Sage v. Township of Bernards

6 N.J. Tax 349
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedJanuary 9, 1984
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 6 N.J. Tax 349 (Sage v. Township of Bernards) 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
Sage v. Township of Bernards, 6 N.J. Tax 349 (N.J. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs in this consolidated action appeal from the decisions of Judge Lario in the Tax Court, 5 N.J.Tax 39 and 52 confirming their reassessments for the 1980 tax year of property located in the newly established Planned Residential Neigh[350]*350borhood (PRN) zone. Plaintiffs are Willis F. Sage, Merwin Sage and William W. Lanigan (Sage) and Theodore Z. Lorenc and Edmond Lorenc, Trustees (Lorenc), the owners of contiguous undeveloped parcels in the new zone. This zone was established as a result of plaintiffs’ successful attack on the zoning ordinance of Bernards Township. The parties appealed their new assessments to the Somerset County Board of Taxation which affirmed the assessor’s valuation. Sage and Lorenc then filed complaints in the Tax Court of New Jersey where, after two days of trial in each case and the consideration of post-trial memoranda, Judge Lario dismissed the Lorenc complaint and affirmed the judgment of the Somerset County Board of Taxation in the Sage matter for the reasons stated in his comprehensive opinions dated February 8, 1983, whereupon both plaintiffs appealed to this court.

We have examined each of the points raised by plaintiffs in their brief against the record before Judge Lario and affirm both decisions substantially for the reasons stated in his opinions of February 8, 1983. We note particularly that although plaintiffs have attempted to present the case as one of retaliatory reassessment, Judge Lario correctly framed the issue before him as a challenge to the valuation placed on the respective parcels by the assessor and limited his decision to that issue.

The judgments appealed from are affirmed.

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

Related

Gulkowitz v. Township of Lakewood
New Jersey Tax Court, 2018
Gale & Kitson Fredon Golf, L.L.C. v. Township of Fredon
26 N.J. Tax 268 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2011)
Regent Care Center, Inc. v. Hackensack City
19 N.J. Tax 455 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2001)
Otelsberg v. Bloomfield Township
18 N.J. Tax 243 (New Jersey Tax Court, 1999)
Mocco v. City of Jersey City (In Re Mocco)
222 B.R. 440 (D. New Jersey, 1998)
Estell Manor City v. Stern
14 N.J. Tax 394 (New Jersey Tax Court, 1995)
Wilkinson v. St. Jude Harbors, Inc.
570 So. 2d 1332 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Inmar Associates, Inc. v. Borough of Carlstadt
549 A.2d 38 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1988)
Community Corp. of Highpoint, Inc. v. Montague Township
9 N.J. Tax 398 (New Jersey Tax Court, 1987)
Borough of Little Ferry v. Vecchiotti
7 N.J. Tax 389 (New Jersey Tax Court, 1985)
Linwood Properties, Inc. v. Fort Lee Borough
7 N.J. Tax 320 (New Jersey Tax Court, 1985)
Nash v. Board of Adjustment of Morris Tp.
474 A.2d 241 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1984)
Berkley Arms Apartment Corp. v. Hackensack City
6 N.J. Tax 260 (New Jersey Tax Court, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 N.J. Tax 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sage-v-township-of-bernards-njsuperctappdiv-1984.