NFI’s Brown, others move to dismiss criminal indictment in redevelopment case

The motion to dismiss the case raised the same argument that Norcross’ attorneys made in brief remarks when he and others were arraigned in June: There is nothing criminal in the hardball dealings among Norcross, his allies and Dranoff. (Brown was not arraigned that day; his arraignment and not guilty plea came in August.)

While Norcross is regularly described as a “kingmaker” or “power broker” in South Jersey Democratic politics, he has never held public office.

‘Routine politics’

“This is supposedly a story of extortion — but there’s no violence or unlawful threats; only ordinary economic bargaining among sophisticated businessmen,” the motion to dismiss said. “It is pitched as a tale of official misconduct — but there are no bribes, kickbacks, or even conflicts of interest; only routine politics.”

Brown comes up only in passing in the civil suit filed this month in Superior Court for Camden County, New Jersey, where the city of Camden is located. He is not a named defendant in the civil case brought by three plaintiffs: Victor Urban Renewal Group, Dranoff Properties and Carl Dranoff.

Dranoff Properties is identified in the criminal indictment by name, but Carl Dranoff is referred to in the criminal action brought by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin only as Developer 1.

There are 10 unidentified “John Does” listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. There also are three ABC Corporations that also are defendants. in the civil suit. Adding in John Does and ABC Corporations as defendants leaves open the opportunity to add defendants later, but a source close to the case said neither are a sign that Brown or NFI are defendants in waiting. 

While the basic outline of the charges in the civil suit mirrors much of what is in the criminal indictment, the action by Dranoff and the affiliated companies does reveal some aspects of the case that had not been presented in the earlier indictment:

• The identity of Dranoff. The indictment refers to “the developer” as the person targeted by Norcross and others “who held Camden waterfront property rights necessary for the Norcross Enterprise to build the Triad1828 Centre, the tallest building on the Camden waterfront.” But the developer’s name is not revealed in the indictment. Triad1828 is where truckload carrier NFI has its headquarters. The “Norcross Enterprise” is the term the criminal indictment uses repeatedly to describe George Norcross and the other persons indicted, including Brown. 
• The lawsuit describes Dranoff as a Philadelphia resident who is “an experienced and successful real-estate developer, who has developed and owns many properties.”
• Wiretaps appear to be the key source of information on conversations between Norcross and others, including Dranoff. But according to the civil suit, not only Norcross did not know he was being recorded; neither did Dranoff. And that means that the quotes in the criminal indictment attributed to Brown were on recordings that presumably nobody knew were ongoing.
• The indictment itself refers to the FBI visiting Norcross to discuss the growing controversies over the Camden development as early as August 2016, giving some indication of the time span of the investigation that culminated in the June 2024 indictment.
• Dranoff’s companies that owned the development rights were the plaintiffs in the lawsuit: Victor Urban Renewal Group, Victor Associates and Dranoff Properties.
• The irony of Norcross being a New Jersey powerbroker in South New Jersey Democrat politics is that according to the lawsuit, his legal residence is Palm Beach, Florida.
• What Dranoff lays out in his civil suit is mostly a reflection of what is in the criminal indictment. That is not surprising: Both target Norcross and his allies, including not only Brown but Norcross’ brother Phillip and former Camden Mayor Dana Redd.

The case boils down to several key points: New Jersey in 2013 approved tax credits that would be generated with development in economically disadvantaged areas, like Camden. Dranoff had rights to some of these credits because of earlier investments made in the city. Norcross and his allies wanted a piece of them. Those allies included Brown, who was brought in as a developer on some of those Dranoff-controlled properties. Eventually Dranoff buckled under the pressure from the Norcross-aligned group, including Brown, and sold the development rights as well as other interests in Camden. 

One of the recipients of the tax credits has been NFI, which moved its headquarters into a Camden office tower that carries with it the benefit of those credits approved by New Jersey.

Dranoff’s lawsuit says the actions of Norcross and his allies “drove a skilled and well-intentioned competitor out of the region. He succeeded in making an example of Dranoff, fending off anyone who would look to enter [Camden] and possibly take on Norcross and his network. It was the final flex of brute power, cementing George Norcross’ seemingly impregnable position in the firmament of Camden.”

That the encounters between Dranoff and Norcross’ group were several years in the past is noted quickly in the Norcross/Brown move for dismissal of the criminal charges. “The story line is stale, with nothing of consequence happening in almost a decade,” the filing says.

It also notes that U.S. attorneys in New Jersey and Philadelphia “chose to pass on this story years ago, even when it was fresher. Simply put, this is a crime thriller with no crime.”

In the filing requesting the original criminal indictment be dismissed, Brown’s attorneys are listed as the Gibbons P.C. law firm based in Newark, New Jersey. The lawyers identified in the filing from Gibbons representing Brown are Lawrence S. Lustberg, Noel L. Hillman and Anne M. Collart.

More articles by John Kingston

Trimble’s transportation offerings focus on connectivity after big ELD deal

Per diem rate for expense payments to truckers sees big jump for fiscal 2025

RXO gets support from S&P after 2 big stock sales to fund Coyote acquisition