From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rothman v. Hackensack

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Jun 16, 1981
4 N.J. Tax 529 (Tax 1981)

Opinion

Argued June 9, 1981.

Decided June 16, 1981.

Appeal from the Tax Court of New Jersey.

Leonard Rothman argued the cause for appellants.

Steven Muhlstock argued the cause for respondent ( Melvin Gittleman, attorney).

Before Judges MICHELS and KOLE.


The Tax Court affirmed tax assessments by the county board of taxation affecting appellants' real property in Hackensack as follows:PARCEL I Block Lots Land Improvements PARCEL II Block Lots Land Improvements

— 1978 only 100F 8, 9, 10 $ 20,000 -0- — 1978 and 1979 114A 1 $138,000 $100 114C 1 — A and 3 95,400 -0- According to appellants-taxpayers, their appeal is limited to the Tax Court judgment relating only to Parcel II for the years 1978 and 1979.

We have considered the arguments advanced by the taxpayers on this appeal in the light of the proofs and applicable law. We have concluded that there is sufficient credible evidence in the record to support the Tax Court judge's determinations and that all issues of law raised are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A), (E).

We affirm the judgment substantially for the reasons given by Judge Simpson in his written opinion of August 26, 1980.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Rothman v. Hackensack

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Jun 16, 1981
4 N.J. Tax 529 (Tax 1981)
Case details for

Rothman v. Hackensack

Case Details

Full title:LEONARD ROTHMAN AND MILDRED ROTHMAN, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. CITY OF…

Court:Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

Date published: Jun 16, 1981

Citations

4 N.J. Tax 529 (Tax 1981)

Citing Cases

RUTHERFORD CONSTR. CO. v. RUTHERFORD BOR

N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-5. Cvelich v. Erie R.R. Co., 120 N.J.L. 414, 199 A. 771 (Sup.Ct.), aff'd 122 N.J.L. 26, 4…

Ptak v. Borough of Red Bank

Initially, the court notes that comparison of assessments is generally disallowed since those assessments can…