Grand View Gardens v. Borough of Hasbrouck Heights, A--194

• Decision Date: 11 June 1951
• Docket Number: No. A--194,A--194
• Citation: 14 N.J.Super. 167,81 A.2d 510
• Parties: GRAND VIEW GARDENS, Inc. v. BOROUGH OF HASBROUCK HEIGHTS et al.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 167

14 N.J.Super. 167

81 A.2d 510

GRAND VIEW GARDENS, Inc. v. BOROUGH OF HASBROUCK HEIGHTS et al.

No. A--194.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division.

Argued May 21, 1951.

Decided June 11, 1951.

Julius E. Kramer, Hackensack, argued the cause for plaintiffs-respondents (Chandless, Weller, Kramer & Frank, Hackensack, attorneys).

Charles L. Bertini, Wood Ridge, argued the cause for defendant-appellant.

Before Judges JACOBS, EASTWOOD and BIGELOW.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

EASTWOOD, J.A.D.

The Grand View Gardens, Inc. contends that the Division of Tax Appeals in the State Department of Taxation and Finance (hereinafter referred to as the 'Division'), erred in (1) taking judicial notice of the qualifications of the expert witness offered by the Borough of Hasbrouck Heights; (2) that the witness was not qualified to testify as an expert with respect to the value of the property in question; and (3) that his testimony was insufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness of the judgment of the county board of taxation.

The Bergen County Board of Taxation assessed the improvements, consisting of multiple family dwellings, comprising twenty apartments and nine garages, situate in the Borough of Hasbrouck Heights, for the year 1949 at the sum of $54,000. On appeal, the Division increased the assessment to $55,000. The only testimony profferred by the Borough of Hasbrouck Heights was that of one William J. Schwen, whose qualifications as an expert were criticized by the appellant. No testimony was offered by the taxpayer.

The taxpayer argues that the hearing commissioners erroneously took judicial notice of the qualifications of one William J. Schwen as a real estate expert. When Mr. Schwen took the witness chair, one of the commissioners made the preliminary statement that: 'The court by reason of past experience with Mr. Schwen is of the opinion that he is qualified.' If the record had consisted of nothing more that the acknowledgment by the court, without any proof thereof, of Mr. Schwen's qualifications, we would then concur in the appellant's contention. It is universally recognized that the term 'judicial notice' means no more than that the court will bring to its aid and consideration, without proof of the facts, its knowledge of those matters of public concern which are known by all well-informed persons. Generally speaking, judicial knowledge is limited to facts evidenced by public records and facts of general notoriety. 'Most matters which the court may notice fall into one of two classes, those which come to the knowledge of men generally in the course of the ordinary experience of life, and are therefore in the mind of the trier, or those which are generally accepted by mankind as true and are capable of ready demonstration by means commonly recognized as authoritative.' 31 C.J.S., Evidence, p. 510, sec. 7. Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed.), vol. IX...