당신은 주제를 찾고 있습니까 “david lorenzo palisades park nj – FOOD in THE MOST KOREAN City in America! (Palisades Park)“? 다음 카테고리의 웹사이트 https://chewathai27.com/you 에서 귀하의 모든 질문에 답변해 드립니다: https://chewathai27.com/you/blog. 바로 아래에서 답을 찾을 수 있습니다. 작성자 FUNG BROS. 이(가) 작성한 기사에는 조회수 133,257회 및 좋아요 2,740개 개의 좋아요가 있습니다.
Table of Contents
david lorenzo palisades park nj 주제에 대한 동영상 보기
여기에서 이 주제에 대한 비디오를 시청하십시오. 주의 깊게 살펴보고 읽고 있는 내용에 대한 피드백을 제공하세요!
d여기에서 FOOD in THE MOST KOREAN City in America! (Palisades Park) – david lorenzo palisades park nj 주제에 대한 세부정보를 참조하세요
RESTAURANTS
https://www.yelp.com/biz/sambong-naeng-myun-palisades-park?sort_by=elites_desc
https://www.yelp.com/biz/te-min-quan-palisades-park
https://www.yelp.com/biz/the-blossom-palisades-park?osq=blossom+cafe
https://www.yelp.com/biz/wild-pink-palisades-park
https://www.yelp.com/biz/exit-201-palisades-park?osq=exit+201
FOLLOW THEM!
http://instagram.com/thewillowagency (for helping produce)
http://instagram.com/meeshyoon
http://instagram.com/joshciity http://instagram.com/chichichii___
Subscribe Here! http://bit.ly/FungBrosSub
Check out my top videos! http://bit.ly/FungBrosTopVideos
Join the Fung Bros community and get access to special discounts, livestreams, Q\u0026As, and more!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9avFXTdbSo5ATvzTRnAVFg/join
———————————
Do you want to work in media? Do you have film skills? We’re looking for creatives in or around New York. If you’re interested email us at [email protected] with your name, experience and location. Thank you!
———————————-
FOLLOW THE FUNG BROS.
▸ FACEBOOK // http://facebook.com/fungbros
▸ INSTAGRAM // http://instagram.com/fungbros
▸ TWITTER // http://www.twitter.com/fungbros
▸ INSTAGRAM // http://instagram.com/davidbfung
▸ TWITTER // http://www.twitter.com/davidbfung
▸ INSTAGRAM // http://instagram.com/andrewjfung
▸ TWITTER // http://www.twitter.com/andrewjfung
CAMERA //
EDITOR //
MUSIC // Origami Beats (http://instagram.com/origamibeats), RickyFlarez (http://instagram/thebriando) Birocratic Beats, Erik Kingsley http://Instagram.com/erikingsley
#FungBros #koreanfood #kbbq
Fung Bros
https://www.youtube.com/FungBrosComedy
david lorenzo palisades park nj 주제에 대한 자세한 내용은 여기를 참조하세요.
Borough Administrator – Borough of Palisades Park
Dav J. Lorenzo … The Borough Administrator is the Chief Administrative Officer of the Borough. The Administrator’s actions are subject to the policy and …
Source: mypalisadespark.com
Date Published: 4/1/2021
View: 6559
Palisades Park NJ: Dave Lorenzo under fire for $68K expense …
Lorenzo, a former Palisades Park councilman, earns a base salary of $207,000. A financial disclosure form he submitted to the state says he owns …
Source: www.northjersey.com
Date Published: 12/7/2021
View: 2344
NJ borough ‘wasted hundreds of thousands’ on unlawful …
Palisades Park ignored state sick leave laws, mismanaged borough resources and … Administrator Dav Lorenzo is entitled, according to his …
Source: www.nj.com
Date Published: 12/21/2021
View: 6160
Starlight Management LLC in Palisades Park, NJ – Buzzfile
Contact: Dav Lorenzo. Title: Member. Phone: (201) 585-1063. Website: … Starlight Management is located in Palisades Park, New Jersey.
Source: www.buzzfile.com
Date Published: 7/1/2021
View: 4447
BENJAMIN A. RAMOS v. BOROUGH OF PALISADES PARK
I In April 2017, plaintiff, the former Chief of the Palisades Park Police … Councilwoman Cynthia Pirrera, and Borough Administrator Dav Lorenzo, …
Source: law.justia.com
Date Published: 9/22/2021
View: 753
Palisades Park, Borough Of – OpenGovUS
BOROUGH CLERK, GINA S KIM, 275 Broad Avenue, Palisades Park, NJ 07650, USA. BOROUGH ADMINISTRATOR, DAVID J LORENZO, 275 Broad Avenue, Palisades Park, …
Source: opengovus.com
Date Published: 11/2/2022
View: 1721
About David Lorenzo: American businessman | News
Dav Lorenzo: American businessman, Occupations: Businessperson, … Three Palisades Park NJ employees receive notices about their jobs – NorthJersey.com.
Source: peoplepill.com
Date Published: 2/21/2021
View: 293
주제와 관련된 이미지 david lorenzo palisades park nj
주제와 관련된 더 많은 사진을 참조하십시오 FOOD in THE MOST KOREAN City in America! (Palisades Park). 댓글에서 더 많은 관련 이미지를 보거나 필요한 경우 더 많은 관련 기사를 볼 수 있습니다.
주제에 대한 기사 평가 david lorenzo palisades park nj
- Author: FUNG BROS.
- Views: 조회수 133,257회
- Likes: 좋아요 2,740개
- Date Published: 2021. 7. 10.
- Video Url link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFXg-eqj1hQ
Borough of Palisades Park
The Borough Administrator is the Chief Administrative Officer of the Borough. The Administrator’s actions are subject to the policy and directives of the Mayor and Council and are generally responsible for the proper administration of all affairs of the Borough within the jurisdiction of the governing body.
Responsibilities include but are not limited to:
North Jersey Media Group
Your subscription supports:
Investigative reports that give you the scoop on New Jersey schools, politics, environment and the mob.
N.J. borough ‘wasted hundreds of thousands’ on unlawful employee sick leave payouts, investigation finds
Palisades Park officials ignored New Jersey laws capping sick leave payouts for employees, reimbursed employees for personal expenses and “wasted” hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to a state investigation released Tuesday.
The State Comptroller’s Office found “widespread financial mismanagement” that enriched its employees in violation of state laws and at the expense of taxpayers in the small Bergen County borough.
The investigation identified contract, collective bargaining provisions and employee perks far more generous than allowed under state law and mismanagement of expense reimbursements and fuel purchases.
“The borough’s failure to adopt and implement internal controls to protect borough funds has resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars of improper, fiscally irresponsible, or otherwise questionable payouts for the years reviewed,” the report said.
Palisades Park did not adhere to state laws limiting compensation to employees for unused sick leave, known colloquially as boat checks, unlawfully paying out $109,000 in 2018 to 27 employees and $95,000 in 2019 to 22 employees.
“The borough’s failure to comply … by limiting sick leave payments to employees covered by that law has exposed the taxpayers of Palisades Park to substantial and unnecessary financial obligations that the borough was barred from assuming,” the report said. “The statewide mandate to protect taxpayers from the costs of runaway sick leave payments has been substantially disregarded in the Borough of Palisades Park.”
Investigators found problems with the borough’s vehicle policies, noting that Palisades Park, which encompasses 1.25 square miles, spent $120,000 on gas in 2019. The borough wasn’t able to identify how many fuel cards were distributed, which employees have fuel cards and whether they were using them for personal travel. There were no limitations on how much an employee could charge on their card and no mechanisms to detect fraud, investigators said.
Given that, it’s unlikely the borough would know whether former employees were still charging the borough for their fuel costs.
“The borough’s lax approach to fuel card usage has resulted in waste, fraud, and abuse,” investigators said.
Much of the report’s findings were devoted to the borough administrator, a $207,000-a-year employee who also runs a construction business in the borough. Administrator David Lorenzo is entitled, according to his contract, to 57 days off each year, including 25 vacation days, 15 holidays, 12 sick days, four personal days and his birthday.
His contract also provides him with “extravagant benefits,” including health care benefits in which the borough covers not only the premiums but “costs for all health, hospitalization, surgical, dental and prescriptions drug plans” for himself and his dependents. He’s eligible also for two weeks of severance at his current salary for every year of service to the borough — 50 weeks and counting — including a dozen as a part-time council member earning just $2,000 a year.
All told, the borough would be on the hook for $360,000 in sick leave payouts, severance and other benefits if he retired now, the comptroller’s report said. Lorenzo’s annual sick leave payments already exceeded the $15,000 cap imposed by the state, the report said.
More evidence of the borough’s lax oversight, investigators said, is a nearly $68,000 expense reimbursement paid to the administrator for expenses related to a federal investigation. The borough voided the reimbursement once the comptroller’s office began its investigation, the report said.
Nobody knows Jersey politics like NJ.com. Add your email now and don’t miss a story.
Of the $68,000 in expenses, the administrator submitted supporting documentation for only $29,000, according to the report. The reimbursement also included $10,500 for his wife’s legal defense, even though she’s not employed by the borough, $5,200 for a pre-paid vacation he said he had to cancel because of the investigation and more than $16,000 for accounting services related to his private construction business. He sought reimbursement for a retainer for legal representation and then again for legal bills clearly covered by the retainer, “thus seeking double payment of the retainer fee,” investigators found.
“Each step of the way, a reimbursement request that should have set off alarm bells was instead pushed along. That constitutes a startling failure by borough officials and employees to protect the public funds entrusted to them by the residents of Palisades Park,” investigators said.
Lorenzo’s employment contract stipulates also that he can only be fired for cause and with the unanimous consent of the borough council, which contravenes state rules saying he is an at-will employee who can be removed by a two-thirds vote.
“The contract the (business administrator) negotiated in 2015 purports to place him in the extraordinary position of being able to remain as municipal administrator even if five of the six members of the Borough Council vote for him to be removed,” the report said. “Palisades Park does not have the discretion to alter the requirements of state law or to contract away the requirements of its own ordinances. The unanimity requirement, therefore, is unlawful.”
Lorenzo’s borough office deferred comment to borough attorney John Schettino, who said the mayor is forming a subcommittee to devise a plan to “take all the appropriate action to ensure compliance with all state statutes and practices.”
Regarding sick leave compensation, Schettino said the state’s regulations are open to some interpretation, and once sorted out the borough will determine whether it has a basis to claw back some of the money.
“Many of these practices have been in place for several years, prior to many of the people on the governing body being elected to office,” he told NJ Advance Media on Tuesday. “Because they were part of contract agreements that may have existed prior to them taking office, or collective bargaining agreements, it was accepted as practice. And now that they’ve been alerted to the comments in the state comptroller’s report, it’s going to be remedied and they will take responsibility for ensuring that occurs.”
Thank you for relying on us to provide the journalism you can trust. Please consider supporting NJ.com with a subscription.
Samantha Marcus may be reached at [email protected].
BENJAMIN A. RAMOS v. BOROUGH OF PALISADES PARK
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not “constitute precedent or be binding upon any court.” Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3024-18T1 BENJAMIN A. RAMOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOROUGH OF PALISADES PARK, PALISADES PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT, JAMES ROTUNDO, individually and in his official capacity, CYNTHIA PIRRERA, individually and in her official capacity, and DAVID J. LORENZO, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants. _______________________________ Submitted September 10, 2019 – Decided November 20, 2019 Before Judges Hoffman and Currier. On appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-2374-17. Deutsch Atkins, PC, attorneys for appellant (Bruce L. Atkins, of counsel; Jason Todd Mushnick, on the briefs). Florio Perrucci Steinhardt & Cappelli, LLC, attorneys for respondent Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office (Craig P. Bossong, of counsel and on the brief; Kerry Cahill, on the brief). PER CURIAM By leave granted, plaintiff appeals from Law Division orders quashing the subpoena he served on a non-party, the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office (BCPO) and a later order denying reconsideration. Having considered the parties’ arguments in light of the record and applicable law, we conclude the trial court misapplied its discretion by quashing the subpoena. Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further proceedings. I In April 2017, plaintiff, the former Chief of the Palisades Park Police Department, filed suit against defendants, Borough of Palisades Park (Borough), Palisades Park Police Department, Mayor James Rotundo, Councilwoman Cynthia Pirrera, and Borough Administrator David Lorenzo, alleging a violation of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -8. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged defendants subjected him to pervasive harassment in retaliation for an investigation into alleged criminal activity of A-3024-18T1 2 Sergent Mark Messing, the son of Pirrera, which eventually resulted in Sgt. Messing’s indictment and suspension without pay. According to plaintiff, defendants made him the target of “frivolous investigations” in March and April 2016 and filed baseless disciplinary charges against him, but “never completed [any] disciplinary hearings.” Plaintiff further alleged “[d]efendants hired special counsel to conduct investigations of the disciplinary charges against [him] contrary to the [Attorney General] Guidelines 1 and without prior notice to the BCPO.” The investigation report of special counsel was ultimately forwarded to the BCPO, which then conducted its own investigation of the allegations against plaintiff. After completing its investigation, the BCPO concluded there were no criminal violations by plaintiff. Following this determination, the BCPO referred the matter back to the Borough for disposition as to whether plaintiff violated any rules or regulations. 1 ” N.J.S.A. 40A:14-181 . . . mandate[s] all law enforcement agencies in this State to adopt and implement policies and procedures ‘consistent with’ the guidelines set forth in the ‘Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures’ manual promulgated on behalf of the Attorney General by the Division of Criminal Justice (AG Guidelines).” In re Carroll, 339 N.J. Super. 429, 435 (App. Div. 2001). The AG Guidelines mandate that “[c]omplaints against a law enforcement executive . . . shall be documented and referred to the county prosecutor for investigation.” AG Guidelines at 15 (Rev. July 2017). A-3024-18T1 3 According to plaintiff, on May 21, 2016, his physician “qualified [him] as disabled which rendered him unable to perform any of his job duties. . . .” Plaintiff alleges the Borough then agreed to permit him to “retire through ordinary disability (receiving disability pension benefits)[,] rather than proceeding with an [a]dministrative hearing . . . .” To that end, plaintiff claims that, on May 25, 2016, he received notification that “the Borough accepted his offer and that all charges would be dropped with an effective retirement date of June 1, 2016.” After he retired on June 1, 2016, plaintiff alleges the Borough proceeded to retaliate against him for his “whistle-blowing conduct” by deliberately withholding his retirement benefits; in addition, rather than dismissing the disciplinary charges against him, the Borough scheduled a hearing on the charges for September 20, 2016. The hearing was initially postponed to allow plaintiff to present witnesses; however, plaintiff’s counsel then informed counsel for the Borough that plaintiff “will not be attending nor participating in this hearing [or] any other hearing concerning administrative charges that may be held by the Borough. . . .” Over two years later, on October 12, 2018, special labor counsel for the Borough sent plaintiff’s counsel a letter advising that the March and April 2016 A-3024-18T1 4 disciplinary charges against plaintiff remain unresolved, and that the Borough “is seeking to conclude these pending disciplinary matters.” On November 7, 2018, plaintiff served a subpoena duces tecum on the BCPO seeking the internal affairs records, documents, and information related to the disciplinary charges against plaintiff. 2 Rather than supply the requested materials, the BCPO filed a motion to quash the subpoena. Plaintiff filed opposition and a cross-motion to enforce the subpoena. Following oral argument, the judge granted the BCPO’s motion to quash and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion. The judge found that the materials sought in the subpoena “are protected by the self-critical analysis and deliberative process privileges,” which “protect against disclosure of internal investigation materials.” The judge concluded that “the BCPO’s communications with the defendants in furtherance of [its] investigation is outside the scope of . . . relevance to plaintiff’s case.” The judge denied plaintiff’s request without conducting an in camera review of the actual documents. 2 According to plaintiff’s counsel, he “previously requested in discovery [p]laintiff’s complete internal affairs records file maintained by [d]efendants, wherein [d]efendants provided records from prior investigations, but no internal affairs records on the disciplinary charges which are now being pursued by the Borough and which constitute the alleged retaliation and harassment.” A-3024-18T1 5 Plaintiff then filed this appeal, asserting the motion judge’s decision to quash the subpoena served upon the BCPO constituted an abuse of discretion and misapplication of applicable law. Before the filing of plaintiff’s appellate brief, counsel for the BCPO sent a letter to plaintiff’s counsel providing 511 date-stamped documents, “represent[ing] the BCPO’s entire file regarding your client as it relates to the disciplinary charges that the Borough . . . is allegedly pursuing against your client.” In response, plaintiff’s counsel indicated he would withdraw the appeal upon receiving “a certification from the BCPO that it has produced all documents and communications responsive to each item set forth in the subpoena . . . and has not withheld or redacted any communications or documents requested in the subpoena . . . .” This appeal continued when the BCPO failed to provide the requested certification. BCPO’s respondent’s brief claims it has provided “all documents in [its] possession that relate” to the disciplinary charges against plaintiff. Nevertheless, the same brief argues that plaintiff’s subpoena sought records that are “privileged” and “confidential,” and argues the motion judge properly quashed plaintiff’s subpoena. BCPO’s brief fails to explain why it provided “privileged, confidential” documents it claims is responsive to plaintiff’s A-3024-18T1 6 subpoena, after successfully quashing the subpoena. Nor does BCPO’s brief explain why its production of the subpoenaed documents does not constitute a waiver of its claim of confidentiality of these documents. II We begin our analysis by reviewing some basic principles concerning discovery. “An appellate court applies ‘an abuse of discretion standard to decisions made by [the] trial courts relating to matters of discovery.'” C.A. ex rel. Applegrad v. Bentolila, 219 N.J. 449, 459 (2014) (alteration in original) (quoting Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Cmty. Corp., 207 N.J. 344, 371 (2011)). As a result, “[w]e generally defer to a trial court’s disposition of discovery matters unless the court has abused its discretion or its determination is based on a mistaken understanding of the applicable law.” Rivers v. LSCP’ship, 378 N.J. Super. 68, 80 (App. Div. 2005). In civil actions, [p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. . . . It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; nor is it ground for objection that the examining party has knowledge of the matters as to which discovery is sought. [R. 4:10-2(a).] A-3024-18T1 7 “New Jersey’s discovery rules are to be construed liberally in favor of broad pretrial discovery.” Payton v. N.J. Tpk. Auth., 148 N.J. 524, 535 (1997) (citing Jenkins v. Rainner, 69 N.J. 50, 56 (1976) (“Our court system has long been committed to the view that essential justice is better achieved when there has been full disclosure so that the parties are conversant with all the available facts.”)). Nonetheless, “the scope of discovery is not infinite.” K.S. v. ABC Prof’l Corp., 330 N.J. Super. 288, 291 (App. Div. 2000). Rather, it is limited to information, “not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action[.]” R. 4:10-2(a). In McClain v. College Hospital, our Supreme Court considered whether the investigatory records of a state licensing board should be released for use in a civil proceeding. 99 N.J. 346, 351 (1985). The Court held that such records should be released where there is a particularized need that outweighs the public interest in confidentiality of the investigative proceedings, taking into account (1) the extent to which the information may be available from other sources, (2) the degree of harm that the litigant will suffer from its unavailability, and (3) the possible prejudice to the agency’s investigation. [Ibid.] A-3024-18T1 8 The Court noted that, when the inquiry revolves around law enforcement investigatory information, the situation “invites case-by-case consideration of whether access would probably so prejudice the possibility of effective law enforcement that such disclosure would not be in the public interest.” Id. at 357. With the foregoing discovery principles in mind, we turn to the trial court’s opinion. In her oral decision, the motion judge, in determining that plaintiff was not entitled to the subpoenaed documents, emphasized that “the [BCPO] is not a party.” She concluded “the interest of confidentiality” outweighs “plaintiff’s interest in disclosure,” as “the [BCPO] must be able to conduct confidential investigations into allegations of misconduct.” Based upon our review of the record, we are compelled to remand the matter to the Law Division for further proceedings. Here, the motion judge did not explicitly weigh the balancing factors in her ruling. Significantly, the judge did not conduct an in camera review of the BCPO files to first determine the relevancy of each document by judging whether each document contains “evidence having a tendency in reason to prove or disprove any fact of consequence to the determination of the action.” N.J.R.E. 401. The judge’s failure to conduct an in camera review and balance plaintiff’s interest in the records with the BCPO’s interest in confidentiality constitutes a mistaken A-3024-18T1 9 exercise of discretion, warranting a remand. The subpoenaed records could very well play a central role in determining if the charges against plaintiff were warranted or retaliatory. Further, once a document is deemed relevant, the trial judge is required to “examine each document individually and make factual findings with regard to why [a plaintiff’s] interest in disclosure is or is not outweighed by [the State’s] interest in nondisclosure.” Keddie v. Rutgers, 148 N.J. 36, 54 (1997); see also Hammock by Hammock v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., 142 N.J. 356, 381-82 (1995) (dealing with sealing of documents in civil cases concerning health, safety, and consumer fraud, and noting, “[t]he need for secrecy must be demonstrated with specificity as to each document. . . . [T]he trial court, or a master appointed for such purpose pursuant to Rule 4:41-1 to -5, must examine each document individually and make factual findings.”). When a New Jersey trial court reviews documents in camera, it must ‘make specific determinations regarding plaintiff’s access to them, including an expression of reasons for the court’s rulings.’ The trial court must examine each document individually, and explain as to each document deemed privileged why it has so ruled. [Seacoast Builders Corp. v. Rutgers, 358 N.J. Super. 524, 542 (App. Div. 2003) (quoting Payton, 148 N.J. at 550).] A-3024-18T1 10 When stating the reasons for nondisclosure, a judge should “state with particularity the facts, without disclosing the secrets sought to be protected, that . . . persuade the court to seal the document or continue it under seal.” Hammock, 142 N.J. at 382. However, where a judge is unable to reveal factual findings without disclosing the confidential material sought, the disclosure of those factual findings can be sealed for appellate review, thus permitting a meaningful determination by this court whether the judge correctly exercised his or her discretion. See Shuttleworth v. City of Camden, 258 N.J. Super. 573, 589 (1992). We further note that the AG Guidelines specifically authorize the release of “information and records of an internal investigation” when administrative charges have been brought against an officer and a hearing will be held. AG Guidelines at 42. The record contains no evidence the Borough has dismissed the pending administrative charges against plaintiff. We are unpersuaded by BCPO’s claim that it has now provided all documents in its possession that relate to the disciplinary charges against plaintiff, in light of its unexplained failure to supply a certification that it has produced all requested documents and communications without redaction. A-3024-18T1 11 Under these circumstances, we do not find unreasonable plaintiff’s trust-but- verify response to the BCPO’s claim of full compliance. We therefore vacate the order under review and remand to the motion judge with directions to review the subpoenaed records 3 in camera and render a decision making specific reference to particular documents or groups of documents and provide factual findings, if necessary, in the form of a separate sealed decision. Only then can we effectively review the factual basis of the judge’s decision and determine whether she “abused [her] discretion after weighing the competing considerations of the balancing test.” Shuttleworth, 258 N.J. Super. at 588 (quoting State v. Milligan, 71 N.J. 373, 384 (1976)). The subpoenaed files, and any specific reference to the contents of the subpoenaed files made by the court following an in camera review, shall remain under seal pending any subsequent appeal. Vacated and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction. 3 Since the BCPO has already provided 511 documents to plaintiff, without reservation, the task confronting the motion judge would be to identify any remaining documents not yet provided, and then to “examine each document individually and make factual findings with regard to why [a plaintiff’s] interest in disclosure is or is not outweighed by [the State’s] interest in nondisclosure.” Keddie, 148 N.J. at 54. A-3024-18T1 12
Palisades Park, Borough Of · 275 Broad Ave Ste 1, Palisades Park, NJ 07650-1534, USA
This dataset includes 900 thousand business and government entities registered with the System for Award Management (SAM), U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). Each entity applying for federal awards as a prime awardee needs a registration with SAM, which allows bidding on government contracts and applying for federal assistance. Each entity is registered with unique entity ID, legal name, dba name, company division, business address, point of contacts, business types, registration date, etc.
Search
키워드에 대한 정보 david lorenzo palisades park nj
다음은 Bing에서 david lorenzo palisades park nj 주제에 대한 검색 결과입니다. 필요한 경우 더 읽을 수 있습니다.
이 기사는 인터넷의 다양한 출처에서 편집되었습니다. 이 기사가 유용했기를 바랍니다. 이 기사가 유용하다고 생각되면 공유하십시오. 매우 감사합니다!
사람들이 주제에 대해 자주 검색하는 키워드 FOOD in THE MOST KOREAN City in America! (Palisades Park)
- fung brothers
- fung bros
- Andrew Fung
- David Fung
- andrewjfung
- davidbfung
- asian american
- sneakerheads
- asian identity
- streetwear
- asian rapper
- mikey chen
- strictly dumpling
- chinese food
- asian food
- asian comedian
- mark wiens
- jimmy zhang
- richie le
- hypetalk
- korean food
- korean street food
- palisades park
- korean jersey
- new jersey food
- chinese korean
- jiajiangmyun
- kbbq
FOOD #in #THE #MOST #KOREAN #City #in #America! #(Palisades #Park)
YouTube에서 david lorenzo palisades park nj 주제의 다른 동영상 보기
주제에 대한 기사를 시청해 주셔서 감사합니다 FOOD in THE MOST KOREAN City in America! (Palisades Park) | david lorenzo palisades park nj, 이 기사가 유용하다고 생각되면 공유하십시오, 매우 감사합니다.
