White v. Borough of Bernardsville

9 N.J. Tax 122
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division·Decided January 27, 1987·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed for the reasons expressed by Judge Andrew in his thorough and detailed reported opinion issued on June 6, 1986, at 9 N.J.Tax 110 (Tax Ct.1986). We are entirely satisfied from our reading of the record that Judge Andrew’s findings of fact are amply supported by “adequate, substantial and credible evidence.” Rova Farms Resort v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484, 323 A.2d 495 (1974). See also State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 161-162, 199 A.2d 809 (1964). We are also in complete accord with the judge’s determination that Clearview Estates, Inc. v. Mountain Lakes, 188 N.J.Super. 99, 105, 456 A.2d 111 (App.Div. 1982) is inapposite because here farming operations constitute a permitted use under the Borough of Bernardsville’s zoning ordinance. Bernardsville Code § 12-5.1(d).

Accordingly, the judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed.

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

White v. Borough of Bernardsville, 9 N.J. Tax 122 (N.J. Ct. App. 1987).

9 N.J. Tax 122 (White v. Borough of Bernardsville) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Society of Holy Child Jesus v. City of Summit
13 A.3d 886 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2011)
Brighton v. Rumson Borough
22 N.J. Tax 39 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2005)
Sinopoli v. Borough of Rumson
19 N.J. Tax 334 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2001)
Cheyenne Corp. v. Township of Byram
591 A.2d 991 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1991)
Byram Township v. Western World, Inc.
544 A.2d 37 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1988)