Figula v. Board of Adjustment of Passaic

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Figula v. Board of Adjustment of Passaic

53 A.2d 303, 135 N.J.L. 546, 1947 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 97

DecidedJune 9, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A.2d 303 (Figula v. Board of Adjustment of Passaic) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Figula v. Board of Adjustment of Passaic, 53 A.2d 303, 135 N.J.L. 546, 1947 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 97 (N.J. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

Prosecutors seek to reverse the award of a certificate of occupancy to use premises at 53 Parker Avenue, Passaic, as “a laundry & ironing of clothes.” The matter came before the Board of Adjustment on appeal from the refusal of a certificate by the supervisor of buildings and zoning officer of Passaic.

The property is located in the Business “A” District in which the zoning ordinance by section 6 (3) prohibits “Laundries or dyeing and cleaning works with capacity for more than ten (10) employees.” The minutes of the meeting of the Board of Adjustment held February 17th, 1947, disclose that the applicant employed less than ten employees and therefore the prohibition in section 6 (3) has no application in this instance.

The writ is dismissed, with costs.

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

Pee Cueiam.

Prosecutors seek to reverse the award of a certificate of occupancy to use premises at 53 Parker Avenue, Passaic, as “a laundry & ironing of clothes.” The matter came before the Board of Adjustment on appeal from the refusal of a certificate by the supervisor of buildings and zoning officer of Passaic.

The property is located in the Business “A” District in which the zoning ordinance by section 6 (3) prohibits “Laundries or dyeing and cleaning works with capacity for more than ten (10) employees.” The minutes of the meeting of the Board of Adjustment held February 17th, 1947, disclose that the applicant employed less than ten employees and therefore the prohibition in section 6 (3) has no application in this instance.

The writ is dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.2d 303, 135 N.J.L. 546, 1947 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/figula-v-board-of-adjustment-of-passaic-nj-1947.