Dworman v. Tinton Falls

180 N.J. Super. 366, 3 N.J. Tax 1
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedAugust 21, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by54 cases

This text of 180 N.J. Super. 366 (Dworman v. Tinton Falls) 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
Dworman v. Tinton Falls, 180 N.J. Super. 366, 3 N.J. Tax 1 (N.J. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

180 N.J. Super. 366 (1981)

LESTER J. DWORMAN; L.J.D. ENTERPRISES, INC.; THE DWORMAN COMPANY OF N.J.; CHASE MANHATTAN MORTGAGE AND REALTY TRUST; AND SHREWSBURY ASSOCIATES, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,
v.
BOROUGH OF TINTON FALLS, (FORMERLY BOROUGH OF NEW SHREWSBURY), DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued May 27, 1981.
Decided August 21, 1981.

*367 Before Judges BOTTER, KING and McELROY.

Leo Rosenblum argued the cause for appellant (Rosenblum & Rosenblum, attorneys).

Irving C. Marcus argued the cause for respondents (Lasser, Hochman, Marcus, Guryan & Kuskin, attorneys; Mr. Marcus and Helane Kipnees on the brief).

PER CURIAM.

The municipality appeals from judgments of the Tax Court establishing assessments for 1974, 1975 and 1976 for the subject property, an office building largely occupied by the Federal Government. On this appeal the municipality contends that considerable evidence was presented which established a higher economic rent than the contract rent provided in the applicable lease; that the cost approach supports an economic rent of $7.25 per square foot; that the lack of demand for office space in Monmouth County is irrelevant in the case at hand, and that the limit on rent that the federal government imposed in soliciting bids is also immaterial.

The case presents a number of unique aspects which were carefully considered in Judge Andrew's opinion below. Ample credible evidence supports the result reached in the Tax Court, and, not persuaded by the contentions advanced on this appeal, we affirm substantially for the reasons given by Judge Andrew. *368 Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of America, 65 N.J. 474, 483-484 (1974).

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

Related

R Realty LLC v. Little Falls Township
New Jersey Tax Court, 2018
Palisadium Mgmt. Corp. v. Borough of Cliffside Park
193 A.3d 339 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2018)
Free-Will LLC Etc v. City of Wildwood
New Jersey Tax Court, 2017
Rite Aid Corporation v. Roselle Borough
New Jersey Tax Court, 2017
TD Bank v. City of Hackensack
28 N.J. Tax 363 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2015)
Methode Electronics, Inc. v. Township of Willingboro
28 N.J. Tax 289 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2015)
Marina District Development Co. v. City of Atlantic City
27 N.J. Tax 469 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2013)
Orient Way Corp. v. Township of Lyndhurst
27 N.J. Tax 361 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2013)
City of Atlantic v. Ace Gaming, LLC
23 N.J. Tax 70 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2006)
West Colonial Enterprises, LLC v. City of East Orange
21 N.J. Tax 590 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2004)
Harclay House v. East Orange City
18 N.J. Tax 564 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2000)
Little Egg Harbor Tp. v. Bonsangue
720 A.2d 369 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
180 N.J. Super. 366, 3 N.J. Tax 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dworman-v-tinton-falls-njsuperctappdiv-1981.