DeCarlo v. Borough of Cliffside Park

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

DeCarlo v. Borough of Cliffside Park

216 A.2d 408, 90 N.J. Super. 126, 1966 N.J. Super. LEXIS 373

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division·Decided January 17, 1966·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The opinion of the Law Division in this case is reported at 86 N. J. Super. 169 (1965). The borough concedes that its installation of the directional sign in question did not comply with A. J. 8. A. 39 :L-197(1) (c) or A. J. 8. A. 39 :4r-8. It was therefore guilty of active wrongdoing, for which it is answerable for such damages as may have been proximately caused to the corporate plaintiff in its tavern and restaurant business. The judgment is reversed and the case remanded to the Law Division to determine the issue of damages.

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

Per Curiam.

The opinion of the Law Division in this case is reported at 86 N. J. Super. 169 (1965). The borough concedes that its installation of the directional sign in question did not comply with A. J. 8. A. 39 :L-197(1) (c) or A. J. 8. A. 39 :4r-8. It was therefore guilty of active wrongdoing, for which it is answerable for such damages as may have been proximately caused to the corporate plaintiff in its tavern and restaurant business. The judgment is reversed and the case remanded to the Law Division to determine the issue of damages.

DeCarlo v. Borough of Cliffside Park, 216 A.2d 408, 90 N.J. Super. 126, 1966 N.J. Super. LEXIS 373 (N.J. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

216 A.2d 408 (DeCarlo v. Borough of Cliffside Park) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related