Benequit v. Borough of Monmouth Beach
| Decision Date | 17 June 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 227.,227. |
| Citation | 125 N.J.L. 65,13 A.2d 847 |
| Parties | BENEQUIT v. BOROUGH OF MONMOUTH BEACH et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari from Recorder's Court of Monmouth Beach.
Certiorari proceeding by Nell Grace Benequit against the Borough of Monmouth Beach and Otto M. Ball, Police Recorder of the Borough of Monmouth Beach, to review the conviction of the prosecutrix for the violation of a zoning ordinance.
Conviction sustained, and writ dismissed.
Argued January term, 1940, before BROGAN, C. J., and DONGES and PORTER, JJ.
Quinn & Doremus, of Red Bank, for prosecutrix.
Giordano, Golden & Hurley, of Long Branch, for defendants.
This writ of certiorari brings up for review the conviction of the prosecutrix on May 11th, 1939, by the Recorder's Court of the Borough of Monmouth Beach for the violation of the zoning ordinance.
It appears that the ordinance in question was adopted by the Borough on September 9th, 1930, and amended October 25th, 1932. On March 1st, 1938, the prosecutrix became the owner of premises located in what the ordinance referred to as "residence Zone A". On the premises was an old residence property which had been built for about fifty years and which had been unoccupied for about nine years. The prosecutrix without making any structural change or alterations in the building established it as a hotel and has conducted it as such since.
The defendant borough contends that the ordinance prohibits said use and also prohibits a change in the use of any building until a certificate of approval shall be obtained from the proper borough officer which she did not obtain.
Under date of May 4th, 1939, complaint was made against prosecutrix for violation of sections 12 and 17 of the ordinance charging the two offences above described. She plead not guilty and demanded a trial by jury. She was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $200.
The argument on behalf of the prosecutrix is that the conviction should be set aside for two reasons. First, because under the facts there was no violation of the ordinance, and secondly, because the ordinance was invalid for the reason that it had not been published in a qualified newspaper as required by statute. N.J.S.A. 40:49-2. We think there is no merit to the first point. On the contrary the proofs clearly sustain the conviction. As stated above the charge was for violation of sections 12 and 17 of the ordinance. Section 12 prohibits the erection of a building in a residence zone except for one-family dwellings. However, hotels and apartment houses may be constructed and used in this zone under certain conditions. There are two conditions: (a) "if built on a plot of at least 25000 square feet" and (b) "providing said building costs at least $100,000". The proofs are that this building did not cost any such sum. It was an old dwelling about 50 years old. There is no competent proof of the original cost of the building, but assuming that it did cost when built over $100,000, as the prosecutrix would have us believe, nevertheless that would be no proof of its present cost or value. We do not interpret this section to apply to new buildings only. It seems to us to mean both new buildings to be erected for hotel purposes and old buildings to be used for those purposes. When it says the cost to be at least $100,000 it means the value to be that much. We see no reason why it does not mean the same for old as well as for new buildings. The purpose is to have substantial buildings. The yard stick by which to accomplish that is the cost or value of the buildings. It seems unreasonable to say that the ordinance means the original cost of the building irrespective of when built or under what conditions the same was built or what its present condition or value may be. There is no testimony of the present value of the building except...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Schlemmer
...passage to the detriment of persons who have relied and acted upon the presumed validity of a regularly enrolled law. Benequit v. Borough of Manhattan Beach, 13 A.2d 847; Ninth Street Improvement Assn. v. Ocean City, 100 568. (2) It is the policy of the courts to declare valid laws which ha......
-
Kent v. Borough of Mendham
...v. Samuel Braen's Sons, 17 N.J.Super. 1, 9, 85 A.2d 279 (App.Div.1951), aff'd 9 N.J. 294, 88 A.2d 201 (1952); Benequit v. Monmouth Beach, 125 N.J.L. 65, 13 A.2d 847 (Sup.Ct.1940). We find Mulligan v. New Brunswick, Supra, cited by plaintiffs, to be inapposite in that there the procedural de......
-
Sernovitz v. Stuart Z. Dershaw, M.D., John Stack, M.D., Laura Borthwick-Scelzi, M.D., Margaret M. Fillinger, CRNP, Women's Care of Montgomery Cnty., Holy Redeemer Hosp. & Med. Ctr. & Holy Redeemer Health Sys., Inc.
...Creston v. Center Milk Prods. Co., 243 Iowa 611, 51 N.W.2d 463, 465 (1952) (21–year delay inordinate); Benequit v. Borough of Monmouth Beach, 125 N.J.L. 65, 13 A.2d 847, 849 (N.J.1940) (nine-year delay too long). See generally Struyk v. Samuel Braen's Sons, 17 N.J.Super. 1, 85 A.2d 279, 282......
-
Sernovitz v. Dershaw
...Creston v. Center Milk Prods. Co., 243 Iowa 611, 51 N.W.2d 463, 465 (1952) (21–year delay inordinate); Benequit v. Borough of Monmouth Beach, 125 N.J.L. 65, 13 A.2d 847, 849 (N.J.1940) (nine-year delay too long). See generally Struyk v. Samuel Braen's Sons, 17 N.J.Super. 1, 85 A.2d 279, 282......