Frankel v. City of Atlantic City

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Frankel v. City of Atlantic City

307 A.2d 562, 63 N.J. 333, 1973 N.J. LEXIS 191

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedJuly 9, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 307 A.2d 562 (Frankel v. City of Atlantic City) 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

Frankel v. City of Atlantic City, 307 A.2d 562, 63 N.J. 333, 1973 N.J. LEXIS 191 (N.J. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

This case involves the validity of a provision of the zoning ordinance of the City of Atlantic City. The trial court sustained the provision. The Appellate Division reversed, with one judge dissenting. 124 N. J. Super. 420 (1973). The appeal came to us as of right by reason of the dissent. R. 2:2-1 (a).

Because of an obvious element of urgency, appellants ask that the matter be heard at once. There being no further scheduled days for oral argument and it not being feasible to assemble the court for that purpose, we directed that the record and the briefs before the Appellate Division be filed with us and that the matter be decided without oral argument. The respondents thereupon asked for an opportunity to file a further brief and to argue orally but did not explain the need therefor. We find no need for further briefs or for oral argument.

We are satisfied that the judgment of the trial court should be upheld essentially for the views expressed in the dissenting opinion in the Appellate Division. The judgment of the Appellate Division is accordingly reversed and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

For reversal — Chief Justice Weinteaub, and Justices Jacobs, Hall, Mountain, Sullivan, Garven and Pashman — 7.

For affirmance — None.

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

Pee Cueiam.

This case involves the validity of a provision of the zoning ordinance of the City of Atlantic City. The trial court sustained the provision. The Appellate Division reversed, with one judge dissenting. 124 N. J. Super. 420 (1973). The appeal came to us as of right by reason of the dissent. R. 2:2-1 (a).

Because of an obvious element of urgency, appellants ask that the matter be heard at once. There being no further scheduled days for oral argument and it not being feasible to assemble the court for that purpose, we directed that the record and the briefs before the Appellate Division be filed with us and that the matter be decided without oral argument. The respondents thereupon asked for an opportunity to file a further brief and to argue orally but did not explain the need therefor. We find no need for further briefs or for oral argument.

We are satisfied that the judgment of the trial court should be upheld essentially for the views expressed in the dissenting opinion in the Appellate Division. The judgment of the Appellate Division is accordingly reversed and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

For reversal — Chief Justice Weinteaub, and Justices Jacobs, Hall, Mountain, Sullivan, Garven and Pashman — 7.

For affirmance — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 A.2d 562, 63 N.J. 333, 1973 N.J. LEXIS 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frankel-v-city-of-atlantic-city-nj-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack