevented him from holding the event due to “racial and ‘bias’ discrimination,” stating he believed it was because he is “a Black man from Barbados that repeatedly oppose[d] Mayor [Steven] Fulop[‘s] improper action of wrongfully disrupting his business over the years.” Carrington also alleged that the permit denial coincided with another parade organized by city officials on the same day.
Carrington’s lawsuit included claims under bias intimidation laws (N.J.S.A. 2C:16-1), the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -50), fraud, breach of contract, and conspiracy to violate civil rights under federal law (42 U.S.C. § 1981). The case proceeded to a four-day jury trial in January 2025 where Carrington represented himself and called both O’Donnell and Christine Goodman as witnesses.
During testimony, Carrington described receiving conflicting communications from city departments regarding his permit status. On July 13, he received an email indicating approval; however, days later he was informed by Goodman that Public Safety had denied his application as early as July 11. Despite this denial, Carrington received barricades and signage from the city before being ordered by police on July 23 to remove them when attempting to block off MLK Drive for his event.
Carrington stated only part of his festival could be held on private property rather than as a full street event, resulting in lower revenue than expected. He attributed this outcome directly to racial discrimination by city officials but admitted during cross-examination that these claims were “speculative” and conceded he did not present evidence quantifying damages suffered.
O’Donnell testified that public safety concerns motivated his decision not to approve closing MLK Drive for twelve hours due to its importance as an emergency vehicle route and bus corridor. He explained that closing this section could delay emergency response times and create significant traffic issues: “Our concern was if we clogged that area up with traffic, we would not be able to get sufficient resources… So that delay was our main concern.” O’Donnell stated he had never met or known any personal details about Carrington prior to denying the application.
Goodman clarified her department’s role as administrative only—receiving applications and circulating them among relevant departments—but emphasized Public Safety made final decisions regarding approvals or denials. She described an earlier email suggesting approval as an error promptly corrected once discovered.
After Carrington rested his case at trial, defendants moved for a directed verdict under Rule 4:37-2(b). The court granted this motion on January 27, 2025, finding there was “no evidence… from which a rational jury can disbelieve …O’Donnell’s explanation” or conclude any motivation other than public safety influenced decisions about the festival permit. The court also noted insufficient evidence linking any alleged errors or miscommunications by city staff with financial damages claimed by Carrington.
The court excluded comparison evidence about other events approved for different sections of MLK Drive because they involved shorter closures or different circumstances deemed irrelevant under New Jersey Rules of Evidence (N.J.R.E.) standards.
Carrington moved for reconsideration but was denied on March 20, 2025. On appeal before Judges Gilson and Vinci in the Appellate Division (Docket No. A-1951-24), Carrington argued procedural unfairness at trial—including claims he was pressured into framing his complaint around race discrimination—and challenged evidentiary rulings excluding reference events. The appellate panel reviewed all arguments de novo but affirmed the lower court’s findings: “plaintiff failed to offer any competent evidence from which a rational jury could conclude his application was denied based on race or any other type of ‘bias.'”
The opinion concluded there was no abuse of discretion in excluding certain evidence nor merit in remaining arguments raised by Carrington.
Philip Carrington represented himself throughout proceedings while Sarah Levine served as Corporation Counsel for Jersey City with Mailise Marks acting as Assistant Corporation Counsel on behalf of defendants City of Jersey City and William O’Donnell. The case is identified under Docket No. L-0398-23.
Source: A195124_Carrington_v_City_of_Jersey_City_Opinion_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
