- VERIZON NEW JERSEY, INC. VS. BOROUGH OF HOPEWELL (REDACTED) A-2909-18 Appellate July 25, 2024 Summary A-2909-18 In this long-running dispute between Verizon New Jersey, Inc., inheritor of New Jersey Bell Telephone Company's local exchange service telephone network, and the Borough of Hopewell, the court affirms Judge Menyuk's 2012 decision on summary judgment finding N.J.S.A. 54:4-1's 51% market-share calculation must be performed annually, and that an annual market-share calculation, as applied to Verizon, does not violate the State and federal equal protection guarantees, the State prohibition of special legislation or the Uniformity Clause, as well as Judge Brennan's 2019 decision following trial that Verizon is subject to the tax imposed for tax year 2009 because it provided dial tone and access to 51% of the Hopewell Local Telephone Exchange in 2008. The published version of this opinion omits discussion of whether the 51% test of N.J.S.A. 54:4-1 is to be applied annually as well as Verizon's constitutional challenges to the statute. Close
- JUANA POLANCO URENA VS. A&D FREIGHT LOGISTICS, LLC, ET AL. (DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION) A-2302-21 Appellate July 29, 2024
- JAMES B. NUTTER AND COMPANY VS. MELVENE L. KENNEDY (F-011556-14, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3902-21 Appellate July 29, 2024
- JEANNA MACK VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM) A-1072-22 Appellate July 29, 2024
- F.L. VS. E.S.Y. (FM-12-2724-14, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3447-22 Appellate July 29, 2024
- JORGE SALCEDO VS. PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS, ET AL. AND CITY OF UNION CITY, ET AL. (L-2340-20, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3935-22 Appellate July 29, 2024
- O.M. VS. R.T. AND E.T. (FD-03-0348-24, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1924-23 Appellate July 29, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. GERARD D. WATKINS (96-11-1326 and 96-11-1331, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2826-21 Appellate July 30, 2024
- BUKURIE LLUGANI VS. ARBEN TOSKA (FD-04-0814-19, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3267-21 Appellate July 30, 2024
- IN THE MATTER OF THE CHALLENGE OF THE TOWN OF SECAUCUS TO READOPTION OF THE N.J.A.C. 19:7 (NEW JERSEY SPORTS AND EXPOSITION AUTHORITY) A-0701-22 Appellate July 30, 2024
- DISCOVER BANK VS. CHRYSSOULA ARSENIS (DC-000755-21, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2028-22 Appellate July 30, 2024
- CASSANDRA GIGI SMITH VS. NEWARK COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS, INC. (L-0547-21, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2138-22 Appellate July 30, 2024
- U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ETC. VS. ERIC C. WALKER, ET AL. (F-009966-20, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2608-22 Appellate July 30, 2024
- IN THE MATTER OF KENNETH NICOSIA FLOOD HAZARD GENERAL PERMIT, ETC. (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION) A-2921-22 Appellate July 30, 2024 Summary A-2921-22 This appeal arises from a denial by respondent New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") of a request by appellants to rescind what is known as a flood hazard area general permit-by-certification 5 ("GPC 5") granted to a neighboring residential property owner, Kenneth Nicosia. Appellants own residential property that abuts Nicosia's parcel, both located within a block of the Atlantic Ocean shoreline. Nicosia, a developer, sought the permit to replace a single-family house on the site with a new house. After receiving notice of Nicosia's application for a GPC 5, appellants and several other local residents submitted comments to the DEP contesting the application. The comments objected to the issuance of the GPC 5, and further alleged that Nicosia's ongoing construction of the new house was not adhering to the permit's conditions. A DEP Section Chief responded to appellants by email, rejecting their objections and declining to modify or rescind the permit. This appeal ensued. Appellants principally argue that (1) the written notice they received of Nicosia's permit application was deficient because it failed to state the permit was effective during the comment period; and (2) the applicable DEP regulations should be construed to require a GPC 5 applicant to show that an existing structure is not in "usable condition" due to "decay" or "damage." See N.J.A.C. 7:13-1.2 (defining the terms "reconstruct" and "repair" under the regulations). The court concludes the GPC 5 notice did not violate any statutory or regulatory provisions, nor was it constitutionally deficient. In addition, although the pertinent regulations are poorly worded and punctuated, the DEP has reasonably construed them to not require an applicant who, as here, seeks to replace a lawfully existing structure to demonstrate the structure is decayed, damaged, or otherwise not in usable condition. But nothing in this opinion precludes the pursuit of available enforcement remedies if the construction, as built, does not comply with the conditions of the GPC 5 or applicable statutes or regulations. Close
- DCPP VS. P.F., J.F. AND J.C., IN THE MATTER OF J.C. AND D.F. (FN-09-0121-19, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2006-20 Appellate July 31, 2024
- MARSHALL WILLIAMS VS. ESTATE OF EVELYN L. WILLIAMS (FM-04-0886-20, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2061-21 Appellate July 31, 2024
- IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MARIE SEMPLE, ETC. (Q-1569, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3415-21 Appellate July 31, 2024
- IN THE MATTER OF JOHN TAYAG-KOSKY, ET AL. (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION) A-1537-22 Appellate July 31, 2024
- B.J.C. VS. K.H. (FV-20-1469-23, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2668-22 Appellate July 31, 2024
- NEW JERSEY REALTORS VS. TOWNSHIP OF BERKELEY (L-0991-22, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1384-22 Appellate July 31, 2024 Summary A-1384-22 This appeal requires the court to determine whether an ordinance limiting property ownership in certain senior housing communities to persons aged fifty-five or older is valid. Both the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(h), prohibit housing discrimination based on familial status, but provide an exemption for qualified housing for older persons, see 42 USC § 3607(b)(1); N.J.S.A. 10:5-5(n). However, the exemption in both statutes permit restrictions on occupancy, not ownership, to persons aged fifty-five and older. Relying on the text and the underlying purpose of the statutes, the court determined that because the exemptions do not expressly permit the restriction on ownership, and the ordinance's restriction discriminates on the basis of familial status, the ordinance violates the FHA and the NJLAD. As a result, the court affirmed the trial judge's decision invalidating the ordinance. Alternatively, the court invalidated the ordinance on the ground that its enactment exceeded the scope of the Township's authority because the ordinance unreasonably infringed upon the well-established and constitutionally protected right to own and sell property, and the restriction unreasonably and irrationally exceeded the public need. The court therefore concluded the ordinance was arbitrary and unreasonable, and required the Legislature's approval as a precondition to such a radical regulatory development. Close