Fifth St. Pier Corp. v. City of Hoboken
Decision Date | 22 October 1956 |
Docket Number | No. A--13,A--13 |
Citation | 22 N.J. 326,126 A.2d 6 |
Parties | FIFTH STREET PIER CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, and as Respondent-Appellant, v. CITY OF HOBOKEN, a municipal corporation, Respondent-Respondent, and as Plaintiff-Respondent, and Division of Tax Appeals, Department of the Treasury, Respondent. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Raymond J. Lamb, Jersey City, for plaintiff-appellant (Emory, Langan, Lamb & Blake, Jersey City, attorneys).
David D. Furman, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent. Division of Tax Appeals, Dept. of the Treasury (Grover C. Richman, Jr., Atty. Gen., atty.)
Herbert H. Fine, Newark, for respondent City of Hoboken.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This appeal stems from 26 judgments entered by the Division of Tax Appeals. They concern assessments levied on property of the Fifth Street Pier Corporation (hereinafter termed plaintiff) during the years 1948-- 1953, inclusive, by the defendant City of Hoboken. Judicial consideration has been given by the Superior Court, Appellate Division, R.R. 4:88--8, which affirmed the judgments. Fifth Street Pier Corporation v. City of Hoboken, 40 N.J.Super. 12, 122 A.2d 7 (App.Div.1956). Plaintiff appealed to that court on grounds of error in the property valuations and also claimed a denial of procedural due process. Plaintiff directs our attention only to the latter issue which comes here as a matter of right. R.R. 1:2--1(a). A substantial constitutional question is presented. Butler Oak Tavern v. Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, etc., 20 N.J. 373, 120 A.2d 24 (1956).
It is necessary to trace the protracted agency adjudication with some particularity. Appeals from the property assessments were taken to the Hudson County Board of Taxation and thence to the Division of Tax Appeals. Hearings were conducted by the Division through its panel procedure on 19 different days between January and October 1953. The panel consisted of two of the Division members who sat throughout the proceedings. A stenographic record was made and promptly transcribed. It eventually attained some 2,500 typewritten pages. (The transcript copies were made available for the use of the Division members and the parties.) Plaintiff filed briefs with the panel members and the Secretary of the Division in May 1954. On March 15, 1955 the panel distributed a detailed report containing findings of fact and recommendations to the other members of the Division. Plaintiff did not request a copy of the report nor opportunity to file exceptions. The parties were not notified of the report. On April 7 the entire Division met; the panel report was 'officially' filed and upon motion was adopted as the decision of the Division. On April 29 the 26 judgments were entered by the Division, reciting Inter alia:
'After hearing evidence produced on the part of said complainant and the said respondent and the argument of * * *, Attorney for the Complainant, and * * *, Attorney for the respondent, and after considering the same, it is * * *.'
A copy of the panel report was thereafter forwarded to plaintiff.
Basically, there are two questions involved on this appeal:
1. Was plaintiff deprived of its property without due process of law because it was not notified of the panel report and expressly allowed to file exceptions thereto prior to the decision of the Division of Tax Appeals?
2. Is R.S. 54:2--18 N.J.S.A. (which provides for the panel method of hearing appeals) violative of the due process clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions?
We deal first with the statutory question.
R.S. 54:2--18 N.J.S.A. provides:
(Emphasis supplied.)
Clearly the statute contemplates that the Division (which has the sole power of decision) may reach a conclusion solely upon the basis of the panel report. Were there any fragment of doubt reference need only be made to the statement appended to L.1941, c. 143 (R.S. 54:2--18) N.J.S.A.:
The theme of plaintiff's argument is that the Legislature may not provide, consistently with procedural due process, that the members of the Division may decide a matter on anything less than the record made at the hearing. The frequently quoted expression 'The one who decides must hear' of the First Morgan case (Morgan v. United States, 298 U.S. 468, 56 S.Ct. 906, 912, 80 L.Ed. 1288 (1936)) is said to require something more than personal mastery of a panel report by the powers of decision. The extent of decisional comprehension contended for is revealed in plaintiff's anticipation that 'every member of the Division who participated in the decision would be fully familiar with the testimony.'
We might, of course, pass over the constitutional issue in view of the actual transcription of the stenographic notes by the Division and whatever presumptive strength can be distilled from the judgment recitals. United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409, 61 S.Ct. 999, 85 L.Ed. 1429 (1941) (Morgan IV). In this instance, however, it is proper to steer clear of these hurdles. We have no desire to probe 'mental processes,' cf. State ex rel. Madison Airport Co. v. Wrabetz, 231 Wis. 147, 285 N.W. 504 (Sup.Ct.1939), nor to reach an abrupt conclusion upon an inherently weak recital that the deciders Heard the evidence and counsel's argument. Compare Hohorst v. Marion Bus Transp. Co., Inc., 5 N.J.Super. 279, 282, 68 A.2d 843 (App.Div.1949) and see Schwartz, 'Institutional Administrative Decisions and the Morgan Cases: A Reexamination,' 4 Journal of Public Law 49, 60--68 (1955). It is probably true that the Division members (other than the panel members) were not fully familiar with the entire 2,500 pages of typewritten testimony. We proceed upon that premise.
The decisional power under R.S. 54:2--18, N.J.S.A. is with the Division and not the panel, In re Erie Railroad System, 19 N.J. 110, 124, 115 A.2d 89 (1955), and the statute contemplates that the administrative body charged with making the decision need not personally preside at the hearing. Compare R.S. 54:2--16, N.J.S.C. Cooper, Administrative Agencies and the Courts, p. 211 (1951). The practice, of course, is not inimical to the judicial process. Raskin v. Town of Morristown, 21 N.J. 180, 182--184, 121 A.2d 378 (1956); In re Port Murray Dairy Co., 6 N.J.Super. 285, 295, 71 A.2d 208 (App.Div.1950); Gellhorn, Administrative Law (2nd ed. 1947), pp. 689--691. This distinguishes many of the cases relied upon by plaintiff, such as City of Asbury Park v. Dept. of Civil Service, 17 N.J. 419, 111 A.2d 625 (1955); McAlpine v. Garfield Water Commission, 135 N.J.L. 497, 52 A.2d 759, 171 A.L.R. 172 (E. & A.1947); Redcay v. State Board of Education, 128 N.J.L. 281, 25 A.2d 632 (Sup.Ct.1942). As pointed out by Mr. Justice Brennan in City of Asbury Park (discussing a statute where those presiding at the hearing also had full power of decision):
'* * * this statute is not like some under which one or more of the members of a commission or board merely take the testimony, and the determination is made by the full body upon the report of those members.' 17 N.J. at page 422, 111 A.2d at page 626.
And see Atlantic City Trans. Co. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 12 N.J. 130, 140, 95 A.2d 895 (1953).
Where the panel procedure is employed, those who preside at the hearing are required to file a written report containing the 'facts and particulars of the testimony,' R.S. 54:2--18, N.J.S.A., which has been interpreted to permit recommended factual findings and decision which the Division may adopt as its own. In re Erie Railroad System, supra, 19 N.J. at pages 123--126, 115 A.2d at page 97. We assumed in the latter case that the Division members had reviewed the testimonial record, not only because of the language expressed in the judgment ("having considered the evidence submitted by the parties") but also because no contrary contention had been made. Here we must answer the question not raised in Erie, that is, whether the Division may decide solely upon resort to the panel...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Central R. Co. of N. J. v. Neeld
...R.R. 4:88--8. See Werner Machine Co. v. Director of Division of Taxation, 17 N.J. 121, 110 A.2d 89 (1954); Fifth St. Pier Corp. v. City of Hoboken, 22 N.J. 326, 126 A.2d 6 (1956). The appellants raise a final procedural point which requires mention. They assert that, wholly apart from the d......
-
State v. Colson
...505 (1954); Butler Oak Tavern v. Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 20 N.J. 373, 120 A.2d 24 (1956); Fifth Street Pier Corp. v. City of Hoboken, 22 N.J. 326, 126 A.2d 6 (1956). In 4 Am.Jur.2d, Appeal and Error, § 14, we find this language: 'For a case to be appealable as involving a co......
-
North Jersey Dist. Water Supply Commission, Application of
...Court did not intend a strict literal interpretation of the phrase "the one who decides must hear." See Fifth St. Pier Corp. v. Hoboken, 22 N.J. 326, 333, 126 A.2d 6, (1956). After enunciating that phrase, the Morgan court further Evidence may be taken by an examiner. Evidence thus taken ma......
-
Borough of Hasbrouck Heights v. Division of Tax Appeals
...The borough then appealed, and the Division affirmed. When the case first came before us, we, citing Fifth Street Pier Corporation v. City of Hoboken, 22 N.J. 326, 126 A.2d 6 (1956) and other cases, remanded it to the 'The taxpayers, Grand View Gardens, Inc. and Grand View Homes, Inc., in t......