NBCP URBAN RENEWAL v. CITY OF NEWARK, N.J. Tax, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Donald F. Miceli, argued the cause for appellant ( Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart Olstein, attorneys
Mr. Miceli
Richard K. Matanle, on the brief). Demetrice R. Miles, Assistant Corporation Counsel, argued the cause for respondent ( Michelle Hollar-Gregory, Corporation Counsel, attorney
Mr. Miles, on the brief).

Judges

PER CURIAM.

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Donald F. Miceli, argued the cause for appellant ( Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart Olstein, attorneys
Mr. Miceli
Richard K. Matanle, on the brief). Demetrice R. Miles, Assistant Corporation Counsel, argued the cause for respondent ( Michelle Hollar-Gregory, Corporation Counsel, attorney
Mr. Miles, on the brief).

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

NBCP URBAN RENEWAL PARTNERSHIP, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CITY OF NEWARK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Tax Court, based on its conclusion that the Business Retention Act, N.J.S.A. 54:4-1.13-1.16, does not affect plaintiff's statutory service payments in lieu of taxes, is affirmed, substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Small in his decision reported at 17 N.J.Tax 59 (Tax 1997).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

NBCP URBAN RENEWAL v. CITY OF NEWARK

NBCP URBAN RENEWAL PARTNERSHIP, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CITY OF NEWARK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Comments