NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
|
|
- Mae Lawson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. ELLEN HEINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PATERSON, Defendant-Respondent. Submitted August 19, 2014 Decided August 26, 2014 PER CURIAM Before Judges Nugent and Carroll. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Docket No. L Ellen Heine, appellant pro se. Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, attorneys for respondent (Victor A. Afanador, of counsel and on the brief; Michael I. Goldman, on the brief). Plaintiff Ellen Heine appeals from the Law Division's October 19, 2012 order dismissing her complaint in lieu of prerogative writs challenging the adoption of Ordinance No (the Ordinance) by defendant City of Paterson (the City). The Ordinance rezoned Lots 2 through 10 in Block 2204 from the
2 I-2 Heavy Industrial District to the MU Mixed Use District. We affirm, substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Philip H. Mizzone, Jr., in his written opinion. The facts are undisputed. The proposed zoning change was initiated at the request of Joseph Ordini Realty Corp. (Ordini), the owner of property identified as Block 2204 Lot 2 on the City's tax map. Ordini retained Burgis Associates, Inc. (Burgis), licensed professional planners, to prepare a planning report in support of the proposed zoning amendment to the City's Master Plan. In its comprehensive twenty-three page written report, Burgis outlined the benefits to be achieved by the proposed zoning change, which was to include not only the Ordini property but also Lots 3 through 10 in Block The Burgis report outlined the current uses of these properties, which were largely consistent with the types of uses authorized by the MU Mixed Use classification. According to (K) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, "[t]he intent of the I-2 Heavy Industrial District is to provide land for more intense types of industrial and manufacturing uses excluding those with nuisance characteristics." (I) provides that [t]he MU Mixed-Use District is intended to permit a mixture of commercial and 2
3 industrial uses in appropriate locations in accordance with the City's Master Plan.... [and] to create an environment for effective integration and mutual support among the non-residential activities and to promote more viable economic development and higher land values. As noted in the Burgis report, As detailed within the Paterson Master Plan the very existence of the Mixed Use Zone is due to the decline of heavy industry and the transformation that has and continues to occur resulting in a poor match in the City between the supply of industrial land and buildings and the needs of industrial users. The Mixed Use district was specifically created in response to this continuing trend and as a mechanism to buffer industrial uses with commercial uses and allow for new forms of development to occupy these spaces as the industrial areas of Paterson declined. The purpose of the Mixed Use district is to promote economic development and encourage higher land values. Ultimately the Burgis report concluded that the proposed zoning amendment was "consistent and compatible" with the City's Master Plan, which was adopted in 2003, and most recently amended in July Among the reasons cited were: 1. Approval of the Land Use Element Plan amendment as requested increases consistency and compatibility of the Study Area with adjacent River Street land uses. 2. Adoption of the requested Master Plan amendment as proposed by the petitioner will foster and encourage the productive reuse of the Study Area without negative impacts on residential areas since the west side of 3
4 River Street north of Fourth Avenue is presently non-residential in character. 3. Parcels on the opposite (east) side of River Street are in the MU Mixed Use Zone. The applicant is requesting the Planning Board extend the MU land use classification from across the street to the Study Area. River Street properties south of the Study Area and on both sides of the River Street are within the MU zone district. 4. The bulk standards applicable in the MU Mixed Use zone are not substantially different from those applicable in the I-2 Industrial Zone. 5. The modification of zoning districts from I-2 Industrial to MU Mixed Use retains many of the permitted industrial uses while expanding the nature of permitted uses to include additional commercial and retail land uses. Pertinent to this appeal, Burgis also noted: No negative impact on roadway capacity during peak commuter periods is anticipated if the requested master plan amendment is adopted. Presently all seven lots are developed. Future development proposals for any of the Study Area lots are not likely to have any measurable impact on roadway capacity. The Ordinance was introduced by the City Council on first reading on October 11, It was then referred by the City to its Planning Board, which conducted a hearing on November 2, 4
5 Prior to the meeting, the City's principal planner, Michael Deutsch, submitted a memorandum noting that As proposed, the Mixed-Use Zone would provide flexible and expanded opportunities for the future redevelopment of existing buildings and sites, including a component of general retail businesses. Proposed uses within the Mixed-Use Zone would include many of the current uses in the I-2 zone but will also allow for banks and drive-through banks, personal service businesses, community retail businesses, general retail businesses, restaurants and business services. Additionally, Deutsch testified before the Board that These properties are not used as heavy industrial type uses. They are all more commercial uses that fit more into the MU Mixed-Use Zone. By passing a resolution in favor of this and referring it back to the City Council would enable on second reading of the [O]rdinance most probably a favorable outcome for this [O]rdinance to be passed by them, by the City Council. This is only for these nine or so properties. None of them, again, is used as I-2 uses. They are conforming MU uses except for the residential aspect, which is an existing building. I don't really see a mass redevelopment of this area and acquisition of properties in this area becoming I-2. No member of the public appeared in opposition. The Board unanimously voted to adopt the proposed Ordinance, and, 1 N.J.S.A. 40:55D-26(a) provides that prior to adoption of any zoning ordinance, the governing body must transmit the proposed ordinance to the planning board for its report and recommendations. 5
6 thereafter, the Ordinance was scheduled for a hearing before the City Council on December 6, Plaintiff's property is within 200 feet of the proposed zoning change. She was the only member of the public to appear at the December 6, 2011 City Council meeting, primarily voicing concern over the traffic impact of the amendment. After various Council members commented on plaintiff's concerns, the Council unanimously adopted the Ordinance. Plaintiff filed a timely complaint in lieu of prerogative writs. Before the Law Division, plaintiff argued that a traffic study should have been conducted prior to the adoption of the Ordinance. She further argued that the zone change constituted illegal "spot zoning." After considering oral argument, Judge Mizzone rejected plaintiff's arguments. In a thoughtful written decision, the judge reasoned: 1. The Planning Board and the City Council were in possession of the Burgis Associates, Inc. planning report (P-1), which on page 5 states "4. No negative impact on roadway capacity during pe[a]k commuter periods is anticipated if the requested master plan amendment is adopted. Presently all seven lots are developed. Future development proposals for any of the Study Area lots are not likely to have 6
7 any measurable impact on roadway capacity". Further at the December 6, 2011 hearing before the City Council, Councilman Goow stated... the proposal would not create a major change to the area and considered traffic impact on his support of the Ordinance. Councilmen Hines, Rodriguez and Morris further considered plaintiff's position on traffic before adoption. Thus, the impact of traffic was not glossed over by the City Council prior to adoption, but considered. Simply put[,] plaintiff's lay opinion that a traffic study should have been conducted was considered and felt unnecessary. Whether or not it should have been conducted is at most debatable. Further, there was nothing before the Planning Board or City Council other than [p]laintiff's raising of concerns as a lay person to indicate the rezoning would adversely impact traffic in the area. Accordingly, [p]laintiff has failed to carry her burden of proof that the Ordinance is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Riggs v. Long Beach Tp., 109 [N.J.] 601 (1988). 2. The adoption of Ordinance does not constitute [spot] zoning. The subject rezoned lots are adjacent to an existing Mixed Use zone and the [O]rdinance expands the zone. The subject lots are presently developed with mixed uses consistent with the Mixed Use zone. The subject [O]rdinance provides for a use which is compatible with adjacent uses and does not adversely affect the comprehensive zone plan of the City as op[i]ned in the planning report of Burgis Associates, Inc. (P-1). Thus, plaintiff has failed to show the subject [O]rdinance constitutes spot zoning 7
8 and to carry her burden of proof that the Ordinance is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable for this reason. Judge Mizzone entered an order on October 19, 2012, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. This appeal followed. Before us, plaintiff essentially reiterates the arguments raised in the Law Division. She argues that (1) there were no traffic studies conducted prior to the zone change; (2) the zone change constitutes impermissible "spot zoning"; and (3) the Council abused its discretion in adopting a zoning change to suit a landowner's request without the inclusion of the proper studies. We are satisfied from our review of the record that these arguments do not warrant extended discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm the order dismissing the complaint substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Mizzone's written opinion. We add the following. In reviewing this matter, we bear in mind general principles that govern civil actions in lieu of prerogative writs brought under Rule 4:69 to contest decisions by municipal bodies. Although the contexts vary, courts ordinarily apply a presumption of validity to administrative decisions by municipal agencies. See Vineland Constr. Co., Inc. v. Twp. of Pennsauken, 395 N.J. Super. 230, (App. Div. 2007), appeal dismissed 8
9 as moot, 195 N.J. 513 (2008); Bryant v. City of Atlantic City, 309 N.J. Super. 596, 610 (App. Div. 1998). The municipal decision is generally sustained if it comports with the law, is supported by substantial credible evidence in the record, and is not shown to be arbitrary or capricious. See, e.g., Cell S. of N.J. v. Zoning Bd. of Adj. of W. Windson Twp., 172 N.J. 75, (2002); ERETC, L.L.C. v. City of Perth Amboy, 381 N.J. Super. 268, 277 (App. Div. 2005). Municipal zoning ordinances enjoy a similar presumption of validity. Rumson Estates, Inc. v. Mayor & Council of Fair Haven, 177 N.J. 338, 350 (2003); Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 380 (1995); Zilinsky v. Bd. of Adj. of Verona, 105 N.J. 363, 368 (1987). This presumption may be overcome by proof that the ordinance is arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious, or plainly contrary to fundamental principles of zoning or the zoning statute. Pheasant Bridge Corp. v. Twp. of Warren, 169 N.J. 282, (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1077, 122 S. Ct. 1959, 152 L. Ed. 2d 1020 (2002); Riggs v. Twp. of Long Branch, 109 N.J. 601, 611 (1988); Bow & Arrow Manor, Inc. v. Town of W. Orange, 63 N.J. 335, 343 (1973). "This showing may be made with respect to the facial validity of a zoning ordinance or its application to particular properties." Bailes v. Twp. of E. Brunswick, 380 N.J. Super. 9
10 336, 348 (App. Div.) (citations omitted), certif. denied, 185 N.J. 596 (2005). A zoning ordinance must generally meet four criteria: (1) it must advance one of the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 to -163, which are delineated in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2; (2) it must be "substantially consistent with the land use plan element and the housing plan element of the master plan," N.J.S.A. 40:55D-62(a); (3) it "must comport with constitutional constraints on the zoning power, including those pertaining to due process, equal protection, and the prohibition against confiscation"; and (4) the municipality must follow the prescribed procedures for adopting the ordinance. Riggs, supra, 109 N.J. at (citations omitted). Reviewed under these principles, Ordinance satisfies the criteria for validity set forth in Riggs, ibid. It advances the purposes of the MLUL because it encourages municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of lands in a manner that will promote the general welfare, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2(a), and it lessens the cost of development and encourages the more efficient use of land, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2(m). It is substantially consistent with the City's Master Plan, which has recognized the decline of heavy industry and the resulting need to buffer industrial uses with commercial uses and promote new 10
11 forms of development. It comports with constitutional constraints on the zoning power, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that it is confiscatory. Finally, there are no procedural irregularities associated with the adoption of the Ordinance that provide a basis to invalidate it. The Board and the Council relied on the professional expert Burgis report, which opined that the zoning amendment would not adversely impact traffic in the area. While plaintiff expressed concern, she did not produce any expert testimony or report to refute the Burgis report. Moreover, in assessing the accuracy of factual testimony from members of the public, the City Council could employ its own general knowledge of conditions in the community. See Kramer v. Bd. of Adj., Sea Girt, 45 N.J. 268, 296 (1965) ("[P]ublic bodies, because of their peculiar knowledge of local conditions must be allowed wide latitude in the exercise of delegated discretion."). Here, Council members commented about their knowledge of traffic conditions in the area, and expressed their belief that the zoning change would not contribute to or exacerbate traffic congestion. We similarly reject plaintiff's contention that the Ordinance constituted "spot zoning." As Judge Mizzone correctly noted, the Ordinance simply extended the Mixed Use zone that already lay adjacent to Lots 2 through 10. Moreover, plaintiff 11
12 conceded at oral argument in the Law Division that the affected area "predominantly has a lot of mixed use... right now." In sum, Ordinance is not arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious, nor is it plainly contrary to fundamental principles of zoning or the MLUL. Because plaintiff failed to overcome the presumption of validity that attaches to the Ordinance, Judge Mizzone properly dismissed plaintiff's complaint. Affirmed. 12
Defendants-Respondents. - Before Judges Hoffman and Currier.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet this opinion is binding
More informationArgued September 12, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Yannotti, Carroll, and Mawla.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. FRANK PAGANO, v. Plaintiff-Respondent, WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP JOINT LAND USE BOARD;
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. JAI SAI RAM, LLC, a limited liability company of the State of New Jersey, and
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. CAMPUS ASSOCIATES L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION v.
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. MARK'S ADVANCED TOWING, INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, CITY OF BAYONNE and ROBERT
More informationArgued September 11, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Accurso and O'Connor.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is only
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
WILLIAM H. JOHNSON, JR., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, DOWNE TOWNSHIP COMBINED PLANNING/ZONING BOARD and KATHRYN L. WEISENBURG, NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Defendants-Respondents.
More informationATTORNEYS AT LAW. June 10, 2007
ERIC M I BERNSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C, TWO NORTH ROAD P,O, 80X 4922 WARREN, NEW JERSEY 07059 ATTORNEYS AT LAW June 10, 2007 (732) 805-3360 FACSIMILE 1732) 805-3346 www.embalaw.com Honorable Victor Ashrafi
More informationArgued September 26, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Reisner, Hoffman and Mayer.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationBefore Judges Espinosa, Suter and Guadagno. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationBefore Judges Leone and Vernoia. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester County, Municipal Appeal No
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is only
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE June 10, 2009 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE June 10, 2009 Session QUOC TU PHAM, ET AL. v. CITY OF CHATTANOOGA, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamilton County No. 06-0655 W. Frank Brown,
More informationZONING PROCEDURE INTRODUCTION
ZONING PROCEDURE INTRODUCTION The State of Michigan s Zoning Enabling Act #110 of the Public Acts of 2006 provides cities with the right to zone land within their boundary limits. The Act states that the
More informationArgued February 7, Decided. Before Judges Fuentes, Koblitz and Suter.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS GARY STONEROCK and ONALEE STONEROCK, UNPUBLISHED May 28, 2002 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 229354 Oakland Circuit Court CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF INDEPENDENCE, LC No. 99-016357-CH
More informationSYLLABUS. Northgate Condominium Association, Inc. v. Borough of Hillsdale Planning Board (A-5-11) (067794)
SYLLABUS (This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme
More informationSubmitted May 17, 2017 Decided June 21, Before Judges Carroll and Farrington.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION ENZIO COLUMBRO, KAREN A. COLUMBRO, and LARRY MARINO, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. v. Plaintiffs-Appellants,
More informationSPOTTY BEHAVIOR OR GOOD PRECEDENT: THE REBIRTH OF THE INVERSE SPOT ZONING DOCTRINE IN RIYA FINNEGAN, LLC V. TOWNSHIP COUNCIL OF SOUTH BRUNSWICK
WYRWASWYRWAS_FORMATTED.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) SPOTTY BEHAVIOR OR GOOD PRECEDENT: THE REBIRTH OF THE INVERSE SPOT ZONING DOCTRINE IN RIYA FINNEGAN, LLC V. TOWNSHIP COUNCIL OF SOUTH BRUNSWICK Jaclyn Wyrwas
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, DAMEON L. WINSLOW, Defendant-Respondent.
More informationArgued November 10, 2016 Decided. Before Judges Lihotz, Hoffman and O'Connor.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationCITY OF NORTHFIELD, NJ ORDINANCE NO
CITY OF NORTHFIELD, NJ ORDINANCE NO. 2-2015 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 1986 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, AS AMENDED, AND AMENDING THE CITY S ZONING MAP WHEREAS, the City of Northfield adopted a 1986
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. THE PITNEY BOWES BANK, INC., v. Plaintiff-Respondent, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
More informationV. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE : DECISION BOROUGH OF BEACH HAVEN, OCEAN COUNTY, : SYNOPSIS
30-00 LYNN P. SHERMAN ET AL., : PETITIONERS, : V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE : DECISION BOROUGH OF BEACH HAVEN, OCEAN COUNTY, : RESPONDENT. : : SYNOPSIS Petitioning parents appealed
More informationBefore Judges Koblitz and Suter.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationArgued October 12, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Rothstadt and Gooden Brown.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
EDWARD W. KLUMPP and NANCY M. KLUMPP, v. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Plaintiffs-Appellants, BOROUGH OF AVALON, Defendant-Respondent. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. IN RE: PETITION FOR REFERENDUM TO REPEAL ORDINANCE 2010-27 OF THE CITY OF MARGATE
More informationTHE CONTINUED VITALITY OF THE TIME OF DECISION RULE IN NEW JERSEY LAND USE LAW. By: Trishka Waterbury, Esq.
THE CONTINUED VITALITY OF THE TIME OF DECISION RULE IN NEW JERSEY LAND USE LAW By: Trishka Waterbury, Esq. The time of decision rule is a rule of retroactivity that stands for the proposition that whatever
More informationBefore Judges Currier and Geiger.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN April 16, 1999 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
Present: All the Justices JAMES E. GREGORY, SR., ET AL. v. Record No. 981184 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN April 16, 1999 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. SARA A. VOGEL, v. Petitioner-Appellant, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SHELBY OAKS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED February 5, 2004 v No. 241135 Macomb Circuit Court CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF SHELBY and LC No. 99-002191-AV CHARTER TOWNSHIP
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS CIVIL DEPARTMENT
16CV01076 Div11 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS CIVIL DEPARTMENT QRIVIT, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 16CV01076 v. ) Chapter 60; Division 11 ) ) CITY OF SHAWNEE, KANSAS ) A Municipal
More informationDecided by the Commissioner of Education, October 3, Decision on motion by the Commissioner of Education, November 20, 2002
EDU #9451-01 C # 356-02L SB # 43-02 VICTOR EISENBERG, : PETITIONER-APPELLANT, : V. : STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE : DECISION BOROUGH OF FORT LEE, BERGEN COUNTY, JOHN C. RICHARDSON,
More informationFINAL DECISION. July 28, 2015 Government Records Council Meeting
FINAL DECISION July 28, 2015 Government Records Council Meeting Robert A. Verry Complainant v. Franklin Fire District No. 1 (Somerset) Custodian of Record Complaint No. 2014-387 At the July 28, 2015 public
More informationArgued October 16, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Messano and Vernoia.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationFROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY Joanne F. Alper, Judge. This appeal arises from a petition for certiorari
Present: All the Justices MANUEL E. GOYONAGA, ET AL. OPINION BY v. Record No. 070229 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. February 29, 2008 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR THE CITY OF FALLS CHURCH FROM THE CIRCUIT
More informationARTICLE 25 ZONING HEARING BOARD Contents
ARTICLE 25 ZONING HEARING BOARD Contents 2500 Establishment of Board 2501 Membership and Terms of Office 2502 Procedures 2503 Interpretation 2504 Variances 2505 Special Exceptions 2506 Challenge to the
More informationMEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF URBAN LEAGUE PLAINTIFFS 1 MOTION FOR A COURT-IMPOSED REMEDY
CA000078D ERIC NEISSER, ESQ. JOHN M. PAYNE, ESQ. BARBARA J. WILLIAMS, ESQ. Constitutional Litigation Clinic Rutgers Law School 15 Washington Street - Room 338 Newark, N.J. 07102 Attorneys for Urban League
More informationArgued January 18, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Espinosa, Suter, and Guadagno.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationTHIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (the Agreement ), dated as of, 2015 (the "Effective Date"), is entered into by and between the Petitioner TOWNSHIP OF
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF WOODBRIDGE, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, Petitioner. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION:MIDDLESEX COUNTY DOCKET NO.:
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. ADAM SZYFMAN and GRAHAM FEIL, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, BOROUGH OF GLASSBORO,
More informationSubmitted December 20, 2016 Decided. Before Judges Reisner and Rothstadt.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: DECEMBER 5, 2014; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2013-CA-001660-MR JOSEPH C. SANSBURY, GROVER VORBRINK AND DOYLE JACKSON APPELLANTS APPEAL FROM BULLITT
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. STERLING LAUREL REALTY, LLC, individually and derivatively on behalf of LAUREL
More informationArgued February 26, 2018 Decided. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationVARIANCE STAFF REPORT
2017-V-50 Page 1 of 8 VARIANCE STAFF REPORT Docket Number: 2017-V-50 Applicant/Property Owner: Spirit Master Funding, LLC 2001 Joshua Road Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2431 Public Hearing Date: December 14,
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. CLUB 35, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOROUGH OF SAYREVILLE, APPROVED FOR
More informationArgued February 28, 2018 Decided. Before Judges Fuentes, Manahan, and Suter.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2127-14T4 CLAUDIA CASSER, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
More informationSubmitted December 12, 2017 December. Before Judges Carroll and Leone.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION EILEEN BROWN and CHRISTOPHER BROWN, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TOWNSHIP OF PARSIPPANY-TROY
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. GS PARTNERS, L.L.C., a limited liability company of New Jersey, v. Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A T3 A T3 ENZO MARINELLI, YOLA MARINELLI, JOHN JAMES and GENA JAMES,
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationCITY OF KENT, OHIO ZONING CODE CHAPTER 1111 ZONING AMENDMENTS Page CHAPTER 1111 ZONING AMENDMENTS
ZONING AMENDMENTS Page 1111-1 ZONING AMENDMENTS 1111.01 Council May Amend 1111.02 Initiation of Amendments 1111.03 Contents of Application 1111.04 Action By Planning Commission 1111.05 Action By City Council
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. ROLAND GEBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD, Defendant-Respondent.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WHITMORE LAKE 23/LLC, 1 ZAKHOUR I. YOUSSEF, ANDOULLA YOUSSEF, MUAIAD SHIHADEH, and AIDA SHIHADEH, UNPUBLISHED April 28, 2011 and Plaintiffs-Appellants, ELIE R. KHOURY
More informationLegal & Legislative Update By Michael J. Gross, Esq. & Steven M. Dalton, Esq.
Voice of the Central Jersey Shore Building Industry May/June 2006 C-1 WATER BUFFER UPHELD In re Matter of Stormwater Rules Legal & Legislative Update By Michael J. Gross, Esq. & Steven M. Dalton, Esq.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WOLTERS REALTY, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 3, 2004 v No. 247228 Allegan Circuit Court SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP, SAUGATUCK LC No. 00-028157-CZ PLANNING COMMISSION,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ACC INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED February 24, 2004 v No. 242392 Genesee Circuit Court CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF MUNDY, LC No. 95-037227-NZ Defendant-Appellee.
More informationFROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HANOVER COUNTY J. Overton Harris, Judge
PRESENT: All the Justices EMAC, L.L.C. OPINION BY v. Record No. 150335 JUSTICE S. BERNARD GOODWYN January 14, 2016 COUNTY OF HANOVER, ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HANOVER COUNTY J. Overton Harris,
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. LISA IPPOLITO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TOBIA IPPOLITO, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
More informationBefore Judges Hoffman and Whipple. On appeal from Civil Service Commission, Docket No
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 October 2012
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationBefore Judges Nugent and Currier. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Michael M. Lyons, : Appellant : : v. : : Zoning Hearing Board of the : Borough of Sewickley : : v. : : MCM Ventures, Ltd : : v. : : No. 178 C.D. 2014 The Borough
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LEDUC INC., and WINDMILL POINTE INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, UNPUBLISHED December 23, 2008 v No. 280921 Oakland Circuit Court CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF LYON, LC No. 2006-072901-CH
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. ALLYN C. SEEL, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, LORENZO LANGFORD, MAYOR, and THE CITY
More informationRichard L. Goldstein, Esq., for the respondent (Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, PC, attorneys). INTRODUCTION
STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW & PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION ON CIVIL RIGHTS OAL DOCKET NO.: CRT 830-01 DCR DOCKET NO.: ED08NK-45415 DECIDED: JULY 11, 2002 KAMLESH H. DAVE ) ) Complainant, ) ) v. ) )
More informationPLANNING BOARD PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LIVINGSTON PLANNING BOARD
PLANNING BOARD PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LIVINGSTON PLANNING BOARD 1. What is the Planning Board? The Planning Board is a nine-member body appointed by the Livingston Township Council. Six members are Livingston
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
THE STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY, LLC, NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-4630-14T1 v. Plaintiff-Appellant/
More informationBefore Judges Fasciale and Gooden Brown.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as 6957 Ridge Rd., L.L.C. v. Parma Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2013-Ohio-4028.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 99006 6957 RIDGE ROAD,
More informationSubmitted December 21, 2016 Decided. Before Judges Simonelli and Gooden Brown. On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationSubmitted January 30, 2018 Decided. Before Judges Yannotti and Leone.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationBefore Judges Messano and Guadagno. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Docket No. L
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationCOURT OF COMMON PLEAS CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff/Appellant : CASE NO CVF 01712
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CLERMONT COUNTY, OHIO S-THREE, LLC, : Plaintiff/Appellant : CASE NO. 2013 CVF 01712 vs. : Judge McBride BATAVIA TOWNSHIP BOARD OF : ZONING APPEALS : DECISION/ENTRY Defendant/Appellee
More informationKENNETH RUEHL AND IDA RUEHL
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CASE NUMBER 2015-0217-R KENNETH RUEHL AND IDA RUEHL FOURTH ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DATE HEARD: DECEMBER 3, 2015 ORDERED BY: DOUGLAS CLARK HOLLMANN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
More information? (Cj ^q. -Vi5 w ca lai. 5- J: 9 >
? (Cj ^q -Vi5 w ca lai. 5- J: 9 > ML000679D CARL S. BISGAIER, ESQUIRE 510 Park Boulevard Cherry Hill, New Jersey 0 80 34 (609) 665-1911 Attorney for Plaintiffs CHESTER AND VAN DALEN ASSOCIATES,: SUPERIOR
More informationOn appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L and Municipal Appeal No
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationREZONING STAFF REPORT Case: Samantha Ficzko, Planner II Phone: (910) Fax: (910)
REZONING Case: 08-649 Samantha Ficzko, Planner II SFiczko@harnett.org Phone: (910) 893-7525 Fax: (910) 814-8278 Planning Board: November 3, 2008 County Commissioners: November 17, 2008 Requesting rezoning
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, f/k/a BANKER'S TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE, NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. CAROLYNE MORGAN, v. Plaintiff-Respondent, CESAR PARRA, Individually, KATIE
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. BRIAN RABB, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, CHILDREN'S PLACE RETAIL STORES, INC., d/b/a
More informationSECTION 878 ZONING DIVISION AMENDMENT
SECTION 878 ZONING DIVISION AMENDMENT An amendment to this Zoning Division which changes any property from one (1) district to another or imposes any regulation not heretofore imposed or removes or modifies
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. ROBIN CERDEIRA, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION v. Plaintiff-Appellant, September
More informationSubmitted October 25, 2016 Decided. Before Judges Messano, Espinosa and Guadagno.
LYNX ASSET SERVICES, L.L.C., v. Plaintiff-Respondent, MICHELE MINUNNO, MR. MINUNNO, husband of MICHELE MINUNNO; STEVEN MINUNNO; MRS. STEVEN MINUNNO, wife of STEVEN MINUNNO; and Defendants-Appellants, PREMIER
More informationEAST NOTTINGHAM TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE ARTICLE XXII ZONING HEARING BOARD
EAST NOTTINGHAM TOWNSHIP ZONING ORDINANCE ARTICLE XXII ZONING HEARING BOARD SECTION 2201 GENERAL A. Appointment. 1. The Zoning Hearing Board shall consist of three (3) residents of the Township appointed
More informationARTICLE 9 AMENDMENTS. Table of Contents
ARTICLE 9 AMENDMENTS Table of Contents 9-1 AMENDMENTS IN GENERAL... 1 9-2 INITIATION OF AMENDMENTS... 1 9-3 PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION... 2 9-4 CITY COUNCIL REVIEW AND ADOPTION... 2 9-5 PUBLIC
More informationState of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department
State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: April 12, 2018 525097 In the Matter of THE HEIGHTS OF LANSING, LLC, et al., Appellants, v MEMORANDUM AND
More informationArgued May 31, 2017 Decided August 11, Before Judges Vernoia and Moynihan (Judge Vernoia concurring).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
PALISADES COLLECTION, L.L.C., v. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Plaintiff-Respondent, STEVEN GRAUBARD, Defendant-Appellant. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SALLY A. ROBERTS, DO, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, ANSON MOISE, M.D., MATTHEW CHALFIN, M.D., and NORTHEAST ANESTHESIA AND PAIN MANAGEMENT, LLC, NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
More informationSubmitted November 9, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Currier and Geiger.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationCHAPTER 27 Amendments
CHAPTER 27 Amendments Section 27.1 Intent and Purpose Amendments or supplements shall be made hereto in the same manner as provided in the Zoning Act for the enactment of this Ordinance. Section 27.2 Initiation
More information