JERSEY CITY REDEV. v. TUG BARGE, N.J. Super. App. Div., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

John J. Curley argued the cause for appellant Jersey City Redevelopment Agency ( Lepis, Lepis Curley, attorneys; John J. Curley, on the brief). Kenneth N. Laptook argued the cause for appellant Newport Associates Development Company ( Kimmelman, Wolff Samson, attorneys; Ronald E. Wiss, on the brief). Dennis J. Drasco argued the cause for respondent Tug Barge Urban Renewal Corporation ( Lum, Hoens, Abeles, Conant Danzis, attorneys; Dennis J. Drasco, of counsel, and Dennis B. O'Brien, on the brief). William E. Andersen, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent State of New Jersey ( W. Cary Edwards, Attorney General, attorney; James J. Ciancia, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; William E. Andersen and Stephen E. Brower, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

JERSEY CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, A BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, AND NEWPORT ASSOCIATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR-APPELLANT, v. TUG AND BARGE URBAN RENEWAL CORPORATION, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION; STATE OF NEW JERSEY; AND STATE OF NEW JERSEY THROUGH THE TIDELANDS RESOURCE COUNCIL IN THE DIVISION OF COASTAL RESOURCES IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND GENERAL ELECTRIC CREDIT CORPORATION, A NEW YORK CORPORATION; UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK; CITY OF JERSEY CITY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; JERSEY CITY SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, A BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; AND TUG BARGE DRY DOCKS, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS. JERSEY CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, A BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment of the Superior Court, Law Division, is affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth in the comprehensive and well-reasoned letter opinions of Judge Humphreys dated February 16, 1987 and July 2, 1987, as supplemented by his written opinion dated January 21, 1988, reported in 228 N.J. Super. 88 (Law Div. 1988).

Affirmed.

JERSEY CITY REDEV. v. TUG BARGE

Comments