- TEQUESTA ECD, LLC, ET AL. VS. STEVEN ENDERS, ET AL. (L-0336-22, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0389-23 Appellate March 26, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ASHAD T. WINSTEAD (17-03-0513 AND 17-05-0699, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0943-23 Appellate March 26, 2025
- J.B. VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD (NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD) A-1521-23 Appellate March 26, 2025
- ROBERT RELDAN VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD (NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD) A-2404-23 Appellate March 26, 2025
- ELIZABETH MURRAY VS. RUTGERS CANCER INSTITUTE OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL. (L-6504-23, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3347-23 Appellate March 26, 2025
- MATRIX BORDENTOWN, LOT 2, LLC V. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION 13007-19 Tax March 25, 2025 Summary 13007-19, REALTY TRANSFER FEE – REFUND CLAIM OF 1% GRANTEE FEE - FARM – MANSION TAX, Tax Court: Matrix Bordentown, Lot 2, LLC v. Director, Division of Taxation , Docket No. 013007-2019; opinion by Bedrin Murray, J.T.C., decided March 25, 2025. For plaintiff – Joseph G. Buro (Zipp & Tannenbaum, LLC, attorneys); for defendant – Anthony D. Tancini (Matthew Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney). Held: Plaintiff challenges defendant’s denial of its claim for refund of the one percent realty transfer fee imposed on a grantee in transfers greater than $1,000,000 for certain classes of real property. In cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties urge contrary interpretations of N.J.S.A. 46:15-7.2(a)2(a), which imposes the fee upon the transfer of Class 3A farm property that includes a building or structure “intended or suited for residential use.” The fee includes any other real property transferred to the same grantee in conjunction with the 3A farm property. N.J.S.A. 46:15-7.2(a)(2)(b). In this matter, plaintiff purchased the property to develop as an industrial site. The transfer consisted of three subparcels, including a half-acre lot containing a vacant and dilapidated farmhouse which plaintiff intended to demolish. At deed recordation, plaintiff was assessed a transfer fee of one percent of the total deed consideration of $4,703,160 based on the existence of a structure intended for residential use on the 3A farm parcel. Plaintiff contends that by “intended”, the Legislature meant the intent of the grantee as to the future use of the farmhouse, and that by “suited for”, the Legislature meant suitable for habitation. The court concludes that the plain language of the statute militates against this interpretation. Further, it is not reasonable to conclude that the Legislature intended for the application of the 1% fee to be decided based on subjective measurements. Moreover, defendant’s interpretation of tax statutes carries a presumption of validity. Provided defendant’s application of tax statutes is not plainly unreasonable, the court shall accord due deference to same. Summary judgment is granted in favor of defendant. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice. (13 Pages) Close
- CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION VS. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY, ET AL. (L-4542-21, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1246-22 Appellate March 27, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANDRE GREEN (15-06-0488, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2299-22 Appellate March 27, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ALONZO BRYANT (93-09-0492, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0471-23 Appellate March 27, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LUIS RIVAS (23-18, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1226-23 Appellate March 27, 2025
- MICHAEL ROSE VS. BOROUGH OF OAKLAND, ET AL. (L-4112-23. BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3145-23 Appellate March 27, 2025
- ROMA PIZZERIA, ETC. VS. HARBORTOUCH (L-0637-12, HUNTERDON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3222-23 Appellate March 27, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RAPHAEL LOLOS (17-11-1499, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3628-19 Appellate March 28, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOHN G. FORMISANO (19-12-1011, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1624-22 Appellate March 28, 2025
- SAMUEL BARRESI VS. FZG ENTERPRISES, LLC, ET AL. (L-1201-20, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2159-22 Appellate March 28, 2025
- ALTOWAN NIXON VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) A-2188-22 Appellate March 28, 2025
- IN THE MATTER OF N.T.T. (1516 XTR 2023 000002, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1113-23 Appellate March 28, 2025
- RICHARD H. LAMBDON VS. BOARD OF REVIEW, ET AL. (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR) A-1212-23 Appellate March 28, 2025
- RENE EDGHILL SMITH VS. NEW BRUNSWICK BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL. (L-1445-20, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1642-23 Appellate March 28, 2025
- PENELOPE MAUER VS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL. (L-0197-17 AND L-0388-22, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0108-24 Appellate March 28, 2025 Summary A-0108-24 The primary issue addressed by the court in this appeal is whether the indictment of a partner in a law firm, who withdrew his appearance following the indictment, creates a conflict of interest requiring the law firm to be disqualified from representing defendants, the State of New Jersey and other State entities. Because the underlying indictment was not related to the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -14, and contract claims filed by plaintiff in the civil action, the court concluded no conflict of interest existed pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct or the Office of the Attorney General, Outside Counsel Guidelines (2022). The court affirmed the trial court's order denying plaintiff's motion for disqualification. Close