City of Summit v. Overlook Hospital Ass'n

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

City of Summit v. Overlook Hospital Ass'n

6 N.J. Tax 438

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedJanuary 9, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 6 N.J. Tax 438 (City of Summit v. Overlook Hospital Ass'n) 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

City of Summit v. Overlook Hospital Ass'n, 6 N.J. Tax 438 (N.J. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal, the City of Summit (City) contends that Overlook Hospital Association (Hospital) is not entitled to tax exempt status under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6 for certain parcels of property owned by it in which various categories of its personnel were housed. The City attacks the findings of the Tax Court judge that housing for certain hospital employees was “reasonably necessary” for the proper functioning of the hospital. It contends that these findings conflict with the interpretation of N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6 given in City of Long Branch v. Monmouth Medical Center, 138 N.J.Super. 524, 532, 351 A.2d 756 (App.Div.1976), aff’d 73 N.J. 179, 373 A.2d 651 (1977). The City concedes that it was reasonable to provide housing for certain physician-students but not for those engaged in the study of radiology and x-ray technology, since they are rarely called upon for emergency patient care. Plaintiff concedes the [439]*439need to provide housing for registered nurses, but not for licensed practical nurses who occupied a large number of the housing units. The exemption for property housing certain administrative personnel is also challenged. For its part, on its cross-appeal, the Hospital contends that the Tax Court judge erred in concluding that Block D-43, Lot 6, was not exempt for the year 1975. That parcel was used to house a mechanical maintenance man in that year.

The findings and conclusions of Judge Hopkins in the Tax Court are amply supported by credible evidence. Accordingly, we reject the contentions made on the appeal and cross-appeal and affirm his determination substantially for the reasons given in his written opinion, 4 N.J.Tax 183. R. 2:11 — 3(e)(1)(A); see City of Long Branch v. Monmouth Medical Center, supra.

The City also contends on this appeal that the “reasonably necessary” standard for the exemption established by the Monmouth Medical Center case, supra, incorrectly interprets the meaning of N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6. As to this contention, we respectfully defer to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court adopted this court’s opinion in that case.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal, the City of Summit (City) contends that Overlook Hospital Association (Hospital) is not entitled to tax exempt status under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6 for certain parcels of property owned by it in which various categories of its personnel were housed. The City attacks the findings of the Tax Court judge that housing for certain hospital employees was “reasonably necessary” for the proper functioning of the hospital. It contends that these findings conflict with the interpretation of N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6 given in City of Long Branch v. Monmouth Medical Center, 138 N.J.Super. 524, 532, 351 A.2d 756 (App.Div.1976), aff’d 73 N.J. 179, 373 A.2d 651 (1977). The City concedes that it was reasonable to provide housing for certain physician-students but not for those engaged in the study of radiology and x-ray technology, since they are rarely called upon for emergency patient care. Plaintiff concedes the [439]*439need to provide housing for registered nurses, but not for licensed practical nurses who occupied a large number of the housing units. The exemption for property housing certain administrative personnel is also challenged. For its part, on its cross-appeal, the Hospital contends that the Tax Court judge erred in concluding that Block D-43, Lot 6, was not exempt for the year 1975. That parcel was used to house a mechanical maintenance man in that year.

The findings and conclusions of Judge Hopkins in the Tax Court are amply supported by credible evidence. Accordingly, we reject the contentions made on the appeal and cross-appeal and affirm his determination substantially for the reasons given in his written opinion, 4 N.J.Tax 183. R. 2:11 — 3(e)(1)(A); see City of Long Branch v. Monmouth Medical Center, supra.

The City also contends on this appeal that the “reasonably necessary” standard for the exemption established by the Monmouth Medical Center case, supra, incorrectly interprets the meaning of N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6. As to this contention, we respectfully defer to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court adopted this court’s opinion in that case.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 N.J. Tax 438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-summit-v-overlook-hospital-assn-njsuperctappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack