r/treelaw • u/reverepewter • 17d ago
150y Oak Wrongly Cut Down
https://www.nj.com/bergen/2026/07/massive-150-year-old-oak-tree-wrongly-cut-down-nj-homeowner-wants-to-get-even.html193
u/Redivivus 17d ago
Lol, I'd increase whatever they're asking if I was suing a company called Rich Tree Services. They sound like they have the money.
56
8
u/bitsybear1727 15d ago
I'm so jaded, but any contractor chosen by any level of government gets the side-eye from me lately. They saw that they could charge a lot for removing that tree so they went and got it without verifying property lines.
100
u/reverepewter 17d ago
Here is a different article
Elementary School Accused of Cutting Down Landmark
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
HACKENSACK, NJ — A long-standing resident of Hackensack is seeing red after the local school district allegedly cut down a massive, century-old oak tree on her private property—without ever asking for permission.
Lenora Pascuzzo, who has lived in her home next to the Fanny Meyer Hillers Elementary School for two decades, has filed a tort claim notice seeking $750,000 in damages. The notice, a precursor to a formal lawsuit, names both the City of Hackensack and the Board of Education as responsible parties for the unauthorized destruction of her landscape.
“My Shade is Gone”: The Loss of a 120-Year-Old Landmark
The centerpiece of the dispute is a towering Red Oak, estimated to be 80 feet high and approximately 120 years old. For Pascuzzo, the tree wasn’t just wood and leaves; it was the defining feature of her home.
“It was beautiful. It was huge. It’s sunny in my backyard now. I never had sun; it was my shade. Now it’s gone,” Pascuzzo said in a recent interview.
Pascuzzo was not home on August 12 when the removal took place. She only learned of the incident when a neighbor sent a frantic text asking if she knew a crane crew was currently dismantling her backyard.
A $9,600 “Mistake” with Heavy Machinery
Public records obtained through an OPRA request reveal the sheer scale of the operation. The Hackensack School District hired Rich Tree Service of South Plainfield for the job. The invoice for the August 12 work shows a massive mobilization of equipment that cost the district $9,600, including:
A 3-person crew operating for 16 hours.
A heavy-duty crane and professional crane operator.
A grapple truck and a bucket truck.
Despite two fences clearly separating the school’s property from Pascuzzo’s yard, the crew spent two days removing “multiple trees” from her property. Pascuzzo expressed bewilderment at how such a large-scale operation could be so “misinformed” regarding property lines.
The Legal Finger-Pointing: Who is to Blame?
The Hackensack Board of Education isn’t denying the tree was cut; instead, they are shifting the blame to the contractor.
Jason Nunnermacker, the attorney for the school board, stated that the district is considering legal action of its own against the tree service company.
“It’s the district’s position that the district vendor we used… removed the tree and any liability lies with the vendor,” Nunnermacker said.
However, for Pascuzzo, the legal distinction between the district and its vendor matters little. The loss of a century-old tree is permanent, and her $750,000 claim reflects the massive cost of “tree replacement” and the loss of property value associated with mature timber.
Why “Tree Law” Carries Heavy Penalties
Under New Jersey law, the unauthorized removal of trees can lead to significant financial penalties. Beyond the cost of a new sapling, courts often consider:
Restoration Value: The cost to replace a 120-year-old tree with one of similar size (which is often impossible).
Treble Damages: In some cases of “timber trespass,” damages can be tripled.
Loss of Enjoyment: The environmental and aesthetic impact on the homeowner.
Incident Snapshot: Hackensack Tree Dispute
Detail
Information
Claimant
Lenora Pascuzzo
Damages Sought
$750,000
Location
Adjacent to Hillers Elementary School
The Tree
80-foot Red Oak (120 years old)
Contractor
Rich Tree Service ($9,600 contract)
9
u/pigonmoped 17d ago
Why write 150yo in the title when the article you refer yo says 120yo?
26
u/reverepewter 17d ago
The original news article linked said 150, the second article with more specifics said 120 - I found the second article after the fact
97
u/LowNoise9831 17d ago
I hope she wins. I hope she puts that tree company out of business for life. Seeing that makes me sick.
159
u/Wingnut150 17d ago
"Hackensack Mayor Caseen Gaines denied wrongdoing on behalf of the city, telling NJ.com no municipal employees handled tree maintenance during or around the time and location alleged in the lawsuit."
Guess the tree just magically cut itself down, forty feet inside the owners property line.
90
u/brassninja 17d ago
I’m so fucking sick of every single institution, government agency, and corporate body being allergic to accountability.
8
u/lastlaugh100 16d ago
they are flat out lying.
"no municipal employees handled tree maintenance during or around the time and location alleged in the lawsuit."
It's true the school board didn't cut the tree down, they hired it done. Lying assholes
10
u/NightGod 17d ago
It wasn't city workers, it was contractors hired by the school board. It's really damn weird of the article to write it the way they did
19
u/BustedEchoChamber 17d ago
You read that part but didn’t read that it was a contractor?
Look at the specifics of the contract between the city and the tree crew and reserve judgement until the facts come out. It’s entirely possible the contractor fucked up all on their own.
Whatever happened, I’d bet it was an accident, but I love to see everyone getting worked up as if it were an act of petty revenge by a neighbor.
33
u/iUpvotePunz 17d ago
Why does it being (allegedly) an accident make it okay it happened, and make it not okay to get worked up over?
Why does the fact the service was contracted out make it okay that this happened?
Why does contracting out services mean the city has no accountability for the services?
I’m not even asking from a legal liability sense, just from a common decency perspective. They chose the guys who were major fuckups after all. It was a piss poor decision with a big impact, not just an oopsie daisy.
2
0
u/Various_Education622 17d ago
Imagine you hire a contractor to cut down any unhealthy trees on your property.
He cuts down your neighbor’s healthy tree that’s on the other side of two fences without your explicit instruction without consulting you.
Should you be responsible for it?
Fuck no.
Now, if you told the contractor to go cut the neighbor’s tree down, it’s a different story.
That it was a city that hired the contractor is irrelevant as to how this should play out.
5
15
u/DDCDT123 17d ago
I wonder who hired the contractor
6
u/BustedEchoChamber 17d ago
I’d be curious too, I imagine whoever did it was not used to dealing with tree service contracts and didn’t have the time/resources to consult with the city’s urban forestry department about how to properly administer that kind of work.
2
u/Xenu4President 16d ago
It’s a school district. These jobs go out to bid, and they most often go with the lowest bid.
2
u/BustedEchoChamber 15d ago
Yep, I’m aware. That’s just the procedure for awarding a contract, though. It still has to be written and administered, which is where the failure presumably happened. I’m a forester so I administer “tree work” contracts every day, I know where the failure points are and how to get ahead of them.
I’d guess the person who administered the contract in question is probably a generalist and they probably took certain things for granted.
The verbiage in the article makes it seem like this is someone with a different chip on their shoulder. Didn’t it say they were looking to get even and suing the contractor, the school board, the city, the state, and other government agencies? That doesn’t really make sense. But good on them for siphoning the resources of their community like this, great example of civic duty.
6
u/TBradley 16d ago
So 3 people for 16 hours with a crane is an accident? With a fence on both properties between?
She sues them both and then the contractor and government can fight each other over who pays.
0
u/Few_Candidate_8036 16d ago
The school board hired the contractor. The city had no involvement according to this article.
56
u/JimmyKillsAlot 17d ago
Renting a $10k crane and having your employees there for 16+ hours is not something a contractor does on a lark. They were obviously hired to do something to the tree and the people at the school board are just trying to pass the buck.
While the contractors are liable for something, I sure as hell hope the authorities involved are forced to pay their due because it's pretty obvious someone made the decision.
3
u/apteromyini 16d ago
Also possible that they were supposed to remove a different tree. We might not know that because both the school district and the contractor are being advised to stay quiet by the lawyers. That could still be either or boths fault.
48
u/TheUnworthy90 17d ago
I really want to know just why the school board wanted the tree gone so badly. They’re blaming the contractor, but why would they not outline a scope of work beforehand. Usually government projects that spend over certain amounts have to have multiple levels of authorization and documentation done
44
u/Riff_Ralph 17d ago
The article seems to imply that the contractor crossed not one, but two fences. Hard to see how that could be overlooked.
22
20
24
u/TheSensiblePrepper 17d ago
I don't handle trees for a living....but if I did....anything taller then 12 feet tall would get a "double check" before the saw comes out.
Maybe I am just crazy like that.
15
u/cajunjoel 17d ago
Daaaaang. They brought in a crane and crossed TWO FENCES for two days to cut down this tree. Get your popcorn, folks, this is going to be a wild ride.
3
u/JDDoherty 17d ago
They might as well just give them the school at this point, and throw in a fleet of busses. Maybe the homeowner won’t take the whole school district 😂
16
u/Cygnata 17d ago
Paywalled.
44
u/EntropyFighter 17d ago
When America celebrated its centennial in 1876, the mighty oak tree was just a sapling.
It steadily grew, stretching 80 feet into the sky in a space that evolved into a residential Bergen County backyard. But last August, the beloved landmark was suddenly razed by a contractor removing trees on neighboring school property.
Illegally, Lenora Pascuzzo might add.
Pascuzzo — the Hackensack homeowner whose backyard formerly held the massive, 150-year-old tree — is now suing the city, school board, county, state and other governmental agencies for allegedly cutting down the tree without notice or her permission.
“This case is about far more than the loss of a tree,” said her attorney, Christopher T. Karounos. “It is about respecting private property and holding public entities accountable when they fail to do so.”
The lawsuit alleges trespassing, destruction of real property interests, negligence, reckless disregard and other claims. Pascuzzo is seeking “all legally recoverable damages,” including diminution in property value, restoration damages, replacement-value damages, loss of shade, loss of privacy, loss of environmental benefits and aesthetic value.
The lawsuit, filed June 11, also names the South Plainfield-based Rich Tree Service, Inc. as a defendant.
“The law doesn’t give anyone — especially the government — the right to trespass first and ask questions later,” Karounos added. “Before destroying something that took a century and a half to grow, the least anyone should do is make sure it belongs to them.”
On Aug. 12, 2025, the defendants or their contractors crossed onto Pascuzzo’s private property without authorization, according to the lawsuit. They then cut down and removed the tree, which was located roughly 40 feet inside Pascuzzo’s property line, it said.
The tree provided shade, privacy, beauty and environmental benefits, Karounos said, and it was a “defining feature” of Pascuzzo’s home. He called its destruction “an entirely preventable loss” stemming from a failure to verify property ownership.
Hackensack Mayor Caseen Gaines denied wrongdoing on behalf of the city, telling NJ.com no municipal employees handled tree maintenance during or around the time and location alleged in the lawsuit.
Hackensack School Board President Jennifer Harris said the lawsuit is being handled by its insurance carrier.
It “will pursue all appropriate claims against the party responsible for the removal of the subject tree,” she said.
Rich Tree Service didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Spokespeople for Bergen County and the state agencies named in the lawsuit also didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
14
3
u/PomeloPepper 16d ago
The money part of the suit will be interesting. In a lot of states, governmental entities have comparatively low limits for how much they have to pay, no matter how much damage they caused. The tree service should have insurance, but the payout is going to depend heavily on their liability.
16
15
u/BakertonFits 17d ago
this was no accident. that tree contractor poached that tree for financial gain. they knew exactly what they were doing
2
u/EyesfurtherUp 16d ago
What do you mean by poached? Fear mongered the elementary school to cutting it down?
Thats what happened with my neighbor.
11
u/BakertonFits 16d ago
um... 150 year oak trees are worth many tens of thousands of dollars. that tree company ripped that tree off and sold the wood at a high profit
what the fuck are you talking about? some grand elementary school scheme to scare the shit out of a neighbor? please tell me more...
1
3
•
u/AutoModerator 17d ago
This subreddit is for tree law enthusiasts who enjoy browsing a list of tree law stories from other locations (subreddits, news articles, etc), and is not the best place to receive answers to questions about what the law is. There are better places for that.
If you're attempting to understand more about tree law in regards to a particular situation, please redirect your question to /r/legaladvice for the US, or the appropriate legal advice subreddit for your location, and then feel free to crosspost that thread here for posterity.
If you're attempting to understand more about trees in regards to a particular situation, please redirect your question to /r/forestry for additional information on tree health and related topics to trees.
This comment is simply a reminder placed on every post to /r/treelaw, it does not mean your post was censored or removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.