City of Newark v. Essex County Bd. of Taxation

Decision Date10 April 1970
Citation110 N.J.Super. 93,264 A.2d 461
PartiesCITY OF NEWARK, a municipal corporation of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff, v. ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, a body politic of New Jersey, et al., Defendants.
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court

Richard M. Conley, Deputy Atty. Gen. for Essex County Bd. of Taxation (George F. Kugler, Jr., Atty. Gen., attorney).

Saul A. Wolfe, Newark, for Town of Belleville, and another (Skoloff & Wolfe, Newark, attorneys).


This matter is before the court on complaint in lieu of prerogative writs filed by the City of Newark on March 5, 1970 against the Essex County Board of Taxation and all other 21 municipalities of the County of Essex. It deals with the claim of the City of Newark for allowance of credits in 1970 pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4--49 for county taxes paid during the years 1960 to 1969, inclusive, with respect to properties owned by the city and leased to the Port of New York Authority at Port Newark Terminal. After a hearing on March 26, 1970 this court filed a written opinion, holding that the matter was appropriate for summary proceeding pursuant to R. 4:67--2(b), but further ruling that there was nothing before it which was ripe for review since the county board of taxation, the administrative body with the right and duty to first determine whether the city was entitled to such credits, had not rendered its final decision in the matter and had until April 10, 1970, under N.J.S.A. 54:4--52, to render such decision. Rather than dismissing the city's complaint On April 4, 1970 the court was advised that the board had rendered a final decision to the effect that the city is not entitled to any credits for county taxes paid for the years 1960 to 1966, but that it is entitled in 1970 to credits for such taxes paid for the years 1967, 1968 and 1969.

as premature, the court, in view of the obvious matters of public interest involved, continued the hearing until April 7, 1970 with the advice to the parties that if the county board had not yet rendered its final decision by that date, it would dismiss the complaint, and if the Board had rendered a decision, it would then determine whether it would grant relief on the complaint or require an exhaustion of administrative remedies by the normal course of appeal to the Division of Tax Appeals, as provided in N.J.S.A. 54:2--35.


A short history of the prior litigation bearing upon the city's claim is appropriate. During the period from 1960 to 1965 there was litigation relating to the exempt status of said properties for those years and also with respect to the rights of the city and of the Port of New York Authority under the leases relating to said properties and with respect to compliance by the Port Authority with its obligations thereunder. The parties to the tax phase of this litigation were the City of Newark, the Port of New York Authority, the Essex County Board of Taxation and the City of East Orange, representing itself and the other municipalities of Essex County. The matters eventually reached the Supreme Court on appeal. Because of procedural snarls, the Supreme Court in Port of New York Authority v. Essex County Board of Taxation, 46 N.J. 51, 214 A.2d 705 (1965), remanded all matters to the Law Division with directions to hear De novo the entire controversy as to all years involved. In so doing the Supreme Court noted, 'we are always reluctant to by-pass the administrative process Upon such remand a pretrial conference was duly held in the Law Division in accordance with the Supreme Court's mandate, and on January 28, 1966 a pretrial order was entered in the consolidated cause. Among the issues specifically listed for resolution was whether the properties leased by the city to the Port Authority were subject to land taxation beginning with the year 1960. The City of Newark contended that the properties were subject to taxation and that, under the terms of the leases, said taxes were payable by the Port Authority. The contentions attached to the pretrial order of the City of East Orange, as an 'intervening defendant which has intervened on behalf of itself and on behalf of other municipalities of Essex County,' clearly indicate that said municipalities were concerned that credits would be granted to the City of Newark for county taxes paid in the event that the properties were held to be exempt. Said contentions stated as follows:

in the area of taxation, but under these unusual circumstances, the public interest will be advanced by this disposition.' (46 N.J., at 53, 214 A.2d, at 706).

The City of East Orange is an intervening Defendant which has intervened on behalf of itself and on behalf of other municipalities in Essex County, since the determination of the taxability of the properties involved or their exemption will affect the share of County tax burden that the Essex County municipalities will have to bear. This party asserts that the properties which are subject of this proceeding are not exempt from taxation and that a tax thereon should be paid by either the City of Newark or The Port of New York Authority. Insofar as the City of Newark asserts the claim that these properties are not exempt, we will rely upon the factual contentions of the City of Newark.

In October, 1966, while said litigation was still pending, a ninth supplemental lease agreement was entered into between the City of Newark and the Port Authority. By said agreement the parties expressly agreed that all pending litigation between them, including that related to the exempt status of the properties for the years 1960 to 1966, should be dismissed and that thereafter the properties This matter having been opened to the Court by THE CITY OF NEWARK (Norman N. Schiff, Esq. appearing) in the presence of THE PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY (Francis A. Mulhern, Esq. appearing) and of THE CITY OF EAST ORANGE (William L. Brach, Esq. appearing) and it being represented to the Court by counsel for THE CITY OF NEWARK and THE PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY that an amicable adjustment of all the matters in dispute between them has been reached and that by reason thereof THE CITY OF NEWARK has consented to a dismissal with prejudice of its claims herein, and it further appearing that, since all County taxes resulting from the real estate assessments, heretofore made by THE CITY OF NEWARK, have been paid by THE CITY OF NEWARK and since THE CITY OF NEWARK has and hereby does stipulate that it will make no attempt to recover such payments, intervenor, THE CITY OF EAST ORANGE, has consented to this dismissal, with prejudice and it further appearing that THE ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, has, by reason of the settlement by the other parties to the proceeding, concluded that a judicial determination of the questions of the taxability of the respective interests in the properties in question is unnecessary, and that it has no further interest herein and, therefore, has consented to a dismissal of these proceedings, with prejudice, but does not thereby waive any right or power to raise or assert such issues with respect to any future proceedings as may be required by law; and good cause otherwise appearing, It is on this 12th day of December 1966, ORDERED that these actions be and they hereby are dismissed with prejudice but without costs to any party.

should be listed by the City of Newark as exempt. On December 12, 1966 a formal order, consented to in writing by the City of Newark, the Port Authority, the county board of taxation and the City of East Orange, was entered in the consolidated cause dismissing the same. The order is explicit in its terms and provided as follows:

This ended all litigation as to the 1960 to 1966 taxes, and all appeals and challenges to the taxable status of the properties were voluntarily abandoned and terminated. As a consequence, the listing of the properties for those years as taxable rather than exempt remained unchanged and the question of exemption was never decided on the merits.

In January 1967, pursuant to the agreement between the City of Newark and the Port Authority in the ninth supplemental It is clear that this litigation specifically related only to the exempt status of the properties so far as 1967 taxes were concerned, but it was being prosecuted during the years 1967 through 1969. Although the City of Newark originally joined the Port Authority in filing the 1967 complaint In January 1970, following the final decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court, the Newark assessor listed the properties as exempt for 1970, and at the same time the city made application for credits for county taxes paid on said properties for the entire period from 1960 through 1969. Although the county tax board rendered a tentative decision in February 1970 that the credits for the years 1960 to 1966 would be denied, it indicated that it was disposed to grant the credits for the 1967, 1968 and 1969 taxes in the apportionment valuations contained in the 1970 table of aggregates. It advised Newark by letter dated February 2, 1970 that such was the 'tenative holding' even though no formal appeals had been taken by the city or the Port Authority with respect to the 1968 and 1969 taxes. On February 13, 1970 the city requested the county board to enter a 'judgment' in accordance with the decision expressed in the letter of February 2, 1970. In a letter dated February 24, 1970 the board advised the city that the judgment form submitted by the city was 'not applicable to the present case' and that there was no matter pending before it upon which a judgment could be issued.

                lease, the Newark assessor listed all the properties leased to the Port Authority at Port Newark Terminal as exempt for 1967.  On January 25, 1967 the Essex County Board of Taxation ruled that the properties were not exempt and directed the

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Brunson v. Rutherford Lodge No. 547 of Benev. and Protective Order of Elks
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • 22 Febrero 1974
    ... ... MacKay, II, Newark, of counsel) ...         Charles L. Bertini, ... Kugler, Jr., Atty. Gen. for defendant Bergen County Bd. of Taxation (Hal R. Crane, Deputy Atty. Gen., ... , 8 being citizens and taxpayers of Nutley in Essex County and 13 being citizens and taxpayers of Rutherford in ... ...
  • Department of Environmental Protection v. Franklin Tp.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Tax Court
    • 4 Agosto 1981
    ... ... of land located in Franklin Township, Somerset County, five parcels located in Alexandria Township, Hunterdon ... water supply purposes is statutorily exempt from taxation. See N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.3. The [3 N.J.Tax 112] townships ... case contended at oral argument that the decision in Newark v. Essex Cty. Bd. of Tax., 110 N.J.Super. 93, 264 A.2d 461 ... a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs filed by the City of Newark on March 5, 1970 against the Essex County Board ... ...
  • North Jersey Newspaper Guild, Local No. 173, American Newspaper Guild v. Rakos
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • 20 Abril 1970
    ... ...         Irving Leuchter, Newark, for plaintiff-respondent and cross-appellant (Kapelsohn, ... Rakos appeals from a judgment of the Middlesex County District Court awarding damages of $500 to plaintiff and ...         Defendant cites Dudek v. Pittsburgh City Fire Fighters, Local No. 1, 425 Pa. 233, 228 A.2d 752 ... ...
  • Boys' Club of Clifton, Inc. v. Jefferson Township
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 1 Marzo 1977
    ... ... The Boys' Club appealed to the Morris County Tax Board which affirmed the assessments. On the basis of ... The following property shall be exempt from taxation under this chapter: ... all buildings actually and ... 475, 263 A.2d 803 (App.Div.1970) and City of Newark v. Essex County Bd. of Taxation, 110 N.J.Super ... ...
  • 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