Baldwin Const. Co. v. Essex County Bd. of Taxation

• Decision Date: 20 August 1954
• Docket Number: No. L--7813--53,L--7813--53
• Citation: 107 A.2d 567,32 N.J.Super. 18
• Parties: BALDWIN CONST. CO. et al. v. ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION et al. P.W. . Law Division
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court

Page 18

32 N.J.Super. 18

107 A.2d 567

BALDWIN CONST. CO. et al. v. ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION et al.

No. L--7813--53 P.W.

Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division.

Aug. 20, 1954.

Judgment Affirmed Oct. 25, 1954.

See 108 A.2d 598.

Herbert J. Hannoch and Morris Weinstein, Newark, for plaintiffs Baldwin Const. Co. and others.

Blair Reiley, Newark, for plaintiff B. Altman & Co.

Selick J. Mindes, Newark, for plaintiffs 544 Central Ave. Corp. and others.

Sanderson & Engel, Newark, for plaintiff Muir Realty Co.

Levy & Krauss, Newark, for plaintiff Fada Radio & Electric Co., Inc.

Charles B. Clancy, Jr., Newark, for Eastern Tool & Mfg. Co.

Grover C. Richman, Jr., Atty. Gen., appearing by Joseph A. Murphy, Asst. Deputy Atty. Gen., for defendant Essex County Board of Taxation.

Donald Karrakis, East Orange, for defendant City of East Orange.

Thomas J. Markey, Bloomfield, for defendant Town of Bloomfield.

Lawrence Keenan, Belleville, for defendant Town of Belleville.

Julius Y. Krill, Caldwell, for defendant Borough of Caldwell.

COLIE, J.S.C.

The complaints filed in these matters attack the validity of an order of the Essex County Board of Taxation entered March 20, 1952. By said order the Board directed the local assessors to 'revise and correct' the assessment lists theretofore filed by them. Certain of the taxpayers whose assessments were sharply raised attacked the order of March 20, 1952 as discriminatory as to them in particular and illegal in its entirety. The cases have been before the courts, and in Baldwin Construction Co. v. Essex County Board of Taxation, 21 N.J.Super. 370, 91 A.2d 224 (Law Div.1952) defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter was denied. Under the same title a subsequent motion for summary judgment in favor of defendants was denied. 24 N.J.Super. 252, 93 A.2d 800 (Law Div.1952). On appeal from the denial of summary judgment for defendants, the Appellate Division held, on terms, that the case was properly in the Law Division, 27 N.J.Super. 240, 99 A.2d 214 (App.Div.1953). On reargument the same court held, 28 N.J.Super. 110, 100 A.2d 341 (App.Div.1953), that if the Board of Taxation, in undertaking to revise, correct, and equalize assessments had arbitrarily increased the respondents' (Taxpayers') assessments, such order could be set aside even if to do so would reduce such assessments below the true value of the property. Thereafter application for certification to the Supreme Court was made, 14 N.J. 494, 103 A.2d 182, and the latter court directed that the parties 'complete their pleadings, take such depositions and make such inspections as they shall be advised are proper * * * after the completion thereof the causes shall be set down for trial in the Superior Court, Law Division * * *.' The trial has been had.

The following facts are fully supported by the depositions, the admissions, and the pleadings: The Essex County Board of Taxation did not attempt to equalize and did not assess the properties at true value, but fixed the 'revised and corrected' assessments 'in the neighborhood of 50%.' This ratio of 50% Of true value was used in all the municipalities in which the properties affected by the order under review were located. The Board in certain municipalities selected fixed geographical areas within which the revisions or corrections were made; in others it selected specific properties for the same treatment. In no instance did the Board of Taxation make a study of values other than in the areas to be 'revised and corrected.' It failed to study values other than those changed, 'because that was the area we felt we wanted to limit our work to.' One member of the Board described the selection for the revision and correction as 'the hot spots, the 100 per cent locations.' In arriving at the new assessments fixed by the order of March 20, 1952 the Board hired real estate appraisers. These appraisers...