Preview
MON-L-001120-23 09/28/2023 4:58:48 PM Pg 1 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20232973223
September 28, 2023
VIA ECOURTS
Honorable Mara Zazzali Hogan, J.S.C.
Monmouth County Superior Court
71 Monument Street
Freehold, New Jersey 07728
Re: Jones, et al. v. Cicalese, et al.
Docket No.: MON-L-1120-23
Your Honor:
This firm represents Plaintiffs Carrie Jones (“Jones”), Anthony Conover, Gary Herviou, Michael
Stanton, Scott Cassidy and Vincent Ashton (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) in the above-captioned matter. Please
accept this letter brief in lieu of a more formal memorandum in opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Quash
in Part Plaintiffs’ Discovery Demands. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs ask this Court to deny the
relief sought and to grant discovery into Defendants’ management of a consortium of cemetery companies.
There are factual and legal issues regarding Defendants’ seizure of control over these entities, including the
Ruffin Cemetery Company at issue here. Given the liberal discovery standard, this discovery should be had
to permit a fair and full adjudication on the merits.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Court should permit discovery into the issues germane to Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint. As set
forth in the Verified Complaint, Mr. Cicalese and the individual Co-Defendants have taken positions as
trustees in cemeteries across the State of New Jersey. These are not-for-profit entities. As also set forth in
the Verified Complaint, these entities have made extensive payments to for-profit entities that are owned or
controlled by the individual Defendants. This network of cemeteries, all controlled by a Board of Trustees
195 E. BERGEN PLACE, RED BANK, NEW JERSEY 07701/ T: 732-219-7711/ F: 732-219-7733/WWW.BYRNESOHERN.COM
MON-L-001120-23 09/28/2023 4:58:48 PM Pg 2 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20232973223
controlled by the individual Defendants, amounts to an enterprise operating within the State of New Jersey.
Indeed, there have been numerous transfers among these cemeteries that need to be explored and examined.
To be clear, these cemeteries are not run as isolated corporations. Instead, there appear to be numerous
instances of money flowing between the cemeteries and services being shared.
As an example, the 2019 form 990 for the The Machpelah Cemetery Association Inc. on Schedule R,
entitled Related Organizations and Unrelated Partnerships, lists seven of these cemeteries as being
related and includes 14 separate transactions among these cemeteries, including Ruffin Cemetery. See
Exhibit A to the Certification of Counsel (“Counsel Cert.”). As noted, Plaintiffs believe that these cemeteries
operate together as a single enterprise. Defendant Cicalese has argued and certified that he became involved
with Ruffin Cemetery out of a concern for its maintenance and upkeep. Plaintiffs suspect that the true
motivation was to add another cemetery to this enterprise. Plaintiffs also suspect that the for-profit entities
that have been paid millions of dollars by these cemeteries provide services in bulk to these cemeteries. Just
the overlap of Trustees among the cemeteries makes clear the close nexus among them. Accordingly,
discovery into these other cemeteries and transactions involving Ruffin Cemetery is certainly relevant.
This was a family cemetery until the Defendants hijacked it and made it one of the fourteen
“nonprofit” cemeteries run by a handful of “Trustees.” The claim that the Defendants’ involvement in this
cemetery emanated from a concern regarding its upkeep is laughable. By their own admission, since offering
to assist with the “maintenance” of the Cemetery, they have added 696 graves and hope to add 1,000 more.
No doubt Mr. Cicalese did not advise his proxies in 2003 that rather than fixing up the Cemetery, he intended
to make application to the State of New Jersey to sell bulk graves to out of State corporations, earning
revenue and squeezing remains into this small family cemetery. This Cemetery does not serve the local
community as a “public cemetery”; rather, it is a source of supply within the array of cemeteries operated by
these Defendants, including the thirteen or so “nonprofit” cemeteries controlled by these same Trustees.
The Plaintiffs have no access to the financial records of this so called “public cemetery,” but the 990s
filed by these Defendants for their network of cemeteries in New Jersey suggest that interest-bearing loans
produce a lot of income for the “lender” entities controlled by these “trustees”. Although the Verified
Complaint is filled with detailed assertions regarding the operation of these cemeteries and the for-profit
entities owned by the Defendants that benefit from these operations, the Defendants assiduously avoid any
response to these allegations. This Court should take notice that the 2018 990 filed for Ruffin shows total
liabilities of $27,956 at the beginning of the year, and $129,981 at the end of the year. The same 990 shows
a $12,000 loan from Mr. Cicalese and $13,457 in interest due and owing. See Exhibit B to the Counsel Cert.
These numbers alone should cause this Court to grant the discovery sought, so that there can be full
disclosure of this “nonprofit’s” finances. Therefore, the Plaintiffs request that the Court deny the Motion
for Protective Order so that discovery can be had into the financial relationship between these cemetery
companies.
This discovery would also shed light on the legal relationship between these cemetery companies and
the individual Defendants, which would also help Plaintiffs discover how the individual Defendants came to
control the purported Ruffin Cemetery Company and the Ruffin cemetery itself. Where the tax records
demonstrate that Defendants have a history of taking control of these cemetery companies, that history will
likely shed light on what happened here. Defendants’ financial ties to these cemetery companies will also
shed light on Defendants’ intent and management of the Ruffin cemetery. Where the tax records show
transactions connecting the Ruffin Cemetery to the individual Defendant Cicalese and these other cemetery
195 E. BERGEN PLACE, RED BANK, NEW JERSEY 07701/ T: 732-219-7711/ F: 732-219-7733/WWW.BYRNESOHERN.COM
MON-L-001120-23 09/28/2023 4:58:48 PM Pg 3 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20232973223
companies, the discovery into those transactions and other related cemetery companies should be had.
Therefore, the Motion should be denied.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiffs rely on the facts set forth in their Verified Complaint and in the Certification of Counsel
and attached affidavits annexed and incorporated hereto.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
Rule 4:10-2 provides that, unless otherwise limited by the Court, the scope of pre-trial discovery is
broad:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the
subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the
party seeking discovery or to the claim or the defense of any other party, including the
existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents,
electronically stored information, or other tangible things and the identity and location of
persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter.
R. 4:10-2(a).
The information sought need only be “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
Id. With Rule 4:10-2(a) providing the foundation of the scope of discovery, “there is substantial liberality in
the granting of discovery.” Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 1 on R. 4:10-2 (2022) (citing
Shanley & Fisher, P.C. v. Sisselman, 215 N.J. Super. 200, 215- 216 (App. Div. 1987) (reasserting liberality with
which discovery is ordinarily allowed)). Indeed, our discovery rules are liberally construed, favoring a litigant’s
rights to “broad pretrial discovery.” Payton v. N.J. Tpk. Auth., 148 N.J. 524, 539 (1997).
“By requiring disclosure of all relevant information, the discovery rules allow ultimate resolution of
disputed facts to be based on full and accurate understanding of true facts.” Bear, Stearns Funding, Inc. v.
Interface Group-Nevada, Inc., 2007 WL 4051179, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2007) (quoting 6 James Wm. Moore
et al., Moore's Federal Practice, § 26.02 (3d ed.2007))
Rule 4:10-3 permits a target of discovery to seek a protective order shielding him from discovery that
would result in “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” See also Kerr v. Able
Sanitary & Env. Services, Inc. 295 N.J. Super. 147, 155 fn4 (App. Div. 1996). The determination of what
discovery request is reasonable and relevant, and what constitutes an annoying, embarrassing, oppressive or
unduly burdensome request, must be measured by the trial court on a case-by-case basis. Berrie v. Berrie, 188
N.J. Super. 274, 278 (Ch. Div. 1983).
Relevancy under the Rules corresponds exactly to relevancy under N.J.R.E. 401, or a “tendency in
reason to prove or disprove any fact of consequence to the determination of the action.” See K.S. v.
ABC Professional Corp., 330 N.J. Super. 288, 291 (App. Div.), appeal denied 174 N.J. 411 (2000) (emphasis
added).
195 E. BERGEN PLACE, RED BANK, NEW JERSEY 07701/ T: 732-219-7711/ F: 732-219-7733/WWW.BYRNESOHERN.COM
MON-L-001120-23 09/28/2023 4:58:48 PM Pg 4 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20232973223
Here, the discovery sought is directly relevant to Defendants’ operation, management, and financial
entanglement with the Ruffin family cemetery. It is undisputed that Defendants do not own the property in
which they are currently burying bodies. The Ruffin family land passed to Marion Ruffin, who then devised
the land to her children in equal shares. Plaintiffs are several of the descendants of Marion Ruffin’s children.
The Ruffin family operated the Ruffin Cemetery for generations before New Jersey passed the Cemetery
Act.
The New Jersey Cemetery Board Law provides that “a cemetery company organized prior to
December 1, 1971 shall not continue to operate a cemetery unless the company has been issued a certificate
of authority by the board. The board shall grant the company a certificate of authority preserving any rights
and obligations of its charter subject to applicable law and regulations.” N.J.S.A. § 45:27-7(e). Marion Ruffin
applied for a certificate of authority to continue the Ruffin family’s operation of their cemetery in 1976. The
Board issued a Certificate of Authority to Marion Ruffin as the individual and sole owner of the Ruffin
Cemetery company in 1976. While Defendants now claim to be directors of the Ruffin Cemetery company,
they never received consent from Marion Ruffin’s children, who assumed ownership of the tract and control
of the company upon her death. Defendants have, in effect, converted the land for their own profit-seeking
purposes.
Even assuming, arguendo, that Defendants somehow lawfully seized control of the cemetery company
itself, Defendants have consistently and continually violated the rights of the company’s shareholders as
defined by the Cemetery Board Law. As provided by N.J.S.A. § 45:27-10(a), “each owner of a grave, crypt,
or niche shall be a member of the cemetery company and shall have one vote for each grave, crypt or niche
owned whenever voting by the members is required under the provisions of any law.” Moreover, the
“directors or trustees of a cemetery company shall hold an annual meeting and report at each annual meeting
on their activities and management[.]” N.J.S.A. § 45:27-10(b). The Defendants tout newspaper notices of
meetings as evidence of meetings, but provide no proof of actual meetings taking place – no minutes, no
resolutions, nothing. Plaintiffs do not have access to any minutes for meetings of the Trustees of Ruffin.
Aside from the initial election of Louis Cicalese, Plaintiffs are not aware of any further elections of officers,
including Mr. Cicalese. Under N. J. S. A. § 15A:5-4, notice of meetings shall be given not less than 10 to
more than 60 days before the date of the meeting, either personally or by mail to each member of record
entitled to vote at the meeting.
Here, Defendants have failed to do even the bare minimum required of cemetery company directors.
The majority of Ruffin family members have not consented to Defendants’ management, and the majority
of Ruffin family members have not consented to various profit-seeking transactions described in the Verified
Complaint. The combination of personal loans, accruing interest, and substantial compensation to
these trustees raises serious questions about how the Ruffin Cemetery company is being operated
as part of the constellation of nonprofit cemeteries controlled by these Defendants. There certainly
appear to be conflicts of interest that, heretofore, have not been disclosed to members of Ruffin.
Under New Jersey law, a contract or transaction between a nonprofit corporation and a trustee or
business entity in which a trustee is interested, shall not be void if it is disclosed and the board approve the
contract by unanimous written consent provided at least one trustee consenting is disinterested, or by
affirmative vote of a majority of disinterested trustees; or, the common interest is disclosed to members and
they approve of the contract. See N.J.S.A. § 15A:6-8. Direct CFO, LLC, upon information and belief owned
by Defendant David Jacobs, is paid to prepare tax returns for Ruffin Cemetery Corp. (“Ruffin”). There have
195 E. BERGEN PLACE, RED BANK, NEW JERSEY 07701/ T: 732-219-7711/ F: 732-219-7733/WWW.BYRNESOHERN.COM
MON-L-001120-23 09/28/2023 4:58:48 PM Pg 5 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20232973223
been transfers of money between Ruffin and other entities controlled by the Defendants. Mr. Cicalese is also
earning interest on a loan made to Ruffin. The Saucha Trust, for which Mr. Cicalese serves as Trustee, has
also made a loan of $40,000 to Ruffin according to the 990 Form for 2020. The members of Ruffin have no
idea what expenses have been paid by the Defendants for activities at Ruffin Cemetery.
Here, the members of Ruffin (Plaintiffs) were not advised and did not expect that the assets of the
corporation would be available and used by other corporations operated by the Defendants. The members
also did not agree or understand the companies controlled and/or owned by Mr. Cicalese and other trustees
would benefit from the activities of Ruffin Cemetery, and, upon information and belief, the Defendants have
not engaged in the proper votes of trustees or members to approve the related transactions.
Taken together, the lack of meetings for members, the transactions benefitting the individual
Defendants, the unlawful takeover of Ruffin Cemetery in the first place by Defendants, and the lack of any
ownership interest in the subject property all weigh heavily in favor of denying the Motion here. Plaintiffs
more than meet their burden of establishing the relevance of these financial records and other documents
related to the other cemetery companies controlled by these individual Defendants.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny the Motion. The Court should permit Plaintiffs
to discover the relationships between these related cemetery companies and the individual Defendants.
Respectfully submitted,
BYRNES O’HERN & HEUGLE, LLC
s/Sean F. Byrnes
SEAN F. BYRNES
195 E. BERGEN PLACE, RED BANK, NEW JERSEY 07701/ T: 732-219-7711/ F: 732-219-7733/WWW.BYRNESOHERN.COM
MON-L-001120-23 09/28/2023 4:58:48 PM Pg 1 of 39 Trans ID: LCV20232973223
BYRNES, O’HERN & HEUGLE, LLC
Sean F. Byrnes, Esq. (ID 032921992)
195 E. Bergen Place
Red Bank, New Jersey 07701
Telephone: (732) 219-7711
Facsimile: (732) 219-7733
Email: sbyrnes@byrnesohern.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CARRIE JONES, ANTHONY CONOVER, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
GARY HERVIOU, MICHAEL STANTON, CHANCERY DIVISION
SCOTT CASSIDY and VINCENT MONMOUTH COUNTY
ASHTON,
DOCKET NO.: MON-L-1120-23
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action
v.
CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL
LOUIS CICALESE, MICHAEL BARATTA,
DAVID JACOBS, and RUFFIN
CEMETERY, CORP.,
Defendants.
I, SEAN F. BYRNES, of full age, do hereby certify as follows:
1. I am a Partner of the law firm Byrnes, O’Hern & Heugle, LLC, attorneys for
Plaintiffs Carrie Jones, Anthony Conover, Gary Herviou, Michael Stanton, Scott Cassidy and
Vincent Ashton (“Plaintiffs”) in this matter.
2. I submit this Certification in Opposition to Defendants, Louis Cicalese, Michael
Barratta, David Jacobs and Ruffin Cemetery Corp.’s (“Defendants”) Motion to Quash in Part
Plaintiffs’ Discovery Demands.
3. Annexed hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof is a true and correct copy
of the 2019 IRS Form 990 The Macpelah Cemetery Association, Inc.
MON-L-001120-23 09/28/2023 4:58:48 PM Pg 2 of 39 Trans ID: LCV20232973223
4. Annexed hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof is a true and correct copy
of the 2018 IRS Form 990EZ for Ruffin Cemetery Corp. dba Pine Brook Cemetery.
5. Annexed hereto as Exhibit C and made a part hereof is a true and correct copy
of the unpublished opinion in the matter Bear, Stearns Funding, Inc. v. Interface Group-Nevada, Inc.,
2007 WL 4051179 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2007).
6. I hereby certify that the foregoing statements are true and if any of the
statements are found to be willfully false, then I am subject to punishment.
Date: September 28, 2023 BY: s/Sean F. Byrnes
SEAN F. BYRNES
MON-L-001120-23 09/28/2023 4:58:48 PM Pg 3 of 39 Trans ID: LCV20232973223
EXHIBIT
A
MON-L-001120-23 09/28/2023 4:58:48 PM Pg 4 of 39 Trans ID: LCV20232973223
9/28/23, 4:47 PM Machpelah Cemetary Assoc - Full Filing- Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica
efile Public Visual Render ObjectId: 202013519349300301 - Submission: 2020-12-15 TIN: 22-1083260
OMB No. 1545-0047
990 Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax
2019
Form
Under section 501(c), 527, or 4947(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code (except private foundations)
Do not enter social security numbers on this form as it may be made public.
Department of the Treasury Open to Public
Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.
Internal Revenue Service Inspection
A For the 2019 calendar year, or tax year beginning 08-01-2019 , and ending 07-31-2020
C Name of organization D Employer identification number
B Check if applicable:
The Machpelah Cemetery Association Inc
Address change
22-1083260
Name change
Initial return Doing business as
Final return/terminated
E Telephone number
Amended return Number and street (or P.O. box if mail is not delivered to street address) Room/suite
Application pending PO Box 8295
(732) 530-4045
City or town, state or province, country, and ZIP or foreign postal code
Red Bank, NJ 07701
G Gross receipts $ 450,120
F Name and address of principal officer: H(a) Is this a group return for
1
subordinates? Yes No
H(b) Are all subordinates
included? Yes No
I Tax-exempt status:
501(c)(3) 501(c) ( 13 ) (insert no.) 4947(a)(1) or 527 If "No," attach a list. (see instructions)
J Website: N/A H(c) Group exemption number
L Year of formation: 1931 M State of legal domicile: NJ
K Form of organization: Corporation Trust Association Other
Part I Summary
1 Briefly describe the organization’s mission or most significant activities:
Cemetery located at 5810 Tonnelle Avenue, North Bergen, NJ, serves many hundreds of families with their burial needs and provides a vital
service to the community.
2 Check this box
3 Number of voting members of the governing body (Part VI, line 1a) . . . . . . . . 3 5
4 Number of independent voting members of the governing body (Part VI, line 1b) . . . . . 4 0
5 Total number of individuals employed in calendar year 2019 (Part V, line 2a) . . . . . . 5 8
6 Total number of volunteers (estimate if necessary) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7a Total unrelated business revenue from Part VIII, column (C), line 12 . . . . . . . . 7a 0
b Net unrelated business taxable income from Form 990-T, line 39 . . . . . . . . . 7b
Prior Year Current Year
8 Contributions and grants (Part VIII, line 1h) . . . . . . . . . 0
9 Program service revenue (Part VIII, line 2g) . . . . . . . . . 17,487 199,802
10 Investment income (Part VIII, column (A), lines 3, 4, and 7d ) . . . . 0
11 Other revenue (Part VIII, column (A), lines 5, 6d, 8c, 9c, 10c, and 11e) 16,738 250,318
12 Total revenue—add lines 8 through 11 (must equal Part VIII, column (A), line 12) 34,225 450,120
13 Grants and similar amounts paid (Part IX, column (A), lines 1–3 ) . . . 0
14 Benefits paid to or for members (Part IX, column (A), line 4) . . . . . 0
15 Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits (Part IX, column (A), lines 5–10) 317,189
16a Professional fundraising fees (Part IX, column (A), line 11e) . . . . . 0
b Total fundraising expenses (Part IX, column (D), line 25) 0
17 Other expenses (Part IX, column (A), lines 11a–11d, 11f–24e) . . . . 73,651 292,468
18 Total expenses. Add lines 13–17 (must equal Part IX, column (A), line 25) 73,651 609,657
19 Revenue less expenses. Subtract line 18 from line 12 . . . . . . . -39,426 -159,537
Beginning of Current Year End of Year
20 Total assets (Part X, line 16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716,442 2,045,834
21 Total liabilities (Part X, line 26) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 784,980 2,277,953
22 Net assets or fund balances. Subtract line 21 from line 20 . . . . . -68,538 -232,119
Part II Signature Block
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return, including accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my
knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and complete. Declaration of preparer (other than officer) is based on all information of which preparer has
any knowledge.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/221083260/202013519349300301/full 1/25
MON-L-001120-23 09/28/2023 4:58:48 PM Pg 5 of 39 Trans ID: LCV20232973223
9/28/23, 4:47 PM Machpelah Cemetary Assoc - Full Filing- Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica
15 Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits (Part IX, column (A), lines 5–10) 317,189
16a Professional fundraising fees (Part IX, column (A), line 11e) . . . . . 0
b Total fundraising expenses (Part IX, column (D), line 25) 0
17 Other expenses (Part IX, column (A), lines 11a–11d, 11f–24e) . . . . 73,651 292,468
18 Total expenses. Add lines 13–17 (must equal Part IX, column (A), line 25) 73,651 609,657
19 Revenue less expenses. Subtract line 18 from line 12 . . . . . . . -39,426 -159,537
Beginning of Current Year End of Year
20 Total assets (Part X, line 16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716,442 2,045,834
21 Total liabilities (Part X, line 26) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 784,980 2,277,953
22 Net assets or fund balances. Subtract line 21 from line 20 . . . . . -68,538 -232,119
Part II Signature Block
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return, including accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my
knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and complete. Declaration of preparer (other than officer) is based on all information of which preparer has
any knowledge.
2020-12-07
Signature of officer Date
Sign
Here Louis Cicalese President
Type or print name and title
Print/Type preparer's name Preparer's signature Date PTIN
Check if P01887171
Paid self-employed
Preparer Firm's name CFO Direct LLC Firm's EIN 46-0581060
Use Only Firm's address 6130 Park Lane South 43 Phone no. (760) 500-9090
Park City, UT 840984233
May the IRS discuss this return with the preparer shown above? (see instructions) . . . . . . . . . . Yes No
For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the separate instructions. Cat. No. 11282Y Form 990 (2019)
Page 2
Form 990 (2019) Page 2
Part III Statement of Program Service Accomplishments
Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part III . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 Briefly describe the organization’s mission:
Cemetery located at 5810 Tonnelle Avenue, North Bergen, NJ, serves many hundreds of families with their burial needs and provides a vital service to
the community.
2 Did the organization undertake any significant program services during the year which were not listed on
the prior Form 990 or 990-EZ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes No
If "Yes," describe these new services on Schedule O.
3 Did the organization cease conducting, or make significant changes in how it conducts, any program
services? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes No
If "Yes," describe these changes on Schedule O.
4 Describe the organization’s program service accomplishments for each of its three largest program services, as measured by expenses.
Section 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations are required to report the amount of grants and allocations to others, the total expenses,
and revenue, if any, for each program service reported.
4a (Code: ) (Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )
Cemetery located at 5810 Tonnelle Avenue, North Bergen, NJ 07047, serves many hundreds of families with their burial needs and provides a vital service to the
community.
4b (Code: ) (Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/221083260/202013519349300301/full 2/25
MON-L-001120-23 09/28/2023 4:58:48 PM Pg 6 of 39 Trans ID: LCV20232973223
9/28/23, 4:47 PM Machpelah Cemetary Assoc - Full Filing- Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica
4a (Code: ) (Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )
Cemetery located at 5810 Tonnelle Avenue, North Bergen, NJ 07047, serves many hundreds of families with their burial needs and provides a vital service to the
community.
4b (Code: ) (Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )
4c (Code: ) (Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )
4d Other program services (Describe in Schedule O.)
(Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ )
4e Total program service expenses
Form 990 (2019)
Page 3
Form 990 (2019) Page 3
Part IV Checklist of Required Schedules
Yes No
1 Is the organization described in section 501(c)(3) or 4947(a)(1) (other than a private foundation)? If "Yes," complete No
Schedule A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 Is the organization required to complete Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors (see instructions)? . . . 2 No
3 Did the organization engage in direct or indirect political campaign activities on behalf of or in opposition to candidates No
for public office? If "Yes," complete Schedule C, Part I . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4 Section 501(c)(3) organizations. Did the organization engage in lobbying activities, or have a section 501(h)
election in effect during the tax year? If "Yes," complete Schedule C, Part II . . . . . . . . . 4
5 Is the organization a section 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), or 501(c)(6) organization that receives membership dues,
assessments, or similar amounts as defined in Revenue Procedure 98-19? If "Yes," complete Schedule C, Part III . .
5 No
6 Did the organization maintain any donor advised funds or any similar funds or accounts for which donors have the right
to provide advice on the distribution or investment of amounts in such funds or accounts? If "Yes," complete
No
Schedule D,Part I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7 Did the organization receive or hold a conservation easement, including easements to preserve open space,
7 No
the environment, historic land areas, or historic structures? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part II . . . .
8 Did the organization maintain collections of works of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets? If "Yes," 8 No
complete Schedule D, Part III . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9 Did the organization report an amount in Part X, line 21 for escrow or custodial account liability; serve as a custodian
for amounts not listed in Part X; or provide credit counseling, debt management, credit repair, or debt negotiation
9 No
services? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 Did the organization, directly or through a related organization, hold assets in temporarily restricted endowments, 10 Yes
permanent endowments, or quasi endowments? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part V . . . . . .
11 If the organization’s answer to any of the following questions is "Yes," then complete Schedule D, Parts VI, VII, VIII, IX,
or X as applicable.
a Did the organization report an amount for land, buildings, and equipment in Part X, line 10? If "Yes," complete
11a Yes
Schedule D, Part VI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b Did the organization report an amount for investments—other securities in Part X, line 12 that is 5% or more of its total
11b No
assets reported in Part X, line 16? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part VII . . . . . . .
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/221083260/202013519349300301/full 3/25
MON-L-001120-23 09/28/2023 4:58:48 PM Pg 7 of 39 Trans ID: LCV20232973223
9/28/23, 4:47 PM Machpelah Cemetary Assoc - Full Filing- Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica
7 Did the organization receive or hold a conservation easement, including easements to preserve open space,
7 No
the environment, historic land areas, or historic structures? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part II . . . .
8 Did the organization maintain collections of works of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets? If "Yes," 8 No
complete Schedule D, Part III . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9 Did the organization report an amount in Part X, line 21 for escrow or custodial account liability; serve as a custodian
for amounts not listed in Part X; or provide credit counseling, debt management, credit repair, or debt negotiation
9 No
services? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 Did the organization, directly or through a related organization, hold assets in temporarily restricted endowments, 10 Yes
permanent endowments, or quasi endowments? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part V . . . . . .
11 If the organization’s answer to any of the following questions is "Yes," then complete Schedule D, Parts VI, VII, VIII, IX,
or X as applicable.
a Did the organization report an amount for land, buildings, and equipment in Part X, line 10? If "Yes," complet
Preview
MON-L-001120-23 09/28/2023 4:58:48 PM Pg 1 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20232973223 September 28, 2023 VIA ECOURTS Honorable Mara Zazzali Hogan, J.S.C. Monmouth County Superior Court 71 Monument Street Freehold, New Jersey 07728 Re: Jones, et al. v. Cicalese, et al. Docket No.: MON-L-1120-23 Your Honor: This firm represents Plaintiffs Carrie Jones (“Jones”), Anthony Conover, Gary Herviou, Michael Stanton, Scott Cassidy and Vincent Ashton (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) in the above-captioned matter. Please accept this letter brief in lieu of a more formal memorandum in opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Quash in Part Plaintiffs’ Discovery Demands. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs ask this Court to deny the relief sought and to grant discovery into Defendants’ management of a consortium of cemetery companies. There are factual and legal issues regarding Defendants’ seizure of control over these entities, including the Ruffin Cemetery Company at issue here. Given the liberal discovery standard, this discovery should be had to permit a fair and full adjudication on the merits. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Court should permit discovery into the issues germane to Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint. As set forth in the Verified Complaint, Mr. Cicalese and the individual Co-Defendants have taken positions as trustees in cemeteries across the State of New Jersey. These are not-for-profit entities. As also set forth in the Verified Complaint, these entities have made extensive payments to for-profit entities that are owned or controlled by the individual Defendants. This network of cemeteries, all controlled by a Board of Trustees 195 E. BERGEN PLACE, RED BANK, NEW JERSEY 07701/ T: 732-219-7711/ F: 732-219-7733/WWW.BYRNESOHERN.COM MON-L-001120-23 09/28/2023 4:58:48 PM Pg 2 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20232973223 controlled by the individual Defendants, amounts to an enterprise operating within the State of New Jersey. Indeed, there have been numerous transfers among these cemeteries that need to be explored and examined. To be clear, these cemeteries are not run as isolated corporations. Instead, there appear to be numerous instances of money flowing between the cemeteries and services being shared. As an example, the 2019 form 990 for the The Machpelah Cemetery Association Inc. on Schedule R, entitled Related Organizations and Unrelated Partnerships, lists seven of these cemeteries as being related and includes 14 separate transactions among these cemeteries, including Ruffin Cemetery. See Exhibit A to the Certification of Counsel (“Counsel Cert.”). As noted, Plaintiffs believe that these cemeteries operate together as a single enterprise. Defendant Cicalese has argued and certified that he became involved with Ruffin Cemetery out of a concern for its maintenance and upkeep. Plaintiffs suspect that the true motivation was to add another cemetery to this enterprise. Plaintiffs also suspect that the for-profit entities that have been paid millions of dollars by these cemeteries provide services in bulk to these cemeteries. Just the overlap of Trustees among the cemeteries makes clear the close nexus among them. Accordingly, discovery into these other cemeteries and transactions involving Ruffin Cemetery is certainly relevant. This was a family cemetery until the Defendants hijacked it and made it one of the fourteen “nonprofit” cemeteries run by a handful of “Trustees.” The claim that the Defendants’ involvement in this cemetery emanated from a concern regarding its upkeep is laughable. By their own admission, since offering to assist with the “maintenance” of the Cemetery, they have added 696 graves and hope to add 1,000 more. No doubt Mr. Cicalese did not advise his proxies in 2003 that rather than fixing up the Cemetery, he intended to make application to the State of New Jersey to sell bulk graves to out of State corporations, earning revenue and squeezing remains into this small family cemetery. This Cemetery does not serve the local community as a “public cemetery”; rather, it is a source of supply within the array of cemeteries operated by these Defendants, including the thirteen or so “nonprofit” cemeteries controlled by these same Trustees. The Plaintiffs have no access to the financial records of this so called “public cemetery,” but the 990s filed by these Defendants for their network of cemeteries in New Jersey suggest that interest-bearing loans produce a lot of income for the “lender” entities controlled by these “trustees”. Although the Verified Complaint is filled with detailed assertions regarding the operation of these cemeteries and the for-profit entities owned by the Defendants that benefit from these operations, the Defendants assiduously avoid any response to these allegations. This Court should take notice that the 2018 990 filed for Ruffin shows total liabilities of $27,956 at the beginning of the year, and $129,981 at the end of the year. The same 990 shows a $12,000 loan from Mr. Cicalese and $13,457 in interest due and owing. See Exhibit B to the Counsel Cert. These numbers alone should cause this Court to grant the discovery sought, so that there can be full disclosure of this “nonprofit’s” finances. Therefore, the Plaintiffs request that the Court deny the Motion for Protective Order so that discovery can be had into the financial relationship between these cemetery companies. This discovery would also shed light on the legal relationship between these cemetery companies and the individual Defendants, which would also help Plaintiffs discover how the individual Defendants came to control the purported Ruffin Cemetery Company and the Ruffin cemetery itself. Where the tax records demonstrate that Defendants have a history of taking control of these cemetery companies, that history will likely shed light on what happened here. Defendants’ financial ties to these cemetery companies will also shed light on Defendants’ intent and management of the Ruffin cemetery. Where the tax records show transactions connecting the Ruffin Cemetery to the individual Defendant Cicalese and these other cemetery 195 E. BERGEN PLACE, RED BANK, NEW JERSEY 07701/ T: 732-219-7711/ F: 732-219-7733/WWW.BYRNESOHERN.COM MON-L-001120-23 09/28/2023 4:58:48 PM Pg 3 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20232973223 companies, the discovery into those transactions and other related cemetery companies should be had. Therefore, the Motion should be denied. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiffs rely on the facts set forth in their Verified Complaint and in the Certification of Counsel and attached affidavits annexed and incorporated hereto. LEGAL ARGUMENT Rule 4:10-2 provides that, unless otherwise limited by the Court, the scope of pre-trial discovery is broad: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or the defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, electronically stored information, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. R. 4:10-2(a). The information sought need only be “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. With Rule 4:10-2(a) providing the foundation of the scope of discovery, “there is substantial liberality in the granting of discovery.” Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 1 on R. 4:10-2 (2022) (citing Shanley & Fisher, P.C. v. Sisselman, 215 N.J. Super. 200, 215- 216 (App. Div. 1987) (reasserting liberality with which discovery is ordinarily allowed)). Indeed, our discovery rules are liberally construed, favoring a litigant’s rights to “broad pretrial discovery.” Payton v. N.J. Tpk. Auth., 148 N.J. 524, 539 (1997). “By requiring disclosure of all relevant information, the discovery rules allow ultimate resolution of disputed facts to be based on full and accurate understanding of true facts.” Bear, Stearns Funding, Inc. v. Interface Group-Nevada, Inc., 2007 WL 4051179, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2007) (quoting 6 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice, § 26.02 (3d ed.2007)) Rule 4:10-3 permits a target of discovery to seek a protective order shielding him from discovery that would result in “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” See also Kerr v. Able Sanitary & Env. Services, Inc. 295 N.J. Super. 147, 155 fn4 (App. Div. 1996). The determination of what discovery request is reasonable and relevant, and what constitutes an annoying, embarrassing, oppressive or unduly burdensome request, must be measured by the trial court on a case-by-case basis. Berrie v. Berrie, 188 N.J. Super. 274, 278 (Ch. Div. 1983). Relevancy under the Rules corresponds exactly to relevancy under N.J.R.E. 401, or a “tendency in reason to prove or disprove any fact of consequence to the determination of the action.” See K.S. v. ABC Professional Corp., 330 N.J. Super. 288, 291 (App. Div.), appeal denied 174 N.J. 411 (2000) (emphasis added). 195 E. BERGEN PLACE, RED BANK, NEW JERSEY 07701/ T: 732-219-7711/ F: 732-219-7733/WWW.BYRNESOHERN.COM MON-L-001120-23 09/28/2023 4:58:48 PM Pg 4 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20232973223 Here, the discovery sought is directly relevant to Defendants’ operation, management, and financial entanglement with the Ruffin family cemetery. It is undisputed that Defendants do not own the property in which they are currently burying bodies. The Ruffin family land passed to Marion Ruffin, who then devised the land to her children in equal shares. Plaintiffs are several of the descendants of Marion Ruffin’s children. The Ruffin family operated the Ruffin Cemetery for generations before New Jersey passed the Cemetery Act. The New Jersey Cemetery Board Law provides that “a cemetery company organized prior to December 1, 1971 shall not continue to operate a cemetery unless the company has been issued a certificate of authority by the board. The board shall grant the company a certificate of authority preserving any rights and obligations of its charter subject to applicable law and regulations.” N.J.S.A. § 45:27-7(e). Marion Ruffin applied for a certificate of authority to continue the Ruffin family’s operation of their cemetery in 1976. The Board issued a Certificate of Authority to Marion Ruffin as the individual and sole owner of the Ruffin Cemetery company in 1976. While Defendants now claim to be directors of the Ruffin Cemetery company, they never received consent from Marion Ruffin’s children, who assumed ownership of the tract and control of the company upon her death. Defendants have, in effect, converted the land for their own profit-seeking purposes. Even assuming, arguendo, that Defendants somehow lawfully seized control of the cemetery company itself, Defendants have consistently and continually violated the rights of the company’s shareholders as defined by the Cemetery Board Law. As provided by N.J.S.A. § 45:27-10(a), “each owner of a grave, crypt, or niche shall be a member of the cemetery company and shall have one vote for each grave, crypt or niche owned whenever voting by the members is required under the provisions of any law.” Moreover, the “directors or trustees of a cemetery company shall hold an annual meeting and report at each annual meeting on their activities and management[.]” N.J.S.A. § 45:27-10(b). The Defendants tout newspaper notices of meetings as evidence of meetings, but provide no proof of actual meetings taking place – no minutes, no resolutions, nothing. Plaintiffs do not have access to any minutes for meetings of the Trustees of Ruffin. Aside from the initial election of Louis Cicalese, Plaintiffs are not aware of any further elections of officers, including Mr. Cicalese. Under N. J. S. A. § 15A:5-4, notice of meetings shall be given not less than 10 to more than 60 days before the date of the meeting, either personally or by mail to each member of record entitled to vote at the meeting. Here, Defendants have failed to do even the bare minimum required of cemetery company directors. The majority of Ruffin family members have not consented to Defendants’ management, and the majority of Ruffin family members have not consented to various profit-seeking transactions described in the Verified Complaint. The combination of personal loans, accruing interest, and substantial compensation to these trustees raises serious questions about how the Ruffin Cemetery company is being operated as part of the constellation of nonprofit cemeteries controlled by these Defendants. There certainly appear to be conflicts of interest that, heretofore, have not been disclosed to members of Ruffin. Under New Jersey law, a contract or transaction between a nonprofit corporation and a trustee or business entity in which a trustee is interested, shall not be void if it is disclosed and the board approve the contract by unanimous written consent provided at least one trustee consenting is disinterested, or by affirmative vote of a majority of disinterested trustees; or, the common interest is disclosed to members and they approve of the contract. See N.J.S.A. § 15A:6-8. Direct CFO, LLC, upon information and belief owned by Defendant David Jacobs, is paid to prepare tax returns for Ruffin Cemetery Corp. (“Ruffin”). There have 195 E. BERGEN PLACE, RED BANK, NEW JERSEY 07701/ T: 732-219-7711/ F: 732-219-7733/WWW.BYRNESOHERN.COM MON-L-001120-23 09/28/2023 4:58:48 PM Pg 5 of 5 Trans ID: LCV20232973223 been transfers of money between Ruffin and other entities controlled by the Defendants. Mr. Cicalese is also earning interest on a loan made to Ruffin. The Saucha Trust, for which Mr. Cicalese serves as Trustee, has also made a loan of $40,000 to Ruffin according to the 990 Form for 2020. The members of Ruffin have no idea what expenses have been paid by the Defendants for activities at Ruffin Cemetery. Here, the members of Ruffin (Plaintiffs) were not advised and did not expect that the assets of the corporation would be available and used by other corporations operated by the Defendants. The members also did not agree or understand the companies controlled and/or owned by Mr. Cicalese and other trustees would benefit from the activities of Ruffin Cemetery, and, upon information and belief, the Defendants have not engaged in the proper votes of trustees or members to approve the related transactions. Taken together, the lack of meetings for members, the transactions benefitting the individual Defendants, the unlawful takeover of Ruffin Cemetery in the first place by Defendants, and the lack of any ownership interest in the subject property all weigh heavily in favor of denying the Motion here. Plaintiffs more than meet their burden of establishing the relevance of these financial records and other documents related to the other cemetery companies controlled by these individual Defendants. For all the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny the Motion. The Court should permit Plaintiffs to discover the relationships between these related cemetery companies and the individual Defendants. Respectfully submitted, BYRNES O’HERN & HEUGLE, LLC s/Sean F. Byrnes SEAN F. BYRNES 195 E. BERGEN PLACE, RED BANK, NEW JERSEY 07701/ T: 732-219-7711/ F: 732-219-7733/WWW.BYRNESOHERN.COM MON-L-001120-23 09/28/2023 4:58:48 PM Pg 1 of 39 Trans ID: LCV20232973223 BYRNES, O’HERN & HEUGLE, LLC Sean F. Byrnes, Esq. (ID 032921992) 195 E. Bergen Place Red Bank, New Jersey 07701 Telephone: (732) 219-7711 Facsimile: (732) 219-7733 Email: sbyrnes@byrnesohern.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs CARRIE JONES, ANTHONY CONOVER, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY GARY HERVIOU, MICHAEL STANTON, CHANCERY DIVISION SCOTT CASSIDY and VINCENT MONMOUTH COUNTY ASHTON, DOCKET NO.: MON-L-1120-23 Plaintiffs, Civil Action v. CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL LOUIS CICALESE, MICHAEL BARATTA, DAVID JACOBS, and RUFFIN CEMETERY, CORP., Defendants. I, SEAN F. BYRNES, of full age, do hereby certify as follows: 1. I am a Partner of the law firm Byrnes, O’Hern & Heugle, LLC, attorneys for Plaintiffs Carrie Jones, Anthony Conover, Gary Herviou, Michael Stanton, Scott Cassidy and Vincent Ashton (“Plaintiffs”) in this matter. 2. I submit this Certification in Opposition to Defendants, Louis Cicalese, Michael Barratta, David Jacobs and Ruffin Cemetery Corp.’s (“Defendants”) Motion to Quash in Part Plaintiffs’ Discovery Demands. 3. Annexed hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof is a true and correct copy of the 2019 IRS Form 990 The Macpelah Cemetery Association, Inc. MON-L-001120-23 09/28/2023 4:58:48 PM Pg 2 of 39 Trans ID: LCV20232973223 4. Annexed hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof is a true and correct copy of the 2018 IRS Form 990EZ for Ruffin Cemetery Corp. dba Pine Brook Cemetery. 5. Annexed hereto as Exhibit C and made a part hereof is a true and correct copy of the unpublished opinion in the matter Bear, Stearns Funding, Inc. v. Interface Group-Nevada, Inc., 2007 WL 4051179 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2007). 6. I hereby certify that the foregoing statements are true and if any of the statements are found to be willfully false, then I am subject to punishment. Date: September 28, 2023 BY: s/Sean F. Byrnes SEAN F. BYRNES MON-L-001120-23 09/28/2023 4:58:48 PM Pg 3 of 39 Trans ID: LCV20232973223 EXHIBIT A MON-L-001120-23 09/28/2023 4:58:48 PM Pg 4 of 39 Trans ID: LCV20232973223 9/28/23, 4:47 PM Machpelah Cemetary Assoc - Full Filing- Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica efile Public Visual Render ObjectId: 202013519349300301 - Submission: 2020-12-15 TIN: 22-1083260 OMB No. 1545-0047 990 Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax 2019 Form Under section 501(c), 527, or 4947(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code (except private foundations) Do not enter social security numbers on this form as it may be made public. Department of the Treasury Open to Public Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information. Internal Revenue Service Inspection A For the 2019 calendar year, or tax year beginning 08-01-2019 , and ending 07-31-2020 C Name of organization D Employer identification number B Check if applicable: The Machpelah Cemetery Association Inc Address change 22-1083260 Name change Initial return Doing business as Final return/terminated E Telephone number Amended return Number and street (or P.O. box if mail is not delivered to street address) Room/suite Application pending PO Box 8295 (732) 530-4045 City or town, state or province, country, and ZIP or foreign postal code Red Bank, NJ 07701 G Gross receipts $ 450,120 F Name and address of principal officer: H(a) Is this a group return for 1 subordinates? Yes No H(b) Are all subordinates included? Yes No I Tax-exempt status: 501(c)(3) 501(c) ( 13 ) (insert no.) 4947(a)(1) or 527 If "No," attach a list. (see instructions) J Website: N/A H(c) Group exemption number L Year of formation: 1931 M State of legal domicile: NJ K Form of organization: Corporation Trust Association Other Part I Summary 1 Briefly describe the organization’s mission or most significant activities: Cemetery located at 5810 Tonnelle Avenue, North Bergen, NJ, serves many hundreds of families with their burial needs and provides a vital service to the community. 2 Check this box 3 Number of voting members of the governing body (Part VI, line 1a) . . . . . . . . 3 5 4 Number of independent voting members of the governing body (Part VI, line 1b) . . . . . 4 0 5 Total number of individuals employed in calendar year 2019 (Part V, line 2a) . . . . . . 5 8 6 Total number of volunteers (estimate if necessary) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7a Total unrelated business revenue from Part VIII, column (C), line 12 . . . . . . . . 7a 0 b Net unrelated business taxable income from Form 990-T, line 39 . . . . . . . . . 7b Prior Year Current Year 8 Contributions and grants (Part VIII, line 1h) . . . . . . . . . 0 9 Program service revenue (Part VIII, line 2g) . . . . . . . . . 17,487 199,802 10 Investment income (Part VIII, column (A), lines 3, 4, and 7d ) . . . . 0 11 Other revenue (Part VIII, column (A), lines 5, 6d, 8c, 9c, 10c, and 11e) 16,738 250,318 12 Total revenue—add lines 8 through 11 (must equal Part VIII, column (A), line 12) 34,225 450,120 13 Grants and similar amounts paid (Part IX, column (A), lines 1–3 ) . . . 0 14 Benefits paid to or for members (Part IX, column (A), line 4) . . . . . 0 15 Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits (Part IX, column (A), lines 5–10) 317,189 16a Professional fundraising fees (Part IX, column (A), line 11e) . . . . . 0 b Total fundraising expenses (Part IX, column (D), line 25) 0 17 Other expenses (Part IX, column (A), lines 11a–11d, 11f–24e) . . . . 73,651 292,468 18 Total expenses. Add lines 13–17 (must equal Part IX, column (A), line 25) 73,651 609,657 19 Revenue less expenses. Subtract line 18 from line 12 . . . . . . . -39,426 -159,537 Beginning of Current Year End of Year 20 Total assets (Part X, line 16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716,442 2,045,834 21 Total liabilities (Part X, line 26) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 784,980 2,277,953 22 Net assets or fund balances. Subtract line 21 from line 20 . . . . . -68,538 -232,119 Part II Signature Block Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return, including accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and complete. Declaration of preparer (other than officer) is based on all information of which preparer has any knowledge. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/221083260/202013519349300301/full 1/25 MON-L-001120-23 09/28/2023 4:58:48 PM Pg 5 of 39 Trans ID: LCV20232973223 9/28/23, 4:47 PM Machpelah Cemetary Assoc - Full Filing- Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica 15 Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits (Part IX, column (A), lines 5–10) 317,189 16a Professional fundraising fees (Part IX, column (A), line 11e) . . . . . 0 b Total fundraising expenses (Part IX, column (D), line 25) 0 17 Other expenses (Part IX, column (A), lines 11a–11d, 11f–24e) . . . . 73,651 292,468 18 Total expenses. Add lines 13–17 (must equal Part IX, column (A), line 25) 73,651 609,657 19 Revenue less expenses. Subtract line 18 from line 12 . . . . . . . -39,426 -159,537 Beginning of Current Year End of Year 20 Total assets (Part X, line 16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 716,442 2,045,834 21 Total liabilities (Part X, line 26) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 784,980 2,277,953 22 Net assets or fund balances. Subtract line 21 from line 20 . . . . . -68,538 -232,119 Part II Signature Block Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return, including accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and complete. Declaration of preparer (other than officer) is based on all information of which preparer has any knowledge. 2020-12-07 Signature of officer Date Sign Here Louis Cicalese President Type or print name and title Print/Type preparer's name Preparer's signature Date PTIN Check if P01887171 Paid self-employed Preparer Firm's name CFO Direct LLC Firm's EIN 46-0581060 Use Only Firm's address 6130 Park Lane South 43 Phone no. (760) 500-9090 Park City, UT 840984233 May the IRS discuss this return with the preparer shown above? (see instructions) . . . . . . . . . . Yes No For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the separate instructions. Cat. No. 11282Y Form 990 (2019) Page 2 Form 990 (2019) Page 2 Part III Statement of Program Service Accomplishments Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Briefly describe the organization’s mission: Cemetery located at 5810 Tonnelle Avenue, North Bergen, NJ, serves many hundreds of families with their burial needs and provides a vital service to the community. 2 Did the organization undertake any significant program services during the year which were not listed on the prior Form 990 or 990-EZ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes No If "Yes," describe these new services on Schedule O. 3 Did the organization cease conducting, or make significant changes in how it conducts, any program services? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes No If "Yes," describe these changes on Schedule O. 4 Describe the organization’s program service accomplishments for each of its three largest program services, as measured by expenses. Section 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations are required to report the amount of grants and allocations to others, the total expenses, and revenue, if any, for each program service reported. 4a (Code: ) (Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ ) Cemetery located at 5810 Tonnelle Avenue, North Bergen, NJ 07047, serves many hundreds of families with their burial needs and provides a vital service to the community. 4b (Code: ) (Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ ) https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/221083260/202013519349300301/full 2/25 MON-L-001120-23 09/28/2023 4:58:48 PM Pg 6 of 39 Trans ID: LCV20232973223 9/28/23, 4:47 PM Machpelah Cemetary Assoc - Full Filing- Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica 4a (Code: ) (Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ ) Cemetery located at 5810 Tonnelle Avenue, North Bergen, NJ 07047, serves many hundreds of families with their burial needs and provides a vital service to the community. 4b (Code: ) (Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ ) 4c (Code: ) (Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ ) 4d Other program services (Describe in Schedule O.) (Expenses $ including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ ) 4e Total program service expenses Form 990 (2019) Page 3 Form 990 (2019) Page 3 Part IV Checklist of Required Schedules Yes No 1 Is the organization described in section 501(c)(3) or 4947(a)(1) (other than a private foundation)? If "Yes," complete No Schedule A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Is the organization required to complete Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors (see instructions)? . . . 2 No 3 Did the organization engage in direct or indirect political campaign activities on behalf of or in opposition to candidates No for public office? If "Yes," complete Schedule C, Part I . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 Section 501(c)(3) organizations. Did the organization engage in lobbying activities, or have a section 501(h) election in effect during the tax year? If "Yes," complete Schedule C, Part II . . . . . . . . . 4 5 Is the organization a section 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), or 501(c)(6) organization that receives membership dues, assessments, or similar amounts as defined in Revenue Procedure 98-19? If "Yes," complete Schedule C, Part III . . 5 No 6 Did the organization maintain any donor advised funds or any similar funds or accounts for which donors have the right to provide advice on the distribution or investment of amounts in such funds or accounts? If "Yes," complete No Schedule D,Part I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7 Did the organization receive or hold a conservation easement, including easements to preserve open space, 7 No the environment, historic land areas, or historic structures? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part II . . . . 8 Did the organization maintain collections of works of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets? If "Yes," 8 No complete Schedule D, Part III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Did the organization report an amount in Part X, line 21 for escrow or custodial account liability; serve as a custodian for amounts not listed in Part X; or provide credit counseling, debt management, credit repair, or debt negotiation 9 No services? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Did the organization, directly or through a related organization, hold assets in temporarily restricted endowments, 10 Yes permanent endowments, or quasi endowments? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part V . . . . . . 11 If the organization’s answer to any of the following questions is "Yes," then complete Schedule D, Parts VI, VII, VIII, IX, or X as applicable. a Did the organization report an amount for land, buildings, and equipment in Part X, line 10? If "Yes," complete 11a Yes Schedule D, Part VI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b Did the organization report an amount for investments—other securities in Part X, line 12 that is 5% or more of its total 11b No assets reported in Part X, line 16? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part VII . . . . . . . https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/221083260/202013519349300301/full 3/25 MON-L-001120-23 09/28/2023 4:58:48 PM Pg 7 of 39 Trans ID: LCV20232973223 9/28/23, 4:47 PM Machpelah Cemetary Assoc - Full Filing- Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica 7 Did the organization receive or hold a conservation easement, including easements to preserve open space, 7 No the environment, historic land areas, or historic structures? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part II . . . . 8 Did the organization maintain collections of works of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets? If "Yes," 8 No complete Schedule D, Part III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Did the organization report an amount in Part X, line 21 for escrow or custodial account liability; serve as a custodian for amounts not listed in Part X; or provide credit counseling, debt management, credit repair, or debt negotiation 9 No services? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Did the organization, directly or through a related organization, hold assets in temporarily restricted endowments, 10 Yes permanent endowments, or quasi endowments? If "Yes," complete Schedule D, Part V . . . . . . 11 If the organization’s answer to any of the following questions is "Yes," then complete Schedule D, Parts VI, VII, VIII, IX, or X as applicable. a Did the organization report an amount for land, buildings, and equipment in Part X, line 10? If "Yes," complet