Dawn and Jennifer’s Philadelphia Engagement photography shoot at Wissahickon Valley Trail, Philadelphia, PA. Save this date , I am so excited to photograph their wedding on October 2014.
The couple selected me because of my sensitivity and what they saw as my ability to photograph there special wedding day just as they envisioned it.
I specialize in wedding photojournalism, engagement photography and destination wedding photography. I began my career just over 12 years ago learning through apprenticeships with well established photographers. I have worked hard to satisfy my clients, building my portfolio, and develop my skills. I adore this line of work and I am constantly striving to capture these special moments naturally.
I have worked with over the past 12 years. And then of course, there is my “Portfolio” which consist of images I selected over the years from Celebrities (such as Lady Gaga in 2008 for DJ Times Magazine), Bridal Couture, Engagements, and of course Weddings, to acquaint you with my style and experience.
When Dawn and Jennifer stumbled on my website they discovered a black and white photograph of two women in bridal gowns holding one another on market street with a crowd walking by staring at them. They instantly fell in love with my work. The liked my approach to wedding photography which is natural and non posed.
I picked the Wissahickon Valley Trail for their engagement session because they wanted to include a lot of fall foliage symbolizing the change in their life.
I prefer to customize packages based on my clients’ specific needs. But don’t feel worried. My prices are reasonable and competitive. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions you may have. Wedding Consultations are free and can be scheduled at my studio at 122 Church Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106. We can also connect via Skype (ArtChickbiz) , or phone: 215-650-7052
I opened my mailbox on Saturday afternoon, Save Jerseyans, and I found the nifty little mailer to your right (and at the bottom) among the bills and supermarket circulars.
It’s produced by “The Coalition to Preserve Jobs and Our Constitution,” a group of Garden State business owners dedicated to defeating a proposed constitutional amendment on New Jersey’s fall ballot which would hike our state’s minimum wage and, most troubling of all, constitutionally-mandating that all future increases be tied to the consumer price index.
How Government Creates Unemployment with Minimum Wage Laws
Monday, October 31st, 2011 by Kel Kelly posted in Capitalism, Economics, Politics, Regulation.
British Columbia, why do you hate the poor?
Excerpted from “The Case for Legalizing Capitalism”
Politicians like to tell us that if we elect them, they will create jobs for us. This is impossible, unless they intend to expand government and have taxpayers pay more government workers to produce unprofitable services, or, to directly finance the creation of specific jobs in a specific marketplace with taxpayers money. In either case, a destruction of wealth is involved, and the jobs”unlike private sector jobs”do not pay for themselves and thus require yet new taxpayer funding each year, which further reduces capital in the economy. Except for the few wealth-destroying activities such as building space stations[ref]The space stations might eventually help us produce wealth, but do not currently. Even if they did, consumers would likely prefer to have other things for their lives instead of space stations. If space stations were to be a consumer preference (i.e., cost effective), they would likely be so decades or centuries down the road, not now. Plus, many things NASA is associated with having created were actually created by others. On this, see Tim Swanson, What wont NASA Build Next, https://mises.org/daily/2434.[/ref] and military bases, government creates and builds nothing. It thus has no power to create real jobs in the marketplace; it can only manage and regulate. It is only individuals and individual companies that produce and create; their ideas and capital are what profitably create jobs. The only way politicians can create beneficial jobs for us in the marketplace is by undoing the existing policies that create unemployment.
Thats right, the government (and only the government) creates unemployment, except for unemployment that arises from temporary factors such as switching between jobs. The notion that there could not be enough jobs for everyone is absurd. Think back to the desert island example: can we imagine that regardless of whether there is one person or many people on the island that they could ever run out of things to do to improve their standards of living? The same is true in our economy today. There are many more things needing to be done than we have people to do them. Most companies operating today, given available monetary capital, would expand production of what they are currently producing, or create new lines of businesses if only they had additional workers available to do this new work. And the more people we would have producing, the more things we could produce.
So then why is there unemployment? Primarily because some workers are prevented from working by having the cost of their labor fixed artificially high, above the market price, by law.[ref]And to a lesser degree by other labor laws such as those dictating maximum hours one can work as well as laws restricting the hiring and firing of workers, both of which are more intensely implemented and destructive in Western Europe and South America, where unemployment rates often reach over 20 percent.[/ref]This is done in two primary ways. The first way is by the existence of a minimum wage. As we learned earlier, workers are compensated based on the expected value of what they can produce. If the government prevents companies from hiring workers for less than a given wage, and if workers are not capable of contributing enough to company revenues to be able to cover the cost of their wages, they will not be hired. If a workers contribution to production brings in $5 of company revenues per hour, then paying the worker $7 per hour will mean a loss of $2 per hour to the company. Such workers will thus be left out of the workforce because they are unprofitable.
One might counter-argue that companies should pay a minimum hourly wage of $7 simply in order for the worker to survive given the cost of living. This argument will be addressed later in the section on poverty. It could also be argued that companies could pay more to workers by paying the difference out of profit, or by raising their prices. Neither of these is possible. As was explained earlier, businesses pay the maximum amount they can afford to pay for both labor and physical capital. Paying more will cut into the capitalists™ returns, or eliminate their profit altogether, which will drive them away toward other ventures; the entire company could thus go under (not to mention that companies must reinvest much of their profit in order to produce next years goods). Similarly, businesses cannot raise their prices to pay for higher labor costs. If they were able to raise prices at all, they would have already done so simply to make a higher profit. Businesses charge as much as the market will bear given a particular amount of money in the economy; if they charge more, they will make less money because demand will drop. Businesses across the entire economy will only raise prices if there is an increase in the quantity of money in the economy”i.e., the government prints more money. The current discussion is based on a fixed quantity of money in the economy at a given time.
If companies charge more, people will purchase a lower dollar amount (higher price times a lower overall quantity purchased). If companies charge less, their customers will purchase a higher dollar amount (lower price times a higher overall quantity purchased). Which way is optimal? Companies charge an amount that maximizes the total revenue they receive based on a price/quantity mix that results in the highest amount of revenue. If they charge more than the optimal amount, the total dollar amount of goods purchased by customers at that particular price/quantity level will be lower than the total dollar amount purchased at the optimal point possessing a lower price and higher quantity.
As an example, consider a theoretical burger joint where the owner is wondering whether raising prices would make it possible to pay more to the workers. Figure 1.4 reveals the different amounts of revenues that would result from various prices of hamburger plates.
Lowering the prices of each burger plate results in more burger plates sold. Raising the prices of each burger plate results in fewer burger plates sold. We can see that this owners optimal price to charge for a burger plate is $5.10. Charging more than this will result in lower revenues because the increase in price causes customers to buy fewer burger plates. Charging less than $5.10 will also result in lower revenues because even though the lower price leads to greater volume, it also means that fewer total dollars make it into the till. This example shows us that if the restaurant owner tried to charge more in order to pay workers more, the entire restaurant would lose business. The likely result would be the laying off of at least one worker in order to maintain profitability.
The minimum wage can help no one except those remaining workers who receive increased pay at the expense of the ones let go. Ultimately, having a minimum wage harms those it purports to help. But its more than ineffectual; its damaging. Those who are hurt the most are those with the lowest productivity”younger, less educated, inexperienced workers. Every time the minimum wage is increased, unemployment rates rise for this group, particularly for black, male teenagers. Further, as unskilled labor becomes too expensive to hire, businesses find it cheaper to replace labor with technology (automation, etc.). This is a primary reason why, for the most part, we no longer have many gas station attendants, maids or doormen.
Most economists, free market-oriented or not, do not support minimum wage: its one of the few topics nearly all agree on. Those who do support the minimum wage usually do so for ideological or political reasons. The ideological reasons are based on emotions, not economic facts. The political reasons are obvious: to most politicians it seems not to matter whether they truly help or harm citizens. What is important to politicians is to be perceived as helping people. When Congress approves minimum wage legislation after hearing testimony from economists, most, if not all, of them voting in favor of it must surely be aware that the law will not help workers. The only explanation seems to be that they pass the law simply to look good to constituents who dont understand the harm done.
In his 1993 textbook,[ref]Joseph E. Stiglitz, Economics (New York: W.W. Norton, 1993).[/ref] Joseph Stiglitz wrote detailed explanations of how minimum wages, which are a type of price floor, cause unemployment.
Yet after being appointed chairman of President Clintons Council of Economic Advisors (CEA), he suddenly changed his opinion and supported minimum wage legislation. Perhaps he did this to be seen a œteam player. President Clinton in turn said that he supported the legislation because his CEA supported it. Stiglitz, as leader of the CEA, pointed to the fact that a handful of economists had signed a petition in support of the legislation as the main reason that he had chosen to support it. In the end, this minority of economists all supported it simply because they all supported it.[ref]Vedran Vuk, Professor Stiglitz and the Minimum Wage (2006), https://mises.org/daily/2266.[/ref]
The economists who come up with obscure and often methodologically and theoretically questionable statistical studies that contradict most other studies on the minimum wage and conclude that increasing the cost of labor can somehow improve the lot of workers, are either ignorant of economics or are attempting to circumvent economic laws. Logic alone tells us that if the price of labor is raised above the value of its usefulness, there will be less of a demand for it. After all, if raising wages will help workers, then why not apply the minimum wage to everyone, and make the minimum wage $100 per hour? Or $1,000,000 per hour?[ref]Naturally, pro-minimum wage economists managed to come up with “studies†where numbers were manipulated to show that a low minimum wage is helpful, but a high minimum wage is not.[/ref] Our politicians do not do this because they know that most of us would then be unemployed. We will see in Chapter 6 that artificially high wage rates were the primary reason the Great Depression lasted so long, and why it even evolved from a simple recession into a depression.
Kel Kelly has spent over 13 years as a Wall Street trader, a corporate finance analyst, and a research director for a Fortune 500 management consulting firm. Results of his financial analyses have been presented on CNBC Europe and in the online editions of CNN, Forbes, BusinessWeek, and the Wall Street Journal. Kel holds a degree in economics from the University of Tennessee, an MBA from the University of Hartford, and an MS in economics from Florida State University. He lives in Atlanta.
I opened my mailbox on Saturday afternoon, Save Jerseyans, and I found the nifty little mailer to your right (and at the bottom) among the bills and supermarket circulars.
It’s produced by “The Coalition to Preserve Jobs and Our Constitution,” a group of Garden State business owners dedicated to defeating a proposed constitutional amendment on New Jersey’s fall ballot which would hike our state’s minimum wage and, most troubling of all, constitutionally-mandating that all future increases be tied to the consumer price index.
– See more at: https://savejersey.com/2013/10/election-ballot-new-jersey-question-2-two-nj/#sthash.UChpukqK.dpuf
The Planning Board meeting I attended on Tuesday, Oct. 29 regarding Valley Hospital’s expansion was a study of contrasts. Sheila Brogan represented the Board of Education, and then two speakers, who are members of CRR, and Peter McKenna, the president of CRR, represented the residents of Ridgewood. The contrast came about, because Ms. Brogan, as a representative of the BOE, spoke about the board’s mission, commitment to student’s safety and yet not once did Ms. Brogan choose that stance, when she mentioned over and over, “if Valley’s expansion is approved.” She never veered from neutrality of her opinions on whether this would be a detriment to the students attending BF.
The appropriate response would be to take the side that most protected the children of Ridgewood, not just mentioning what the BOE expected Valley to do if and when they were allowed to expand. Worst of all, Ms. Brogan tried to compare the short-term renovations each Ridgewood school completed, to what the residents and students will endure if Valley’s renovation comes to fruition, which is insane, and could take up to 10 years. As Mr. Drill has said before, when he spoke at one of the meetings, “it’s comparing apples to oranges.” In this case, it is true.
Alex and Ani Ridgewood – Celebrates One Year Anniversay
Thu, November 14, 2013
Time: 6:00 PM – 8:00 PM
Location: Alex and Ani Ridgewood, 134 E. Ridgewood Ave., Ridgewood, NJ 07450
One Year Anniversary at Alex and Ani Ridgewood 134 E. Ridgewood Avenue Ridgewood, NJ 07450 6:00-8:00pm
Enjoy lite bites and raffles,
The first 20 people to attend will receive a complimentary gift.
Reader says BOE has betrayed BF and Travell students by refusing to acknowledge the obvious impact the Valley
I write this to express my disbelief and disappointment in your betrayal of Ridgewood’s BF and Travell students by refusing to acknowledge the obvious impact the Valley expansion will have on surrounding schools. Regardless of where anyone stands in support or objection to the Hospital, it is common sense that construction, noise, pollution and traffic will negatively affect the student experience at BF and Travell, and by refusing to stand up for your students, publicly acknowledge these concerns and demand that the concerns be addressed, you have violated our trust in your ability and willingness to carry on your responsibility to safeguard our children. As a board member, we expect you to look out for our children’s interests and the interests of the Ridgewood education system and its properties. As it stands now, Glen Avenue and the side streets such as Van Dien are a speedway for people racing in and out of Valley Hospital. Stand out there on any given day and you can see for yourselves. Expanding the hospital will only increase traffic flow and impact our safety, despite what Valley’s “experts” say. And yes, this is traffic related to Valley because these are cars coming in and out of its parking lots. In fact, I’ve been cut off more than once by people in medical uniforms making unsafe turns in their regular cars leaving the hospital at 515pm. Valley has consistently lied about its plans and their impact and you had an opportunity to speak up for our schools yet failed miserably. How could you fail to acknowledge the impact years of construction noise, traffic detours and environmental dust and debris will have on us and our children and demand that those concerns be addressed up front? We elected you to be our voice and yet you have NO concerns???
Reader says the Brogan has demonstrated willful blindness to the obvious issues related to such a construction project.
The issue does have something to do with education since it impacts the nearby schools and the safety and comfort of Ridgewood students. Yes, it’s ultimately up to the Village Council and Planning Board but the BOE had a chance to weigh in and Brogan has demonstrated willful blindness to the obvious issues related to such a construction project. This is highly suspicious given the huge conflicts of interests Valley’s sponsorships create.’ I didn’t write in hopes of replacing a board member’s job but I do expect they uphold their responsibility and duty to do what’s best in the interest of the schools and students. It would be interesting to see where the individual board members stand on some of these issues but that is conveniently being held from the voting public.
Downtown for the Holidays and Tree Lighting Celebration Friday, December 6, 2013
New this year – “for the kids” 5:30-6:30pm – Santa in the Park for the “wee tots” and a “Kids Corner” offering holiday Arts & Crafts in front of the Park along with live entertainment by the “clock” and in the stores and restaurant along E. Ridgewood Ave. Featuring the RHS Marching Band, RHS Singers, RHS Orchestra 7-8pm “on stage-live” Live Entertainment and Tree Lighting Celebration Featuring performances by Porch Light Productions, From the Top Studio, Art of Motion and Arthur Murray Dance Studio. 8:00-9:00pm “merriment” on E. Ridgewood Ave. Shh – Santa will be back in the Park Lots of music on the Avenue – two live bands, carolers, musicians Stores will be having special sales, restaurant reservation suggested.
Ridgewood NJ, Last night on Halloween the Ridgewood Police Handed out Halloween Safety Treats. In addition to their patrol duties.
Officers were handing out safety glow sticks to young Trick or Treaters for Halloween . Above Officer Mark Butler helps these young ladies accessorize their costumes.
Bob Pressner : Brogan’s performance on Tuesday night was sadly predictable
Brogan’s performance on Tuesday night was sadly predictable. She took the vanilla position on the Valley expansion. I knew she would walk the tightrope of non committal; she can’t be counted to cross swords with the mighty Valley. From the start of her comments she spoke of school construction that has taken place while she’s been on the Board, the fix was clearly in. Sorry, what Valley has presented as their vision in no way resembles what our schools have accomplished in construction over the past 10 – 12 years. To compare students’ experiences during the school construction and Valley’s proposed renovations is a reach too far. What Valley proposes for their 15 acre parcel is ridiculous, and the impact will be dramatic.
The expectation of 10 years as the time frame for construction, is also short sided. The effects of this expansion, but more importantly the changing of the Master Plan will have far reaching effects on all of our children’s learning experiences. The area around Valley will be changed forever. In my opinion, not for the better. Changing the Master Plan will also allow for developers to challenge our future concerns regarding growth based on the precedent that will have been established. We are at a cross roads in the future of Ridgewood, and it is time for all of our fellow residents to step up, speak up, and be heard.
Reader says Sheila Brogan has been doing Valley’s bidding since 2002.
Ridgewood BOE and Valley Hospital, hand in hand, a long tainted history together.
(Some of this is a bit hazy so if anyone remembers the details fill in the blanks)
Over the years I have attended many planning board hearings for the Valley Hospital H-Zone. The many memorable meetings at BF and the infamous 2010 meeting at GWMS. I sat through and listened to Village council meetings at the RHS Campus Center. And here we are again at BF listening to more about this ridiculous expansion proposal. Hearing Sheila Brogan’s statement and reading this blog reminded me of the disgraceful and tainted BOE/Valley relationship. Of course, people need to be reminded Sheila Brogan has been a board member for far too long. For newer residents, or those who weren’t in the news loop so many years ago, this is a history lesson.
Many, many years ago, maybe around 2002, Sheila Brogan sat on the BOE along with Mark Bombace, Linda Gilman, Bob Hutton and Charles Reilly. At the time John Porter was superintendent. Valley Hospital had a proposal and was pushing hard to buy part of BF property using the field area for an underground parking lot and subsequently expanding the hospital buildings. If memory serves, the BOE would no longer own the property but the ground level open space could be used as a sports fields. The big offer was Valley would do much for the BF community and offer a state of the art facility IF they were able to purchase the BF property. The Board of Ed, along with John Porter, were positioned to complete the transaction when, unfortunately for them, the residents began to show up at BOE meetings. Over a few short weeks the standing room only crowd mobilized and stopped the infamous Valley/BF land grab.
Because the BOE was anxious to consummate the deal, and Valley was relying on the property for its expansion, it appears a new plan evolved. Within months of the Valley/BF land grab derailment the RHAP program was in the works. Ultimately rolled out in 2004, the program was put together as an effort to buy the BOE and Ridgewood Community. Other less prominent programs were funded by Valley as well. Those too are within our Village schools, internships, summer programs, follow a professional, scoreboard advertising, etc. Some of these programs may have ended or been replaced, however, coupled with the $500,000 the BOE accepted from Valley, it is clear the BOE and Valley are in bed together.
In 2011 Bob Hutton spoke, as a BOE member, in support of the Valley H-zone expansion. His comments were made at Village Council H-Zone hearings at RHS Campus Center. Soon thereafter Hutton was voted off the BOE. Good riddance to him.
Of the original BOE, that was ready to sell BF property to Valley, only Sheila Brogan remains. Don’t ever let Brogan try to convince you she stands for our students or that she opposes this expansion. Brogan fully supports Valley, their massive expansion, and was willing to sell out our kids years ago! As for Valley Hospital, the current H-Zone efforts are the same “idea” without the BF property. Valley’s animus towards Ridgewood and the BF community is palpable.
Concerned Residents question benefits of Valley proposed expansion
Thursday October 31, 2013, 3:23 PM
BY DARIUS AMOS
STAFF WRITER
The Ridgewood News
Impassioned speeches by the final three fact witnesses for the Concerned Residents of Ridgewood addressed the various quality of life elements that would be impacted by a hospital expansion, and they posed the collective question to the Ridgewood Planning Board: How will doubling the size of The Valley Hospital benefit village residents?
After weeks of objections and other legal challenges by the hospital’s project attorneys, the grassroots group comprised of more than 150 members voiced its concerns Tuesday night. CRR’s testimony, including president Pete McKenna’s audience-rousing summation, went on without any lawyer interruption.
McKenna admitted that his worries related more to the final product of Valley’s proposal instead of other points of contention previously raised by residents, such as prolonged construction and the effect it would have on the learning environment at nearby schools. But those concerns, he said, are just as vital to the residents’ case.
A little history lesson on Halloween for the Christians who believe it’s a Pagan holiday
Djmc King Cassanova
So since I can’t help myself… Lets have a little history lesson on Halloween for the Christians who believe it’s a Pagan holiday reserved for witches and devil worshippers (not saying any names to avoid the impending embarrassment that is surely heading your way)
Oh, and for those who think this Athiest can’t possible know anything about religion lets just add this little tidbit: I was raised Catholic, have read the bible all the way through many times, have done extensive research and am well versed on many religions, (and yes this does include Wiccan). I am not one to tell anyone they are wrong for their religious views, unless of course they are wrong based on fact and plain common sense. So, lets have a history lesson, shall we? I think we all could use one.
Halloween falls on the eve of the Christian holy days of All Hallow’s Day and All Saints Day. the days are collectively known as Hallowmas. Like many other major “holidays” in Christianity, celebrations begin the night before. This includes All Hallow’s which is where Halloween got its name from: Hallow’s Eve.
Hallowmas is used to honor the saints and to pray for recently departed souls who haven’t reached Heaven yet. It was customary for people, known as criers, to dress in black and ring a bell to call on Christians to remember departed souls. The custom of trick or treating came from the Christian custom of “souling”. Children would go door to door collecting “soul cakes” as means of praying for souls stuck in purgatory. During Hallowmas, Churches that were too poor to have displayed relics of saints allowed parishioners to dress up as martyred Saints as a way to honor them.
In many countries of Europe, Christians believe that once a year the souls return for a party known as the “danse macabre” which is actually depicted in decor on the walls of many churches and cemeteries. This is where the custom of modern day costume parties originates.
Halloween was (and still is) celebrated to honor the Saints and the souls of the deceased. In many countries children dress as departed Saints and other biblical figures.
Yes there are some Christians (nonconformist protestants in particular) who at one point believed that the spirits who returned were evil since they believed in predestination therefore redefining Hallow’s Eve without purgatory. Their homes and barns were blessed to protect themselves from evil spirits and the witches that were thought to accompany them.
My history lesson on “witches” and Wiccan religion will have to be another time. That being said, as with anything in life, things can be twisted to reflect your own personal beliefs or changed completely. Excellent example would be the Swastika which, up until Hitler got his hands on it, represented life and good luck. Hallowmas didn’t have a negative connotation until the Protestants tweaked it to coincide with their own beliefs.
Halloween was and still is a Christian holiday.
That concludes our history lesson. Be sure to hand out the big candy bars to the pagan children running the streets worshipping the devil.
Editorial Note: We hate to..ahem..kick a guy when he’s down, but the launch of ObamaCare online has been such a spectacular fail, we are savoring the opportunity to gloat. Who isn’t tempted in Tea Party ranks to utter, “Told ya so” when we hear people complain about being dropped from their health insurance company? I mean, really, who saw this coming? They called us crazy. Well, who’s crazy now?
Here’s a good gloat from Gary North – The Tea Party Economist, October 28, 2013
In what is one of the greatest examples of crony capitalism of my adult life, the main company that produced the incomparable failure known as www.healthcare.gov turns out to have gained its share of the $678 million contract without facing competitive bids. That’s right. There were other companies that submitted bids, but those bids were not considered, or so initial reports indicate. Why no bids? We are not told.
This kind of thing goes on all the time, but usually it is never discovered. But the website was rolled out as the prime example of President Obama’s signature program, which bears his name unofficially: ObamaCare. This program was going to be the deliverance long awaited for by 15 million Americans who did not have healthcare coverage.
It went online, and it was dead on arrival: a corpse of government medicine. It died so spectacularly that it became front-page news around the world. It is such a total failure that there is a kind of magnificence about it. Millions of people tried to get in. Millions of people could not get in.
Now Congress is conducting an investigation of how this happened, and it turns out, that it happened because it was a sweetheart deal from the get-go.
The man who is in charge of the company became an Obama supporter in 2012, I can hardly blame him. His ship came in.
Unfortunately, the ship has just sunk in full public view. It is like the capsized cruise ship on its side off the coast of an Italian island in 2012. The site is there, dead in the water, for the whole world to see.
More of the story here: https://www.garynorth.com/public/11712.cfm
“Driver seriously injured in late night Ridgewood crash” arrested on drug possession charges
October 29,2013
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ , Ridgewood Police report that on October 29, 2013 at 11:35 PMa patrol responded to a motor vehicle accident on Fairfield Avenue. The responding officers found a single vehicle that had crossed into the opposite lane of traffic and left the roadway striking a tree. The driver was transported to Hackensack Medical Center by the Ridgewood Ambulance Corp.
During the investigation the investigating officers, Ptl Joseph Dibenedetto, Joseph Youngberg, and Sgt Heath James found what appears to be synthetic marijuana, heroin and hypodermic needles in the vehicle.
The driver Nicholas Demetro 25 of Ridgewood was arrested and charged with Possession of Marijuana, Possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of heroin. He was also charged with Drugs in a motor vehicle, failure to maintain lane, Failure to keep right, improper display of plates, and unsafe tires. The accused was released pending an appearance in Ridgewood Municipal Court.
Driver seriously injured in late night Ridgewood crash
