Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

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

Tax Court of New Jersey.
May 1, 1989
Judgment
Subsequent
References
CaseIQ
Case Information
CITATION CODES
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.

ACTS

No Acts

See more information ... Less ...
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.

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.

© 2026 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

x

Alert

Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature.
Sign Up Login
x