B.P.U.M. DEV. URB. RENEWAL v. CAMDEN, N.J. Tax, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Harvey C. Johnson, attorney for appellant B.P.U.M. Development and Urban Renewal Corporation ( David E. Mapp, on the brief). Patricia A. Darden, attorney for appellant City of Camden ( Marcia R. Steinbock, on the brief). Peter N. Perretti, Jr., Attorney General, attorney for respondent ( Harry Haushalter, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). Wiley, Malehorn and Sirota, attorneys for Town of Morristown, amicus curiae ( Robert Goldsmith and Robert G. Lavitt, on the brief; Robert Goldsmith, of counsel).

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

B.P.U.M. DEVELOPMENT AND URBAN RENEWAL CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CITY OF CAMDEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. CITY OF CAMDEN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

PER CURIAM.

Substantially for the reasons expressed in his opinion reported at 9 N.J. Tax. 490 (1988), we conclude that Judge Lario correctly held (1) that both the Urban Renewal Law (N.J.S.A. 40:55C-40 et seq.) and the Tax Abatement Law (N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.95 et seq.) require "the acceptance and execution of appropriate agreements as a precondition for an eligible project to receive tax abatement" and (2) that "there exists no equitable reason to waive the statutory prerequisites." B.P.U.M. Dev. Urb. Renewal v. Camden, 9 N.J. Tax. at 502-503, 507.

The judgment is accordingly affirmed.

B.P.U.M. DEV. URB. RENEWAL v. CAMDEN

B.P.U.M. DEVELOPMENT AND URBAN RENEWAL CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CITY OF CAMDEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. CITY OF CAMDEN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

Comments