City of Jersey City v. Dwaipayan & Charkraborty Gosh

New Jersey Tax Court·Decided May 13, 2024·No. 008823-2023·Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS

TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY

Essex County Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Justice Building 495 Martin Luther King Blvd. - Fourth Floor MARY SIOBHAN BRENNAN Newark, New Jersey 07102-0690 JUDGE

(609) 815-2922 Ext. 54600 Fax: (973) 424-2424

May 10, 2024

William Maslo, Attorney at Law City of Jersey City Law Department 364 MLK Drive 3rd Floor Jersey City, NJ 07305

Dwaipayan & Chakraborty Gosh 122 New York Ave, Unit 301 Jersey City, New Jersey 07307

Re: City of Jersey City v. Dwaipayan & Charkraborty Gosh Docket No.: 008823-2023

Dear Attorney, Maslo and Mr. and Mrs. Gosh:

This shall constitute the court’s opinion with respect to plaintiff, City of Jersey City’s (“Jersey City”), motion for summary judgment against defendants, Dwaipayan & Chakraborty Gosh (“Taxpayer”). At issue is the requisite procedure to have been followed for a nine unit new construction condominium building to qualify for post construction application for a five-year property tax exemption. Jersey City ‘s position is that a tax agreement must have been applied for and approved by the Jersey City Municipal Council prior to construction. 1

1 Jersey City filed separate summary judgment motions against the developer, Hudson Street Investment, LLC, (“Predecessor-in-Interest”) with respect to six units not yet sold. (Docket Numbers 008833-2023, 008834-2023, 008836-2023, 008837-2023, 008838-2023 and 008840- 2023). Hudson Street Investment, LLC filed cross summary judgment motions against Jersey City with the position that Jersey City’s controlling ordinance allows condominium owners the right to apply to the Tax Assessor for a five-year exemption under its definition of “Dwelling.” Jersey City also filed summary judgment motions against the other two condominium unit owners (City of

For the reasons stated more fully below, the court finds that a nine unit newly constructed condominium building constitutes a “Multiple Dwelling,” and as such, the Jersey City controlling ordinance requires that application for a five-year tax exemption pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:21-1 et seq. requires approval of a tax agreement from the Jersey City Municipal Council. Accordingly, the court grants Jersey City’s motion.

In accordance with R. 1:7-4(a), the court makes the following factual findings based on the submissions of the parties.

I. Findings of Fact and Procedural History Since September 8, 1999, pursuant to N.J.S.A 40A:21-1 et seq., also known as the Five-

Year Exemption and Abatement Law, Jersey City has adopted ordinances to their municipal code to allow for abatements and exemptions to qualified properties.

On June 18, 2019, Hudson Street Investment, LLC, (“Predecessor-in-Interest” or “Developer”) acquired real property located at 122 New York Avenue, identified as Block 4504, Lot 1, on Jersey City’s tax map (“Subject Property”). On December 15, 2020, Jersey City issued Construction Permit No. 20202456+A for construction of a new building at the Subject Property.

On June 8, 2022, Predecessor-in-Interest recorded a Master Deed with the Hudson County Register, establishing a nine (9) unit condominium complex at the Subject Property. On October 7, 2022, Jersey City issued Temporary Certificate of Occupancy No. 2020456+A for the Subject Property, which did not list the nine individual units.

On October 14, 2022, defendant Dwaipayan & Chakraborty Gosh (“Taxpayer”) purchased unit C0301 of the Subject Property. On that same date, the Developer completed an E/A-1

Jersey City v. Vivian Tu Docket No. 008827-2023 and City of Jersey City v. Dimitry & Elizabeth Grinberg Docket No 008826-2023).

Application for a Five-Year Exemption and/or Abatement pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:21-1 et seq. The E/A-1 application is a form prescribed by the Director, Division of Taxation, as required by law. At the top of the form, it reads “Applications must be filed with municipal assessors within 30 days (including Saturdays & Sundays) of completion of construction, improvements, conversion, conversion alteration. Late applications will be denied. The reverse side of the form reads as follows:

GENERAL INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS

1. Availability: The Five-Year Exemption and/or Abatement is discretionary on the part of the municipal government. For Exemption/Abatement to apply, there must first be an area in the municipality designated by the local government as “in need of rehabilitation.” Then, there must be an enabling ordinance enacted by the local governing body. The ordinance may identify various rehabilitation areas in the municipality, the types of structures and rehabilitation/redevelopment efforts which may be eligible, as well as the availability of exemption or abatement or both.

2. Filing Deadline: EA-1 Applications must be filed with the municipal assessor within 30 days (including Saturdays & Sundays)

of completion of the construction, improvement, conversion, or conversion alteration. Late applications will be denied. No applications can be filed or take effect unless a valid timely ordinance is in force. Completion means substantially ready for the intended use for which a building/structure is constructed, improved, or converted.

3. Terms Defined per N.J.S.A. 40A:21-3:

Abatement—that portion of a property’s assessed value as it existed prior to construction, improvement, conversion of a tax exempted building/structure thereon.

Exemption—that portion of an assessor’s full and true value of any construction, improvement or conversion alteration not increasing the property’s taxable value.

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

City of Jersey City v. Dwaipayan & Charkraborty Gosh, (N.J. Super. Ct. 2024).

City of Jersey City v. Dwaipayan & Charkraborty Gosh (City of Jersey City v. Dwaipayan & Charkraborty Gosh) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Princeton University Press v. Borough of Princeton
172 A.2d 420 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1961)
Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America
666 A.2d 146 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1995)
Rossi v. Upper Pittsgrove Township
12 N.J. Tax 235 (New Jersey Tax Court, 1992)
Fields v. Trustees of Princeton University
28 N.J. Tax 574 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2015)
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. City of Perth Amboy
9 N.J. Tax 571 (New Jersey Tax Court, 1988)