Montgomery Associates v. Board of Adjustment of Montgomery

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

Montgomery Associates v. Board of Adjustment of Montgomery

389 A.2d 503, 160 N.J. Super. 219, 1978 N.J. Super. LEXIS 973

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedJune 9, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 389 A.2d 503 (Montgomery Associates v. Board of Adjustment of Montgomery) 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

Montgomery Associates v. Board of Adjustment of Montgomery, 389 A.2d 503, 160 N.J. Super. 219, 1978 N.J. Super. LEXIS 973 (N.J. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Plaintiff instituted an action in lieu of prerogative writs in which it attacked the propriety of the denial of a section (d) use variance and the constitutionality of the municipal zoning ordinance. The variance count was heard on the record made before the board of adjustment and resulted in an affirmance in a letter opinion dated April 29, 1976. The issue of constitutionality was heard separately by the court in a plenary proceeding and resulted in a finding that the ordinance was constitutional, in an opinion published at 149 N. J. Super. 536. Plaintiff appeals from the whole of the judgment entered on both counts.

We have carefully considered the points raised by appellant in the context of the record below and conclude that the judgment should be affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth in the opinions filed by Judge Meredith.

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

Per Curiam:

Plaintiff instituted an action in lieu of prerogative writs in which it attacked the propriety of the denial of a section (d) use variance and the constitutionality of the municipal zoning ordinance. The variance count was heard on the record made before the board of adjustment and resulted in an affirmance in a letter opinion dated April 29, 1976. The issue of constitutionality was heard separately by the court in a plenary proceeding and resulted in a finding that the ordinance was constitutional, in an opinion published at 149 N. J. Super. 536. Plaintiff appeals from the whole of the judgment entered on both counts.

We have carefully considered the points raised by appellant in the context of the record below and conclude that the judgment should be affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth in the opinions filed by Judge Meredith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

389 A.2d 503, 160 N.J. Super. 219, 1978 N.J. Super. LEXIS 973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montgomery-associates-v-board-of-adjustment-of-montgomery-njsuperctappdiv-1978.