Berenson v. City of East Orange

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

Berenson v. City of East Orange

6 N.J. Tax 493

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedMay 21, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 6 N.J. Tax 493 (Berenson v. City of East Orange) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Berenson v. City of East Orange, 6 N.J. Tax 493 (N.J. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals from a final judgment of the Tax Court entered August 4,1988 affirming defendant municipality’s 1981 tax assessment of a high-rise apartment building in East Orange, New Jersey.

In seeking a reversal of this judgment and remand for a new trial, plaintiff contends (1) that the trial judge erred in quashing the subpoena duces tecum served upon defendant’s expert whereby the plaintiff sought discovery of appraisal reports prepared by the expert in relation to other properties in other municipalities and (2) that the trial judge erred in relying on preemptive rent levels fixed by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rather than the contract rents charged by plaintiff.

With respect to plaintiff’s contention of error on the part of the trial judge in quashing the subpoena duces tecum, we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed in the oral opinion of Judge Crabtree rendered October 12, 1982.

With respect to the contention of plaintiff that the trial judge erred when he relied on the HUD preemptive rent levels rather than contract rents, we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed in that portion of the published opinion of Judge Crabtree, referable thereto, reported in 6 N.J.Tax 12 (Tax Ct.1983). We expressly take no position on the decision of Judge Crabtree with respect to the applicability of the Freeze Act, N.J.S.A. 54:3-26, which was not raised as an issue on this appeal.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals from a final judgment of the Tax Court entered August 4,1988 affirming defendant municipality’s 1981 tax assessment of a high-rise apartment building in East Orange, New Jersey.

In seeking a reversal of this judgment and remand for a new trial, plaintiff contends (1) that the trial judge erred in quashing the subpoena duces tecum served upon defendant’s expert whereby the plaintiff sought discovery of appraisal reports prepared by the expert in relation to other properties in other municipalities and (2) that the trial judge erred in relying on preemptive rent levels fixed by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rather than the contract rents charged by plaintiff.

With respect to plaintiff’s contention of error on the part of the trial judge in quashing the subpoena duces tecum, we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed in the oral opinion of Judge Crabtree rendered October 12, 1982.

With respect to the contention of plaintiff that the trial judge erred when he relied on the HUD preemptive rent levels rather than contract rents, we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed in that portion of the published opinion of Judge Crabtree, referable thereto, reported in 6 N.J.Tax 12 (Tax Ct.1983). We expressly take no position on the decision of Judge Crabtree with respect to the applicability of the Freeze Act, N.J.S.A. 54:3-26, which was not raised as an issue on this appeal.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 N.J. Tax 493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berenson-v-city-of-east-orange-njsuperctappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack