Search Results
| Case name | Citation | Summary |
| [New Jersey] Continental Apartment Assoc v. City of East Orange | 1995/03/17 | Docket No: none LOCAL PROPERTY TAX - SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER - UNTIMELY FILING OF EXPERT'S REPORT On remand from Appellate Division for reconsidera- tion in light of Rutherford Realty Assoc. v. Borough of Rutherford, 277 NJ Super 347 (App. Div. 1994). Where plaintiffs had failed to comply with case management order setting date for exchange of expert's reports, and delivered them to defendant on eve of trial, court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress the expert's testimony which resulted in dismissal of the cases set aside and cases restored to the trial calendar with monetary sanctions for non-compliance with the case management order imposed as permitted by Cedar Wright Gardens v. Lodi, 14 NJ Tax 182 (App. Div. 1994). click here to get this docum |
| [New Jersey] Charles and Dolores Sabino v. Dir, Div of Taxation | 1995/03/01 | Docket No: none GROSS INCOME TAX - DEDUCTION - DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE OF PARTNERSHIP INCOME Taxpayers were entitled under NJSA 54A:5-1(b) to deduct certain individually incurred unreimbursed partnership expenses, as well as specified charitable contributions made by the partnership, in computation of their Gross Income Tax category distributive share of partnership income as set out in NJSA 54A:5-1(k). Court held (1) the standard for deductibility of a partnership expense is the standard set out in NJSA 54A:5-1b, that is, whether the expense was paid or incurred in the conduct of the business, profession or other activity of partnership; (2) NJAC 18:35-1.14(c)7 is void and of no further force or effect; and (3) Example 7 of Regulation is void as an impermissible extension of NJSA 54A:5-1b and k. click here to get this docum |
| [New Jersey] J.L. Muscarelle, Inc. v. Tp. of Saddle Brook | 1995/02/10 | Docket No: none LOCAL PROPERTY TAX - PAYMENT OF TAX - DISMISSAL NJSA 54:3-27 requires that defendant taxing district's motion to dismiss a complaint filed directly with Tax Court for review of a local property tax assessment be granted where taxes and municipal charges due through the first quarter of the tax year have not been paid in full. The recent decision of Appellate Division in consolidated appeals from inconsistent Tax Court deter- minations, J.L. Muscarelle, Inc. v. Saddle Brook, ___ NJ Tax ___ (App. Div. 1994), authoritatively resolves the conflict on this question within the Tax Court. click here to get this docum |
| [New Jersey] Caven Point Assoc., etc v. City of Jersey City | 1995/01/30 | Docket No: none LOCAL PROPERTY TAXATION - CORRECTION OF ERRORS STATUTE The Correction of Errors statute, NJSA 54:51A-7, must be liberally construed to reflect its remedial character. The term mistake must be construed to include recent technological developments unanticipated but consistent with legislative intent. The motion for reconsidera- tion must be granted where the evidence shows that the error, occurring in the transmission of computer data, constituted a mistake under the ambit of the statute. click here to get this docum |
| [New Jersey] Sal La Greca, etc, v. Dir, Div of Taxation, et al | 1995/01/10 | Docket No: none CORPORATION BUSINESS TAX - INVESTMENT COMPANY - ASSET AND BUSINESS TESTS Where taxpayer, a holding company, engages in activities that appear to be services to its subsid- iaries or participation in the day-to-day operations of the subsidiaries, and cannot show through any quan- titative proof that the business and asset tests of NJAC 18:17-1.15(f)(1) would reflect qualified investment activities above 90% when these activities are taken into account, then taxpayer does not qualify as an in- vestment company under NJSA 54:10A-5(f). Evidence was not sufficient to establish a tax overpayment offset for the year in question. click here to get this docum |
| [New Jersey] GREGORY PARK COOPERATIVE CORP V. CROWN PARKING CORP | 1995/12/27 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Failure to obtain approval of the redevelopment agency of a lease does not prohibit a landlord from seeking unpaid rent for tenant's use and occupancy of the property for the entire term of the lease and one year beyond. Defenses of unjust enrichment and quantum merit are fact sensitive and do not ordinarily permit disposition by summary judgment. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] ROSE GERSZBERG V. JACUZZI WHIRLPOOL BATH | 1995/12/27 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Where one or more of the possible distributees of a wrongful death action recovery are of full age at the time the contingent fee agreement with counsel is executed by the executrix, the R. 1:21-7(c)(5) twenty five percent fee maximum for minors is not mandatorily applicable to a settlement of the claim. The court should not have calculated the applicable contingent fee percentage against the distributions fixed under the Death Act, but against the entire settlement with the executrix. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. THOMAS LANE | 1995/12/27 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Excessive drinking (blood alcohol level of .253%) is a separate act of recklessness that when coupled with other reckless driving is sufficient to sustain a conviction for reckless manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4b(1), notwithstanding those facts may also constitute death by auto, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-5. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] FREDERICK WATERS V. TWP OF GALLOWAY | 1995/12/27 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Plaintiffs failed to present a 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 prima facie case for substantive due process denial based on refusal of Township governing body to issue a permit for construction of sanitary sewer collection system for plaintiffs' mobile home park. Plaintiffs' claim required proof they had complied with all applicable ordinances. Their failure to apply for site plan approval for construction of improvements precluded satisfaction of the ordinance compliance requirement. The Board of Adjustment- issued certificate of prior nonconforming use did not clothe plaintiffs with entitlement to the denied permit. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. KEVIN FITZSIMMONS | 1995/12/26 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Note: See Supplemental opinion, as a result of a remand by the Supreme Court, filed June 12, 1996. In this matter involving the defendant's admission into PTI over the objection of the prosecutor, the trial court erred in entertaining the State's motion for reconsideration, and further erred in granting the motion. The prosecutor's refusal to admit defendant into PTI reflects a patent abuse of discretion under the facts of this case. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. DERRICK UNDERWOOD | 1995/12/26 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none To convict for receiving stolen property under N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7a when defendant is the same person who allegedly stole the property, the State must prove defendant intended an unlawful taking. State v. Bujan, 274 N.J. Super. 132, 137 (App. Div. 1994), holding that stolen property is not an element of the offence of receiving stolen property, is distinguished. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. ALBERTO RUIZ | 1995/12/26 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Where a defendant, known to a police officer by name and as a person who previously had a connection with drug transactions and those engaging in them, was seen late at night, in a known drug trafficking area, walking at or near the center of the roadway, a Terry stop was justified. Therefore, when defendant fled, pursuit was not a seizure under N.J. Const. art. I, 7 as interpreted in State v. Tucker, 136 N.J. 158 (1994). Consequently, any items discarded by defendant during the chase could validly be retrieved by the police and used as evidence of criminal conduct. Because the State demonstrated a number of circumstances which, together, justified a Terry stop, the situation was closer to State v. Doss, 254 N.J. Super. 122 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 130 N.J. (1992), where a motion to suppress was denied, than it was to Tucker, where the evidence was suppressed. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] INTERCHANGE STATE BANK V. GERALD VEGLIA ET AL | 1995/12/26 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Proximate causation in civil RICO cases under State statute tracks federal case law under the federal RICO statute. Even assuming the truth of plaintiff's allegations here, the alleged predicate acts charged against defendants were too indirect a cause of injury to satisfy the proximate cause test and summary judgment was properly granted. N.J.S.A. 12A:3-420, enacted after the subject transactions and after the trial of this case repealing 12A:3-419, should not be applied retroactively here so as to prohibit a payee (TRICO) from suing plaintiff bank for conversion based upon plaintiff's payment of a check over a forged endorsement. The entire controversy doctrine did not bar TRICO's counterclaim. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. MORRIS HUDSON | 1995/12/26 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none A trial judge should not instruct the jury that a reasonable doubt is a doubt for which a reason can be given. A reasonable doubt may be one that defies the jury's ability to express or articulate the reasons for it. In any event, we discourage ad hoc deviations from and augmentations of the model charge on reasonable doubt. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] STATE IN THE INTEREST OF J.F. | 1995/12/22 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Under the totality of the circumstances, juvenile's confession is not rendered inadmissible by virtue of the fact that police interrogation was not interpreted for Spanish-speaking guardian, substantially undermining her role as guardian. However, the State failed to present sufficient corroborative evidence to establish trustworthiness of the juvenile's confession to the aggravated arson and conspiracy. The details in the juvenile's confession could have been obtained from other co-juveniles and were not in all respects consistent with fire investigator's testimony. The independent evidence placing juvenile at the scene near the time of the fire, alone, was not enough. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] PETER CONTINI V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF NEWARK | 1995/12/22 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none All the procedures governing contested cases under the Administrative Procedure Act, including the summary decision rule adopted by the Office of Administrative Law, are applicable to proceedings under the Public School Education Act involving the proposed removal of a local school board and creation of a State-operated school district. There was a reasonable basis for the State Board of Education's conclusion that a State-operated school district should be created to administer the Newark school system. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] JANE MAHONEY V. ROBERT PENNELL | 1995/12/20 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none The prohibition against retroactive modification of a child support order found in N.J.S.A. 2A:l7-56.23a does not bar the cancellation of child support arrearages which accrued subsequent to the date of the minor's emancipation as retroactively determined by the court. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] IN RE APPEAL OF TWP OF MONROE FROM DETERMINATION OF LOCAL FINANCE BD | 1995/12/19 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Township may not use abatement authority under N.J.S.A. 54:4-99 and 100 to circumvent the statutorily prescribed tax appeal process. The Director of the Division of Local Government Services and the Assistant Director of the Division of Taxation have the statutory authority and responsibility to supervise and regulate the financial affairs of local governments. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. JAMES CHERRY | 1995/12/18 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Trial judge did not err in determining that the eyewitness's out-of court and in-court identification of defendant in this twenty year old murder case was not irreparably tainted by suggestive police procedures. Statements of co-conspirator were properly admitted and were not other crimes evidence. Female witness's prior inconsistent statement was properly admitted where State sustained burden of proving its reliability. Failure of State to call the recanting witness at the Gross hearing does not render the hearing incomplete. Reference to defendant's association with the Black Panther Party on the issue of motive did not violate defendant's First Amendment rights of speech or association. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] NINA ROSENBERG V. IRA ROSENBERG | 1995/12/15 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Where an attorney seeks an award of counsel fees from his client's spouse in a matrimonial proceeding under R. 4:42-9(a)(1), and the Family Part judge deems the application unreasonable in amount under Argila v. Argila, 256 N.J. Super. 484 (App. Div. 1992), that decision will not foreclose a subsequent contract claim by the attorney to recover the balance of the fee application from the attorney's former client. A fee application may be deemed unreasonable as to a non-client spouse but reasonable when evaluated in the context of the attorney-client relationship if, for example, it is encompassed by the terms of the retainer agreement between the attorney and his client. Click here to get this docume |