Charting the Goings-On in Teaneck
//Teaneck is a town with a unique and proud history. I’ve created this blog to provide a place to exchange ideas and share visions for how to solve the challenges facing the town in a manner that brings diverse groups of people together. Contributors are welcome.
Please join us and help Teaneck live up to its promise.
I also created a Facebook Group where residents can bring up and discuss topics about the Township: Teaneck Today
Feel free to click the link, join and share with your neighbors.
//“Following its discussion on May 20, 2025, the Commission adopted a decision at its meeting on June 17, 2025, finding that there are sufficient facts and circumstances pled in the Complaint and in the Written Statement to lead a reasonable person to believe that N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) (Counts 1, 2, and 4) were violated as set forth in the Complaint” (page 1)
“The Commission also adopted a decision finding the Complaint not frivolous, and denying Respondents’ request for sanctions.” (page 2)
“Based on its finding of probable cause, the Commission voted to transmit the above-captioned matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for a plenary hearing where Complainants shall carry the burden to prove the remaining allegations that Respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) in Counts 1, 2, and 4.”
On June 17, 2025, the School Ethics Commission decided a complaint filed against some members of the Teaneck Board of Education.
This complaint was brought by Keith Kaplan, Danielle Feuer, Suzanne Griffin Garcia, Adam Gussen, and Carl Jackson, who alleged that eleven Board members—Clara Williams, Kassandra Reyes, Sebastian Rodriguez, Victoria Fisher, David Gruber, Edward Ha, Nadia Hosein, Gerald Kirshenbaum, Dennis Klein, Jonathan Rodriguez, and Denise Sanders—violated the School Ethics Act.
The Board members had contended that the complaint was frivolous and requested that penalties be issued against the Complainants.
The Commission decided there was enough evidence to suggest that the Board members might have violated certain ethics rules related to Counts 1, 2, and 4 of the complaint. However, they found insufficient evidence for Count 3 because the Judge did not specifically include the dates for that count in the decision.
The Commission also ruled that their complaint was not baseless, and they denied the Board members’ request to issue penalties against the Complainants.
The core of the complaint revolves around a section of the Code of Ethics for School Board Members, specifically N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a). This rule essentially states that school board members must uphold and enforce all state laws, rules from the State Board of Education, and court orders related to schools. It also says that any changes desired should only be made through legal and ethical means.
In order to prevail on this type of claim, a complainant must include a decision from a Court of Law in the State of NJ that says a violation of the law took place.
The School Ethics Commission’s role is specifically to enforce the School Ethics Act. They clarified that while the complaint mentioned violations of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), the Commission itself isn’t the body that rules on OPMA violations. Those types of claims need to be pursued in a different legal forum (the Superior Court already ruled on those issues).
However, when it came to whether the Board members upheld their ethical duty to follow court orders (as outlined in N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a)), the Commission looked for specific evidence: a final court decision showing that the Board members failed to enforce laws or court orders.
Here’s what they found:
Because there’s enough evidence for Counts 1, 2, and 4, these parts of the complaint will now move to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for a full hearing.
At this hearing, the Complainants will need to present their case and prove that the Board members indeed violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a). Because a Court decision already indicates that they violated the law, this part should move fairly quickly.
The OAL will notify all parties involved of the hearing dates.
In accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:12-29(b), and for the reasons detailed herein, the Commission hereby notifies Complainants and Respondents that there are sufficient facts and circumstances pled in the Complaint and in the Written Statement to lead a reasonable person to believe that N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) was violated in Counts 1, 2, and 4, but insufficient facts and circumstances to believe that N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) in Count 3 was violated. The Commission further advises the parties that, following its review, it voted to find that the Complaint is not frivolous, and to deny Respondents’ request for sanctions.
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:28-9.8(a)(3), the Commission transmits the above-captioned matter to the OAL for a plenary hearing, Complainants shall carry the burden to factually establish that Respondents violated N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a). In order to prevail, Complainants must satisfy the burden of proof as articulated in N.J.A.C. 6A:28-6.4(a), specifically:1. Factual evidence of a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1(a) shall include a copy of a final decision from any court of law or administrative agency of this State demonstrating that Respondents failed to enforce all laws, rules and regulations of the State Board of Education, and/or court orders pertaining to schools or that Respondents brought about changes through illegal or unethical procedures.
The plenary hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the rules of the OAL. N.J.A.C. 1:1 et seq. The OAL will notify the parties when the remaining allegations in this matter will be heard.
Previous posts here:
C69-24 PC Decision
//Vote 1B Emil “Yitz” Stern and 2B Rosemary Carroll for the Assembly
I have had the privilege of serving with Yitz on the planning board, and I have witnessed firsthand his unwavering dedication to Teaneck and its residents. His extensive experience at the state level, where he has served on multiple gubernatorial commissions, and his collaborative work at the county level with neighboring municipalities, as well as his affiliation with Fairleigh Dickinson University (where he is a faculty member), demonstrates a profound understanding of the complex issues facing our region. Yitz has a proven track record of working hard and delivering results for our community.
While other candidates in this assembly race may appear worthy of support, this year, above all others, demands a strategic focus on candidates who not only possess integrity but also demonstrate the long-term viability to withstand future primary challenges and secure victories in general elections.
Yitz’s running mate, Rosemary Carroll, is a deserving candidate. In an era where political norms have been eroded from the highest offices to the local level, her presence on the ticket is more vital than ever.
The elimination of “the line” in New Jersey politics marks a historic shift, opening the door for multiple challengers to take on sitting incumbents.
However, we must think strategically beyond this immediate election cycle.
Two years from now, when the political landscape shifts and potential gubernatorial candidates emerge from other towns, and the current support of a single candidate no longer exists, the likelihood of a successful assembly run for less-established candidates diminishes significantly.
We need long-term strategic thinking, a return to fundamental civic norms, and candidates who will consistently prioritize our community’s needs above all else.
Emil “Yitz” Stern and Rosemary Carroll are precisely those candidates. Their experience, commitment to civic responsibility, and understanding of the political landscape make them the clear choice to represent Bergen County in the Assembly. They will be proven leaders who will put our priorities first, today and for the future.
Keith Kaplan
Teaneck Today
Polling Location Search Portal
Richard Rodda Center
250 Colonial Court
County Administration Building
One Bergen County Plaza
Bergen Comm. College – West Gallery Hall
400 Paramus Road
Jack Alter Community Center
1355 Inwood Terrace
Nutrition Center & Senior Citizens Building
480 Midland Avenue
River Vale Community Center
628 River Vale Road
Tice Senior Center
411 Chestnut Ridge Road
Wood-Ridge Senior Citizen Center
495 Highland Avenue
Public Library – Shotmeyer Room
200 Woodland Avenue
//On Thursday, January 2nd, 2025 at 7:00 pm, the Teaneck Council will hold the semi-annual reorganization meeting at the Rodda Center.
(Agenda available here: Reorganization Agenda)
We will be swearing in Mark Schwartz, Karen Orgen & Mike Pagan.
In addition, the Council will elect the Mayor & Deputy Mayors, among others.
For those who may not be familiar with the way the Teaneck Council operates, I’d like to offer some additional information:
How does our system work?
Teaneck utilizes the Council-Manager form of Government under the Faulkner Act. What that means in practice is that residents choose their council members “at-large” (i.e. you vote for everyone, as opposed to a ward system like neighboring Englewood) and the Council as a body, once elected and seated, chooses a mayor from among the council-members (as opposed to municipalities where the Mayor runs separately). Continue reading “Jan 2, 2025: A new council with the same members”
//While I’m hopeful that the results of this year’s election can restore a bit of civility to the dais at the Board of Education, the actions exhibited throughout the campaign by certain Trustees demonstrated outright contempt toward fellow board members in a manner implicating several areas of the School Ethics Act.
School Board Trustees receive specific training in regard to the School Ethics Act. One of the core requirements of the act and the decisions that come from it, is that Trustees must affirmatively state in a disclaimer when they are speaking as an individual and not as a BOE member (those who have attended any meeting where Howard Rose was in the vicinity during his time on the BOE are very familiar with this longstanding requirement).
The mandated disclaimer is not always enough, though. And when it comes to education-related matters, the School Ethics Act is not to be taken lightly.
The following is from an article taught to new Trustees and can be found on the New Jersey School Boards Association website:
SEC Warns Personal Opinion Disclaimer May Not Be Enough to Avoid Ethics Charges
New Jersey School Boards Association
“In an April 27, 2021 decision, the School Ethics Commission (SEC) voted to censure a school board member for writing an opinion article that endorsed some school board candidates but specifically called for the defeat of another. Finding an increase in the number of complaints received related to statements made on social media, the SEC drafted a substantive decision warning board members that a disclaimer of personal opinion in a public statement does not necessarily cure all ethics violations within the statement.”
What did this Trustee say that was worthy of Censure by the Ethics Commission?
“On October 30, 2018, the author of the opinion piece endorsed four school board candidates but spoke negatively about another, questioning her qualifications for the board.”
That was it. The author “spoke negatively” and questioned the fellow BOE member’s qualifications.
And they did it WITH the required disclaimer:
“In that writing, the member wrote a disclaimer saying: ‘The author is writing this endorsement on his own personal behalf. His opinions are his own.’ An administrative law judge who reviewed the case found that the disclaimer written by the member ‘was insufficient to convey that he was expressing his personal opinion.’ Additionally, the judge held that the board member admitted he did not seek approval from the board or its counsel before writing the article, and the author admitted that the endorsements were meant to influence the voters. “
Was this person censured because of a previous history of violating the rules? Nope.
“The judge held that a reprimand was appropriate based on case law and the fact that the board member had no previous history of ethics violations. However, the SEC disagreed and elevated the penalty to censure based on the severity of the violation.”1
With that in mind, let’s look at Teaneck’s BOE Trustee who just won re-election, Jonathan Rodriguez:
“Why do I think there’s so much hostility on the Current board? I… I’m gonna be plain. I think that our three new members [Ed note: David Gruber, Gerald Kirshenbaum and James Woff] have been a detriment to the board. I think that they have, done their best despite the six of us to damage the district. Both in perception and in actuality. Speaking on perception, I think that the, they’re fueled by, I don’t know, Facebook, to keep the vitriol going, as opposed to opening their minds and seeing that we are all people and we all want the best things for ourselves, for our community, and for our children. Thanks.”
If the oath to abide by the School Ethics Act is so serious as to merit censure even when you use a disclaimer and talk negatively about the qualifications of a candidate, what happens when you say that fellow BOE members are actively damage the district without a disclaimer?
We will find out.
During the campaign, I asked Mr. Rodriguez if he would apologize for the statements, try to foster a bit more cohesion and eliminate the negativity as a candidate.
I didn’t receive a response.
I’ve been watching and offering to help the BOE at every step because I truly want to end divisive rhetoric and get things to a point where the Board complies with the law and the public has notice of what’s going on with an opportunity to comment. That way, we can all work towards a more productive Teaneck.
If that has to be forced, it’s unfortunate but it was it is.
Below, you can find the complaint filed by me against Jonathan Rodriguez based on the standards the School Ethics Act mandates for Board Trustees.
It is my hope that such a complaint will 1) remind current BOE members of their obligations and 2) ensure compliance in the future by all members of the Board.
A response is due within 20 days of service (which took place on November 6, 2024).
Download a copy of the Complaint
C88-24_2024-10-29_Complaint C88-24_2024-11-06_Acknowledgement Letter re Complaint//After the Judge ruled in July that Keith Kaplan was a prevailing party regarding the failure of the Teaneck Board of Education to comply with the Open Public Meetings Act (the “OPMA”), the Board and their attorneys continued to act as if nothing happened. They refused to admit they lost the case. They refused to change the practices of the Board of Education.
So Keith Kaplan filed a Motion to compel them to comply. The first had to do with the BOE failing to pay fees to Kaplan as a prevailing party of $400. The Board responded that they were gonna do it…. in a bit
Judge Catuogno:
If such is the case, then Defendants also knew that it could not pay the $400 within the 30-day timeframe ordered by the Court. Defendants would have been wiser to have raised such an issue to the Court when the judgment was issued on July 18, 2024, or simply moved for an extension. (Opinion – page 16)
The next motion filed said that the OPMA was violated on August 21st when the Board AGAIN held a meeting without noticing the meeting or noticing an Agenda.
The Board responded that it’s cool because they put the agenda on the school website and that’s kinda how people do things in BOE land throughout the State.
Judge Catuogno:
In their opposition brief, Defendants state the January 17, 2024, meeting was properly noticed, stating that “posting the agenda on the website is … perfectly permissible” because it is a “norm throughout New Jersey.” Of course, norms that are not in strict compliance with OPMA cannot satisfy OPMA. (Opinion – page 12)
Swing and a miss….. if only someone had tried to tell them this ahead of time. Oh, wait….
But there’s more! Continue reading “JUDGE: KAPLAN WAS RIGHT and the BOE IS FAILING AGAIN to comply with the Open Public Meetings Act”
//I was hopeful that having lost in Court, the Board of Education would start observing the transparency rules. Sadly, that was not the case. At the August 21st meeting, despite one Trustee (James Wolff) objecting to the lack of proper notice, the Board President, Clara Williams continued the meeting.
Worse, the Board mischaracterized the errors they had made, refused to correct the errors moving forward and ignored the Order of the Judge in several respects (including not paying costs owed to the prevailing party within 30 days).
Due to the utter lack of contrition and their unwillingness to act under the Injunction entered by Judge Catuogno, an Ethics Complaint has been filed with the NJ Department of Education, Ethics Commission.
Bottom Line: Board members are ethically required to follow the law. The Judge found they didn’t comply with the mandates of the law.
Ergo, the Board members have committed Ethics violations.
The School Ethics Act , N.J.S.A. 18A:12-21 et seq. is intended to ensure that the conduct of school officials holds the respect and confidence of the people. The Legislature declared that school officials must avoid conduct which is in violation of their public trust or which creates a justifiable impression that the public trust is being violated. N.J.S.A. 18A:12-22(a). The School Ethics Act applies only to school officials as defined by N.J.S.A. 18A:12-23, which includes administrators . (Source: School Ethics Commission)
The first requirement of the Code of Ethics states:
If the Commission finds probable cause for the allegations in the complaint, the matter can:
1. Be retained by the Commission for a hearing.
b. The Commission will not need to secure the parties’ written consent in matters where it finds probable cause to credit a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-24.1 (Code of Ethics for School Board Members).
2. Be decided on a summary basis if the material facts are not in dispute
Nothing here is in dispute, so stay tuned…
Ethics ComplaintWhere the Commission deems there has been a violation of the Act, it may recommend a penalty to the Commissioner of Education which may include:
- Reprimand
- Censure
- Suspension
- Removal
In addition, if a school official was on notice that an activity would violate the Act, or in instances where a school official was previously sanctioned pursuant to this chapter, the Commission may recommend an enhanced penalty
(Source: School Ethics Commission)
//“When we talk about the purpose of the open public meetings act and similar statutes, they are meant to provide relief to the public when the statutes are not being followed–and the rules are not being followed by the public entities. And in this instance, Mr Kaplan has come forward and shone a light on this particular issue at the Teaneck School Board.”
– Superior Court Judge Carol Novey Catuogno
To properly notice a meeting, the Board must post an annual list of meeting dates by January 10th of each year or notice a particular meeting with its agenda. You need to send the Notice to 2 newspapers, put it up on your website, send it to the Municipality and place it on the bulletin board so people can see.
The Notice must be stated at the beginning of each meeting and be included in the minutes of the meeting.
Teaneck has failed to properly notice meetings, for years. And now that must change — by Court Order of the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, County of Bergen.
For months, the Board members stood with Superintendent Spencer and the decisions to remove Principal Valdes, to operate without proper notice and to ignore the warnings that their decisions can be voided. The weight and influence of the Weiner Law Group gave cover and credibility to those acting in secret.
Back in December, I stated that Superintendent Spencer abused the community’s trust, by operating secretly and holding votes that did not in any way comply with the Open Public Meetings Act, NJ’s “Sunshine Law”. Few took me seriously.
And when Superintendent Spencer removed Principal Valdes from THS, I spoke up. The Board didn’t listen.
I asked the Board to do the right thing–and redo the vote (according to the Sunshine rules). The Board refused.
I explained to the Board of Education and the Public how the Sunshine rules regarding transparency required a new vote. The Board still refused to take action to remedy the violations.
I went to meeting after meeting. I stood before the Board, and in January I said they had one last chance before I forced them to do the right thing. The Board still refused.
I’m not a lawyer. I never went to law school.
But I learned my way around the legal system a bit. And while I’ve never been a litigant, I thought what the Superintendent did to Principal Valdes was not ok. What the Board permitted, was not ok. In short, this was a case worth making and more importantly, no one else was making it.
In 1975, NJ created a series of “sunshine laws”. They require, at a minimum, to let the public know what you plan to do and describe in detail how to notice meetings.
As per the assignment Judge for the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, the Township of Teaneck’s Board of Education has been violating the transparency rules for quite some time.
“One cannot ignore that there has been a series or a longstanding consistent failing under the Open Public Meetings Act to notice these meetings properly. Having said that I do think that remedy is necessary.”
– Superior Court Judge Catuogno (official court transcript forthcoming)
Not only must the Board re-do several of their votes from last year (including the votes last December to transfer Principals Valdes & LoGuidice), but they also must re-vote the Re-Organization meeting of January 3, 2024 — where they decided on who will be President / VP of the Board, Secretary, Board / District Legal Counsel, and other matters. All must be re-done, in strict compliance with notice rules.
The Judge also entered an injunction, that the Board must strictly abide by the Open Public Meetings act moving forward.
Judge Catuogno also found that the exemption that schools need not notice agendas, does not apply in Teaneck. The reason is simple: to receive the benefit of the exemption, you must notice your annual meeting list in accordance with the law–and Teaneck’s Board of Education did not do so. As such, not only must each meeting going forward be noticed as to the time, date and location, but the AGENDA, must also be noticed, including topics for closed session discussion.
This is a significant win for transparency!
Judge Catuogno said that she is “confident that Mr Edelstein will counsel the Board of Education that they are to comply with every aspect of the Open Public Meetings Act”.
Let’s see if she is correct.
The Board has 70 days (until September 26, 2024) to re-do the votes of the December and January meetings. If they fail to do so, those votes are voided.
This is, as the President would say, a big f’ing deal.
The actions, in the judge’s words, were egregious enough and the pattern of the actions was longstanding enough, that an injunction was provided to force the Board to comply with the law.
“I’m particularly, specifically I should say, looking at counts three [transfer of principals] and four [holding the re-org meeting] for which relief has been granted. In both of those counts, in addition to the declaratory relief, the voiding of actions taken, I’m asked to award what’s generally referred to as injunctive relief. Thereby compelling or therefore compelling the defendants to change their agenda and public notice practices to provide adequate notice to the public.
I think based upon a review of the facts and circumstances in their totality, including the instances or the meeting dates referenced in count one (although they did not… they’re not cognizable before this court because they violate the statute of limitations), I do not think they can be ignored that this has been an ongoing pattern and it carries through to the counts three and four, where relief was granted, that there has been a pattern here.
Accordingly I do think it is appropriate for the court to enjoin the defendants and inform them that they are required, as is everybody that legislates or passes any sort of administrative policies, personnel decisions on behalf of the public–are required to comply with, in strict adherence according to the Supreme Court of the state of New Jersey, with the mandates of the open public [Meetings] act.
So I do think injunctive relief is granted.
This is appropriate in this instance and therefore it is granted.”
The law doesn’t stop you from making bad decisions, but it does stop you from doing it behind people’s backs.
Moving Teaneck Forward, the BOE must keep everyone informed as to what will happen in their meetings.
BER-L-000121-24_2024-07-18_Order
//Don’t miss your last chance to hear: “This is Township Manager Dean Kazinci with an important message”
The office of emergency management will be conducting annual testing of the Township’s mass notification system tomorrow morning at 10 AM.
There are eleven siren towers strategically located throughout town. Residents will hear a loud audible siren followed by a prerecorded message.
Testing will last 15 minutes.
More info available via Nixle:
//As mentioned in a previous post, on March 28th I filed an Ethics Complaint against Councilwoman Denise Belcher regarding an Application for a zoning variance before the Township’s Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Since Teaneck dissolved our local ethics board, the Complaint is adjudicated by the Local Government Division of the Local Finance Board.
The first step in resolving these types of complaints is to meet and determine if it’s frivolous or whether the allegations merit review. As per Counsel at the LFB, that happened today and as per the letter they just sent:
“Please be advised that it is the Board’s practice and intent to conduct a thorough investigation of the allegations presented. The Board’s staff is processing your complaint at this time and will, subsequently, present it to the Board for review and authorization of any necessary action. The Board will correspond with you as soon as a determination is made in this matter.”
Translation: It is not dismissed as frivolous.
You can read the complaint here: LFB Complaint #24-013
You can read the letter here: Letter from Local Finance Board dated June 6, 2024.
2024-06-07_Response from LFB (24-013)
//Just a note: While these do come from the County, there are still mail-in ballots that may be arriving, rejections that can be fixed and other issues that may alter the final tally.
The clerk will issue a final number in due course.
| District | Type of voting | Registered Dems | Votes Cast | Turnout (%) | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Voters | Voters Cast | Turnout (%) | CARROLL ANNE GRECE | JONATHAN ROSS | Write-ins | G REINER | OSAMA USMANI | AJHA RAHMAN | PALESTINE | Gerard Reiner | Desiree R. Reiner | ||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 1 | Early Voting | 608 | 17 | 2.80% | 13 | 12 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 1 | Election Day | 608 | 74 | 12.17% | 58 | 42 | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 1 | Mail-In | 608 | 43 | 7.07% | 32 | 29 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 1 | Provisional | 608 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 1 | Total | 608 | 134 | 22.04% | 103 | 83 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Teaneck | Total | 608 | 134 | 22.04% | 103 | 83 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Total - Early Voting | 608 | 17 | 2.80% | 13 | 12 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| Total - Election Day | 608 | 74 | 12.17% | 58 | 42 | 7 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Mail-In | 608 | 43 | 7.07% | 32 | 29 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Provisional | 608 | 0 | 0.00% | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contest Total | 608 | 134 | 22.04% | 103 | 83 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||
| Voters | Voters Cast | Turnout (%) | IRWIN BENZEL | MELISSA BENZEL | MOHAMED ARIF KHAN | Write-ins | Mahejabeen Kathawala | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 2 | Early Voting | 871 | 31 | 3.56% | 3 | 12 | 27 | 11 | |||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 2 | Election Day | 871 | 106 | 12.17% | 24 | 33 | 68 | 28 | |||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 2 | Mail-In | 871 | 66 | 7.58% | 12 | 26 | 46 | 10 | |||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 2 | Provisional | 871 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 2 | Total | 871 | 203 | 23.31% | 39 | 71 | 141 | 28 | 21 | ||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck | Total | 871 | 203 | 23.31% | 39 | 71 | 141 | 28 | 21 | ||||||||||||||||
| Total - Early Voting | 871 | 31 | 3.56% | 3 | 12 | 27 | 11 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Election Day | 871 | 106 | 12.17% | 24 | 33 | 68 | 28 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Mail-In | 871 | 66 | 7.58% | 12 | 26 | 46 | 10 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Provisional | 871 | 0 | 0.00% | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contest Total | 871 | 203 | 23.31% | 39 | 71 | 141 | 28 | 21 | |||||||||||||||||
| Voters | Voters Cast | Turnout (%) | AYELET HIRSCHKORN | REUBEN SHARRET | Write-ins | MUBINA KATHAWALA | Mohamed Arif Khan | Mahejaben Kathawala | |||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 3 | Early Voting | 754 | 98 | 13.00% | 88 | 81 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 3 | Election Day | 754 | 181 | 24.01% | 122 | 117 | 20 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 3 | Mail-In | 754 | 54 | 7.16% | 36 | 40 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 3 | Provisional | 754 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 3 | Total | 754 | 333 | 44.16% | 246 | 238 | 20 | 5 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||||||||
| Teaneck | Total | 754 | 333 | 44.16% | 246 | 238 | 20 | 5 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||||||||
| Total - Early Voting | 754 | 98 | 13.00% | 88 | 81 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Election Day | 754 | 181 | 24.01% | 122 | 117 | 20 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Mail-In | 754 | 54 | 7.16% | 36 | 40 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Provisional | 754 | 0 | 0.00% | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contest Total | 754 | 333 | 44.16% | 246 | 238 | 20 | 5 | 3 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||
| Voters | Voters Cast | Turnout (%) | THOMAS A. ABBOTT | TAMAR D. WARBURG | GWENETTE REESE | Write-ins | YIBAL GROSS | YIGAL GROSS | MICKEY MOUSE | FREE PALESTINE | CEASEFIRE NOW | GRUBR | |||||||||||||
| Teaneck 4 | Early Voting | 769 | 149 | 19.38% | 99 | 111 | 36 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Teaneck 4 | Election Day | 769 | 138 | 17.95% | 90 | 77 | 51 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 4 | Mail-In | 769 | 82 | 10.66% | 64 | 33 | 44 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 4 | Provisional | 769 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 4 | Total | 769 | 369 | 47.98% | 253 | 221 | 131 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
| Teaneck | Total | 769 | 369 | 47.98% | 253 | 221 | 131 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
| Total - Early Voting | 769 | 149 | 19.38% | 99 | 111 | 36 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||
| Total - Election Day | 769 | 138 | 17.95% | 90 | 77 | 51 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Mail-In | 769 | 82 | 10.66% | 64 | 33 | 44 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Provisional | 769 | 0 | 0.00% | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contest Total | 769 | 369 | 47.98% | 253 | 221 | 131 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Voters | Voters Cast | Turnout (%) | JUANITA BROWN | YASSINE ELKARYANI | Write-ins | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 5 | Early Voting | 571 | 19 | 3.33% | 16 | 15 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 5 | Election Day | 571 | 77 | 13.49% | 59 | 46 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 5 | Mail-In | 571 | 31 | 5.43% | 24 | 21 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 5 | Provisional | 571 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 5 | Total | 571 | 127 | 22.24% | 99 | 82 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck | Total | 571 | 127 | 22.24% | 99 | 82 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Early Voting | 571 | 19 | 3.33% | 16 | 15 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Election Day | 571 | 77 | 13.49% | 59 | 46 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Mail-In | 571 | 31 | 5.43% | 24 | 21 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Provisional | 571 | 0 | 0.00% | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contest Total | 571 | 127 | 22.24% | 99 | 82 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Registered Voters | Voters Cast | Turnout (%) | ALEXANDRA SORIANO-TAVERAS | RONALD SCHWARTZ | Write-ins | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 6 | Early Voting | 735 | 18 | 2.45% | 17 | 9 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 6 | Election Day | 735 | 74 | 10.07% | 61 | 39 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 6 | Mail-In | 735 | 102 | 13.88% | 83 | 78 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 6 | Provisional | 735 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 6 | Total | 735 | 194 | 26.39% | 161 | 126 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck | Total | 735 | 194 | 26.39% | 161 | 126 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Early Voting | 735 | 18 | 2.45% | 17 | 9 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Election Day | 735 | 74 | 10.07% | 61 | 39 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Mail-In | 735 | 102 | 13.88% | 83 | 78 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Provisional | 735 | 0 | 0.00% | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contest Total | 735 | 194 | 26.39% | 161 | 126 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Voters | Voters Cast | Turnout (%) | JAMES R. NORMAN | LEYAT MAFOUDA | AVI BERLINER | MARGARET E. FISHER | Write-ins | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 7 | Early Voting | 698 | 49 | 7.02% | 16 | 30 | 32 | 17 | |||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 7 | Election Day | 698 | 116 | 16.62% | 53 | 45 | 52 | 49 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 7 | Mail-In | 698 | 57 | 8.17% | 39 | 11 | 10 | 38 | |||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 7 | Provisional | 698 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 7 | Total | 698 | 222 | 31.81% | 108 | 86 | 94 | 104 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck | Total | 698 | 222 | 31.81% | 108 | 86 | 94 | 104 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||
| Total - Early Voting | 698 | 49 | 7.02% | 16 | 30 | 32 | 17 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Election Day | 698 | 116 | 16.62% | 53 | 45 | 52 | 49 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||
| Total - Mail-In | 698 | 57 | 8.17% | 39 | 11 | 10 | 38 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Provisional | 698 | 0 | 0.00% | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contest Total | 698 | 222 | 31.81% | 108 | 86 | 94 | 104 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||
| Voters | Voters Cast | Turnout (%) | SHARON VATSKY | ARTHUR VATSKY | MICHAEL KLATSKY | SHANA B. DWORKEN | Write-ins | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 8 | Early Voting | 820 | 61 | 7.44% | 22 | 18 | 37 | 37 | |||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 8 | Election Day | 820 | 195 | 23.78% | 84 | 74 | 87 | 92 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 8 | Mail-In | 820 | 90 | 10.98% | 63 | 59 | 21 | 19 | |||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 8 | Provisional | 820 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 8 | Total | 820 | 346 | 42.20% | 169 | 151 | 145 | 148 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck | Total | 820 | 346 | 42.20% | 169 | 151 | 145 | 148 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||
| Total - Early Voting | 820 | 61 | 7.44% | 22 | 18 | 37 | 37 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Election Day | 820 | 195 | 23.78% | 84 | 74 | 87 | 92 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||
| Total - Mail-In | 820 | 90 | 10.98% | 63 | 59 | 21 | 19 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Provisional | 820 | 0 | 0.00% | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contest Total | 820 | 346 | 42.20% | 169 | 151 | 145 | 148 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||
| Voters | Voters Cast | Turnout (%) | DANIEL A. BLOOM | ELIZABETH KLEIN | HILLARY KESSLER-GODIN | Write-ins | |||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 9 | Early Voting | 692 | 120 | 17.34% | 105 | 25 | 94 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 9 | Election Day | 692 | 224 | 32.37% | 180 | 63 | 160 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 9 | Mail-In | 692 | 60 | 8.67% | 41 | 34 | 28 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 9 | Provisional | 692 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 9 | Total | 692 | 404 | 58.38% | 326 | 122 | 282 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck | Total | 692 | 404 | 58.38% | 326 | 122 | 282 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Early Voting | 692 | 120 | 17.34% | 105 | 25 | 94 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Election Day | 692 | 224 | 32.37% | 180 | 63 | 160 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Mail-In | 692 | 60 | 8.67% | 41 | 34 | 28 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Provisional | 692 | 0 | 0.00% | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contest Total | 692 | 404 | 58.38% | 326 | 122 | 282 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Voters | Voters Cast | Turnout (%) | SHARON L. KOLB | RHONA VEGA | NOAH LIBEN | Write-ins | |||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 10 | Early Voting | 663 | 136 | 20.51% | 132 | 4 | 126 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 10 | Election Day | 663 | 199 | 30.02% | 152 | 51 | 151 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 10 | Mail-In | 663 | 89 | 13.42% | 41 | 47 | 65 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 10 | Provisional | 663 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 10 | Total | 663 | 424 | 63.95% | 325 | 102 | 342 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck | Total | 663 | 424 | 63.95% | 325 | 102 | 342 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Early Voting | 663 | 136 | 20.51% | 132 | 4 | 126 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Election Day | 663 | 199 | 30.02% | 152 | 51 | 151 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Mail-In | 663 | 89 | 13.42% | 41 | 47 | 65 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Provisional | 663 | 0 | 0.00% | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contest Total | 663 | 424 | 63.95% | 325 | 102 | 342 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Voters | Voters Cast | Turnout (%) | CARLEY L. PEVEN | Write-ins | Alan Sohn | ALAN SOHN | ALLEN SOHN | ABDUL WAHEED | TALIA ROSENBERG | SOHN | ALAN SONNE | ||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 11 | Early Voting | 572 | 133 | 23.25% | 124 | 3 | 83 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 1 | |||||||||||||
| Teaneck 11 | Election Day | 572 | 182 | 31.82% | 161 | 111 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 11 | Mail-In | 572 | 47 | 8.22% | 41 | 12 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 11 | Provisional | 572 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 11 | Total | 572 | 362 | 63.29% | 326 | 111 | 15 | 84 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Teaneck | Total | 572 | 362 | 63.29% | 326 | 111 | 15 | 84 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Total - Early Voting | 572 | 133 | 23.25% | 124 | 3 | 83 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Total - Election Day | 572 | 182 | 31.82% | 161 | 111 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Mail-In | 572 | 47 | 8.22% | 41 | 12 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Provisional | 572 | 0 | 0.00% | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contest Total | 572 | 362 | 63.29% | 326 | 111 | 15 | 84 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 1 | |||||||||||||
| Voters | Voters Cast | Turnout (%) | EMIL STERN | TERESA R. BAYEWITZ | Write-ins | SCOTT ALTIERI | |||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 12 | Early Voting | 807 | 128 | 15.86% | 121 | 122 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 12 | Election Day | 807 | 185 | 22.92% | 161 | 157 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 12 | Mail-In | 807 | 94 | 11.65% | 77 | 77 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 12 | Provisional | 807 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 12 | Total | 807 | 407 | 50.43% | 359 | 356 | 4 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck | Total | 807 | 407 | 50.43% | 359 | 356 | 4 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
| Total - Early Voting | 807 | 128 | 15.86% | 121 | 122 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Election Day | 807 | 185 | 22.92% | 161 | 157 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Mail-In | 807 | 94 | 11.65% | 77 | 77 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Provisional | 807 | 0 | 0.00% | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contest Total | 807 | 407 | 50.43% | 359 | 356 | 4 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Voters | Voters Cast | Turnout (%) | CLARA WILLIAMS | RAYMOND ADDISON | Write-ins | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 13 | Early Voting | 809 | 32 | 3.96% | 29 | 23 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 13 | Election Day | 809 | 142 | 17.55% | 121 | 75 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 13 | Mail-In | 809 | 55 | 6.80% | 52 | 34 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 13 | Provisional | 809 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 13 | Total | 809 | 229 | 28.31% | 202 | 132 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck | Total | 809 | 229 | 28.31% | 202 | 132 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Early Voting | 809 | 32 | 3.96% | 29 | 23 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Election Day | 809 | 142 | 17.55% | 121 | 75 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Mail-In | 809 | 55 | 6.80% | 52 | 34 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Provisional | 809 | 0 | 0.00% | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contest Total | 809 | 229 | 28.31% | 202 | 132 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Registered Voters | Voters Cast | Turnout (%) | GLORIA J. WILSON | JAMES D. EDMONDS III | Write-ins | John Smith | |||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 14 | Early Voting | 1139 | 53 | 4.65% | 41 | 30 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 14 | Election Day | 1139 | 178 | 15.63% | 141 | 90 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 14 | Mail-In | 1139 | 69 | 6.06% | 63 | 50 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 14 | Provisional | 1139 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 14 | Total | 1139 | 300 | 26.34% | 245 | 170 | 4 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck | Total | 1139 | 300 | 26.34% | 245 | 170 | 4 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
| Total - Early Voting | 1139 | 53 | 4.65% | 41 | 30 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Election Day | 1139 | 178 | 15.63% | 141 | 90 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Mail-In | 1139 | 69 | 6.06% | 63 | 50 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Provisional | 1139 | 0 | 0.00% | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contest Total | 1139 | 300 | 26.34% | 245 | 170 | 4 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Registered Voters | Voters Cast | Turnout (%) | TALYA ROSENBERG | ZACHARY YITZCHAK GREENBERG | NATASHA WILLIAMS | Write-ins | KWASI | GLENN WILLIAMS | GLENN WILLIAMS JR | ||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 15 | Early Voting | 789 | 99 | 12.55% | 78 | 76 | 20 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 15 | Election Day | 789 | 133 | 16.86% | 71 | 69 | 58 | 8 | |||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 15 | Mail-In | 789 | 46 | 5.83% | 30 | 21 | 23 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 15 | Provisional | 789 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 15 | Total | 789 | 278 | 35.23% | 179 | 166 | 101 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Teaneck | Total | 789 | 278 | 35.23% | 179 | 166 | 101 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Total - Early Voting | 789 | 99 | 12.55% | 78 | 76 | 20 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| Total - Election Day | 789 | 133 | 16.86% | 71 | 69 | 58 | 8 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Mail-In | 789 | 46 | 5.83% | 30 | 21 | 23 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Provisional | 789 | 0 | 0.00% | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contest Total | 789 | 278 | 35.23% | 179 | 166 | 101 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| Voters | Voters Cast | Turnout (%) | DENISE SANDERS | CHERYL L. HALL | Write-ins | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 16 | Early Voting | 540 | 8 | 1.48% | *** | *** | *** | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 16 | Election Day | 540 | 81 | 15.00% | 59 | 32 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 16 | Mail-In | 540 | 33 | 6.11% | 28 | 26 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 16 | Provisional | 540 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 16 | Total | 540 | 122 | 22.59% | 93 | 62 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck | Total | 540 | 122 | 22.59% | 93 | 62 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Early Voting | 540 | 8 | 1.48% | *** | *** | *** | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Election Day | 540 | 81 | 15.00% | 59 | 32 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Mail-In | 540 | 33 | 6.11% | 28 | 26 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Provisional | 540 | 0 | 0.00% | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contest Total | 540 | 122 | 22.59% | 93 | 62 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Registered Voters | Voters Cast | Turnout (%) | DONALD STARK | GERVONN C. ROMNEY-RICE | Write-ins | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 17 | Early Voting | 881 | 40 | 4.54% | 26 | 35 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 17 | Election Day | 881 | 130 | 14.76% | 81 | 95 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 17 | Mail-In | 881 | 64 | 7.26% | 54 | 54 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 17 | Provisional | 881 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 17 | Total | 881 | 234 | 26.56% | 161 | 184 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck | Total | 881 | 234 | 26.56% | 161 | 184 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Early Voting | 881 | 40 | 4.54% | 26 | 35 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Election Day | 881 | 130 | 14.76% | 81 | 95 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Mail-In | 881 | 64 | 7.26% | 54 | 54 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Provisional | 881 | 0 | 0.00% | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contest Total | 881 | 234 | 26.56% | 161 | 184 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Voters | Voters Cast | Turnout (%) | JENNIFER A. MONTAG | STEPHEN GRUBER | QURAN GEE | Write-ins | Sam Passner | DANIELLE GEE | |||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 18 | Early Voting | 843 | 107 | 12.69% | 93 | 79 | 17 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 18 | Election Day | 843 | 169 | 20.05% | 131 | 107 | 53 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 18 | Mail-In | 843 | 91 | 10.79% | 74 | 32 | 42 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 18 | Provisional | 843 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 18 | Total | 843 | 367 | 43.53% | 298 | 218 | 112 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| Teaneck | Total | 843 | 367 | 43.53% | 298 | 218 | 112 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| Total - Early Voting | 843 | 107 | 12.69% | 93 | 79 | 17 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Election Day | 843 | 169 | 20.05% | 131 | 107 | 53 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Mail-In | 843 | 91 | 10.79% | 74 | 32 | 42 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Provisional | 843 | 0 | 0.00% | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contest Total | 843 | 367 | 43.53% | 298 | 218 | 112 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| Registered Voters | Voters Cast | Turnout (%) | JUDITH SAMUELS RAMOS | GABRIELLE SOPHIA WASSERMAN | DANIEL M. ROSENBLUM | SEAN HIRSCHHORN | Write-ins | Elie Katz | |||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 19 | Early Voting | 751 | 83 | 11.05% | 29 | 50 | 28 | 46 | |||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 19 | Election Day | 751 | 131 | 17.44% | 63 | 62 | 43 | 51 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 19 | Mail-In | 751 | 80 | 10.65% | 61 | 11 | 57 | 6 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 19 | Provisional | 751 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 19 | Total | 751 | 294 | 39.15% | 153 | 123 | 128 | 103 | 5 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| Teaneck | Total | 751 | 294 | 39.15% | 153 | 123 | 128 | 103 | 5 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| Total - Early Voting | 751 | 83 | 11.05% | 29 | 50 | 28 | 46 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Election Day | 751 | 131 | 17.44% | 63 | 62 | 43 | 51 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||
| Total - Mail-In | 751 | 80 | 10.65% | 61 | 11 | 57 | 6 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
| Total - Provisional | 751 | 0 | 0.00% | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contest Total | 751 | 294 | 39.15% | 153 | 123 | 128 | 103 | 5 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| Voters | Voters Cast | Turnout (%) | ELIE Y. KATZ | MICHELLE M. BIVINS | RUTH EZRAPOUR | JARREN N. BIVINS | Write-ins | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 20 | Early Voting | 497 | 98 | 19.72% | 86 | 16 | 79 | 11 | |||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 20 | Election Day | 497 | 152 | 30.58% | 120 | 36 | 111 | 25 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 20 | Mail-In | 497 | 52 | 10.46% | 32 | 26 | 23 | 18 | |||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 20 | Provisional | 497 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 20 | Total | 497 | 302 | 60.76% | 238 | 78 | 213 | 54 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck | Total | 497 | 302 | 60.76% | 238 | 78 | 213 | 54 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||
| Total - Early Voting | 497 | 98 | 19.72% | 86 | 16 | 79 | 11 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Election Day | 497 | 152 | 30.58% | 120 | 36 | 111 | 25 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||
| Total - Mail-In | 497 | 52 | 10.46% | 32 | 26 | 23 | 18 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Provisional | 497 | 0 | 0.00% | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contest Total | 497 | 302 | 60.76% | 238 | 78 | 213 | 54 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||
| Voters | Voters Cast | Turnout (%) | LORETTA WEINBERG | ROBERT ELKIN | Write-ins | MUHAMMAD BAGASRA | PALESTINE | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 21 | Early Voting | 788 | 25 | 3.17% | 17 | 17 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 21 | Election Day | 788 | 86 | 10.91% | 63 | 43 | 9 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 21 | Mail-In | 788 | 112 | 14.21% | 107 | 88 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 21 | Provisional | 788 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 21 | Total | 788 | 223 | 28.30% | 187 | 148 | 9 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck | Total | 788 | 223 | 28.30% | 187 | 148 | 9 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||
| Total - Early Voting | 788 | 25 | 3.17% | 17 | 17 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Election Day | 788 | 86 | 10.91% | 63 | 43 | 9 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Mail-In | 788 | 112 | 14.21% | 107 | 88 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Provisional | 788 | 0 | 0.00% | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contest Total | 788 | 223 | 28.30% | 187 | 148 | 9 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||
| Voters | Voters Cast | Turnout (%) | DEVORAH BACKMAN | OSAMA USMANI | AJHA RAHMAN | Write-ins | PALESTINE | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 22 | Early Voting | 744 | 42 | 5.65% | 12 | 32 | 28 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 22 | Election Day | 744 | 118 | 15.86% | 34 | 72 | 72 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 22 | Mail-In | 744 | 55 | 7.39% | 24 | 36 | 34 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 22 | Provisional | 744 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 22 | Total | 744 | 215 | 28.90% | 70 | 140 | 134 | 5 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck | Total | 744 | 215 | 28.90% | 70 | 140 | 134 | 5 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| Total - Early Voting | 744 | 42 | 5.65% | 12 | 32 | 28 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Election Day | 744 | 118 | 15.86% | 34 | 72 | 72 | 5 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Mail-In | 744 | 55 | 7.39% | 24 | 36 | 34 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Provisional | 744 | 0 | 0.00% | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contest Total | 744 | 215 | 28.90% | 70 | 140 | 134 | 5 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
| Voters | Voters Cast | Turnout (%) | Write-ins | Rhona Vega | Noah Liben | PALISTINE | ZUNERA ZUBAIRY | ||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 23 | Early Voting | 721 | 19 | 2.64% | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 23 | Election Day | 721 | 75 | 10.40% | 12 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 23 | Mail-In | 721 | 35 | 4.85% | 2 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 23 | Provisional | 721 | 0 | 0.00% | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck 23 | Total | 721 | 129 | 17.89% | 12 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| Teaneck | Total | 721 | 129 | 17.89% | 12 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| Total - Early Voting | 721 | 19 | 2.64% | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Election Day | 721 | 75 | 10.40% | 12 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Mail-In | 721 | 35 | 4.85% | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Total - Provisional | 721 | 0 | 0.00% | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Contest Total | 721 | 129 | 17.89% | 12 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |