Brae Associates v. Borough of Park Ridge

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

Brae Associates v. Borough of Park Ridge

14 N.J. Tax 172

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedDecember 29, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 14 N.J. Tax 172 (Brae Associates v. Borough of Park Ridge) 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

Brae Associates v. Borough of Park Ridge, 14 N.J. Tax 172 (N.J. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Property owner appeals from a Tax Court judgment affirming the 1989 assessment of appellant’s office building. We now affirm [159]*159substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Crabtree in his letter opinion dated March 5, 1992. The trial judge’s findings were supported by substantial credible evidence in the record. Pascale v. Pascale, 113 N.J. 20, 33, 549 A.2d 782 (1988); Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484, 323 A.2d 495 (1974). Appellant’s reliance on Badische Corp. v. Town of Kearny, 11 N.J.Tax 385 (Tax 1990), regarding the element of entrepreneurial profit, is misplaced. In that ease the court noted “that none of the experts added entrepreneurial profit to their cost-based value estimates” and concluded, therefore, that “no proofs of entrepreneurial profit were offered.” Id. at 402. In the present case, however, defendant’s appraiser included the element of entrepreneurial profit in his written appraisal and expressed his opinion regarding that element during his testimony.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Property owner appeals from a Tax Court judgment affirming the 1989 assessment of appellant’s office building. We now affirm [159]*159substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Crabtree in his letter opinion dated March 5, 1992. The trial judge’s findings were supported by substantial credible evidence in the record. Pascale v. Pascale, 113 N.J. 20, 33, 549 A.2d 782 (1988); Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484, 323 A.2d 495 (1974). Appellant’s reliance on Badische Corp. v. Town of Kearny, 11 N.J.Tax 385 (Tax 1990), regarding the element of entrepreneurial profit, is misplaced. In that ease the court noted “that none of the experts added entrepreneurial profit to their cost-based value estimates” and concluded, therefore, that “no proofs of entrepreneurial profit were offered.” Id. at 402. In the present case, however, defendant’s appraiser included the element of entrepreneurial profit in his written appraisal and expressed his opinion regarding that element during his testimony.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 N.J. Tax 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brae-associates-v-borough-of-park-ridge-njsuperctappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack