420 Brd. Ave. Corp.. v. Bor. Of Palisades Park.

Decision Date30 August 1948
Docket NumberNo. 217.,217.
Citation61 A.2d 23,137 N.J.L. 527
Parties420 BROAD AVE. CORPORATION v. BOROUGH OF PALISADES PARK.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Certiorari proceeding by 420 Broad Avenue Corporation against the Borough of Palisades Park to determine validity of an amendment to a zoning ordinance.

Writ dismissed.

May term, 1948, before DONGES, COLIE, and EASTWOOD, JJ.

Ford & Taylor, of Hackensack, for prosecutor.

Max Eisenstein and Louis Eisenstein, both of Palisades Park, for defendant.

DONGES, Justice.

On May 13, 1947, the governing body of the Borough of Palisades Park adopted an ordinance entitled, ‘An ordinance to amend an ordinance entitled ‘An ordinance to limit and restrict to specified districts or zones, and to regulate therein, buildings and structures according to their construction and the nature of and extent of their use, in the Borough of Palisades Park, N.J.‘

The amendment added to the zoning ordinance of 1939 paragraph 21 to sub-section (c) entitled ‘B Districts-Business-of section 5, entitled ‘Regulations and Restrictions,“ which reads:

‘21. No premises shall be used, and no building shall be erected, altered, or remodeled which are arranged, designed or contemplated to be used for the conduct and operation of the business of selling, buying, storing or trading in second-hand or used automobiles.’

Thereafter, on November 3, 1947, application was made to the Borough Building Inspector for a permit for the construction of a ‘building and used car lot’ in said municipality. This was refused by the Building Inspector as being in violation of the borough ordinance. No further steps were taken by the prosecutor to secure said permit and the certiorari allowed in this case seeks to attack only the validity of the ordinance.

Prosecutor attacks the validity of the ordinance upon the ground that that portion of the questioned ordinance which attempts to control the use of vacant land separate and apart from the ‘buildings and structures' thereon is invalid ‘as without constitutional or statutory authority.’

It has been repeatedly held that the power of a municipality to limit the use of lands is within the police power. In Duffcon Concrete Products Inc. v. Cresskill, 137 N.J.L. 81, 58 A.2d 104, 105, Mr. Chief Justice Case said: ‘The authority of government to impose limitations upon the use and employment of private property rests upon two sources, first, the police power inherent in government to promote the safety, health, morals and general welfare of a community, and, second, the zoning provisions in our constitution article 4, s 6, par. 5, N.J.S.A., and the an cillary statutes and ordinances passed there under.’ Cf. Midland Park Coal & Lumber Co. v. Terhune, 136 N.J.L. 442, 56 A.2d 717, 721, opinion by Mr. Justice Eastwood, where it is said: ‘The argument...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Aero Motors, Inc. v. Administrator, Motor Vehicle Administration
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • May 6, 1975
    ...and Council of Borough of N. Arlington, 136 N.J.L. 494, 56 A.2d 744, aff. 1 N.J. 24, 61 A.2d 508, and 420 Broad Ave. Corp. v. Borough of Palisades Park, 137 N.J.L. 527, 61 A.2d 23. In considering whether an Oklahoma law regulating the practice of optometry violated the Equal Protection Clau......
  • Pierro v. Baxendale, A--20
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • November 21, 1955
    ...ex rel. Wisconsin Lutheran High School Conference v. Sinar, 267 Wis. 91, 65 N.W.2d 43 (1954). In 420 Broad Ave. Corp. v. Borough of Palisades Park, 137 N.J.L. 527, 61 A.2d 23, 25 (Sup.Ct.1948), the Borough of Palisades Park had amended its zoning ordinance so as to prohibit the use of premi......
  • Garrou v. Teaneck Tryon Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • January 19, 1953
    ...were decisions of the former Supreme Court which had unequivocally asserted such power. See 420 Broad Ave. Corp. v. Borough of Palisades Park, 137 N.J.L. 527, 529, 61 A.2d 23 (Sup.Ct.1948); Ridgewood Air Club v. Bd. of Adj. of Ridgewood, 136 N.J.L. 222, 226, 55 A.2d 100 (Sup.Ct.1947). In an......
  • Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Township Committee of Tp. of Manalapan
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • March 14, 1994
    ...41 N.J.Super. 74, 124 A.2d 48 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 22 N.J. 227, 125 A.2d 440 (1956); 420 Broad Ave. Corp. v. Borough of Palisades Park, 137 N.J.L. 527, 61 A.2d 23 (Sup.Ct.1948). A municipality may permit those retail stores which it feels will serve the most important needs of its ci......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT