.png?width=1200&auto=webp&trim=0%2C0%2C0%2C0)
- Lifestyle
The lawsuit alleges a conflict of interest, claiming Bradley Beach Councilman Paul Nowicki, who is on the locker waiting list, voted for the ban and that it would not have passed without his vote
Erin Keller In Ohio Friday 09 January 2026 21:25 GMT- Bookmark
- CommentsGo to comments
Bookmark popover
Removed from bookmarks
Close popover
CloseWhat is New Jersey's 'Climate Superfund Act' bill?
Stay ahead of the curve with our weekly guide to the latest trends, fashion, relationships and more
Stay ahead of the curve with our weekly guide to the latest trends, fashion, relationships and more
Stay ahead of the curve with our weekly guide to the latest trends, fashion, relationships and more
Email*SIGN UPI would like to be emailed about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our Privacy notice
Two women are suing the Borough of Bradley Beach on the Jersey Shore, alleging the town unlawfully passed an ordinance that restricts non-residents from renting beach lockers, limiting access to only residents and favored groups.
The lawsuit, filed by Tia Dinn of Ocean Grove, New Jersey, and Ann Gorr of Neptune City, New Jersey, challenges an ordinance approved by the borough council in November that limits access to the town’s 555 beach lockers to Bradley Beach residents, borough employees, volunteer firefighters and emergency medical service workers.
According to the complaint, the lockers are located on a beach that is not owned by the borough and therefore should remain accessible to both residents and non-residents.
The plaintiffs argue the ordinance improperly restricts access to a public resource and violates New Jersey’s Public Trust Doctrine, which states beaches must be available for public use rather than operated solely for the benefit of residents.
Dinn and Gorr also allege a conflict of interest in the ordinance’s passage. The lawsuit states that Councilman Paul Nowicki, who is listed as No. 35 on the waiting list for a beach locker, voted in favor of banning non-residents from renting lockers. The women claim that had Nowicki recused himself from the vote, the ordinance would not have passed.
.png)
Two New Jersey women who do not live in Bradley Beach allege in a lawsuit that the borough has no legal right to restrict access to 555 beach lockers because they sit on a beach the town does not own (Getty Images)The Independent has contacted Nowicki and Bradley Beach Borough Administrator Matt Doherty for comment.
The lawsuit goes on to claim the borough is essentially evicting non-resident locker holders who helped pay for the construction and upkeep of the lockers through rental fees.
The ordinance, the suit says, does not include any plan to reimburse the Beach Utility Fund or compensate non-resident beachgoers who are being forced out after contributing financially to the locker program.
Both Dinn and Gorr joined the locker waiting list in 2021 and were offered to rent lockers in 2023 after the borough built 33 additional units, the lawsuit states. Each paid an initial fee of $575, followed by renewal fees of $190 in 2024 and $200 in 2025.
The lawsuit states 333 people are on the waiting list, and that roughly 200 of the 555 beach lockers were rented by non-residents last year.
The women are asking the court to declare the ordinance unlawful and invalidate it, restoring access to beach locker rentals for non-residents.
More about
beachLawsuitBoroughresidentswaiting listJersey ShoreNew JerseyTourismJoin our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments