Higg-A-Rella, Inc. v. County of Essex
| Decision Date | 23 September 1994 |
| Docket Number | INC,HIGG-A-RELL |
| Citation | 647 A.2d 862,276 N.J.Super. 183 |
| Parties | , t/a State Information Service, Blau Appraisal Company, and Robert D. Blau, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COUNTY OF ESSEX, a political subdivision of the State of New Jersey, Board of Trustees of Essex County College, the Essex County Board of Taxation, and the Mayors, Councils, and Assessors of the following Essex County Municipalities, Township of Belleville, Township of Bloomfield, Township of Caldwell, Township of Cedar Grove, City of East Orange, Township of Essex Fells, Township of Fairfield, Township of Glen Ridge, Township of Irvington, Township of Livingston, Township of Maplewood, Township of Millburn, Township of Montclair, City of Newark, Township of North Caldwell, City of Orange, Township of Roseland, Township of South Orange Village, Township of Verona, Township of West Caldwell, Township of West Orange, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Robert D. Blau, Springfield, for appellants (Blau & Blau, attorneys; Mr. Blau, on the brief).
Julian F. Gorelli, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent Essex County Bd. of Taxation (Deborah T. Poritz, Atty. Gen., attorney; Mark J. Fleming, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel; Mr. Gorelli, on the brief).
All other respondents relied on the brief filed by the Atty. Gen.
Before Judges J.H. COLEMAN, MUIR, Jr. and PAUL G. LEVY.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
LEVY, J.S.C. (temporarily assigned).
Relying on the public records doctrine, plaintiffs sought a computer readable copy of the Essex County property tax assessment lists from the Essex County Board of Taxation. The board agreed to provide a copy of the official lists on paper but refused plaintiffs' demand for an electronic copy. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial judge ruled for defendants. On appeal, we reverse and hold plaintiffs are entitled to a copy made on magnetic tape, upon payment of a reasonable fee, because the electronic records are public records under the common law.
The statutory scheme of N.J.S.A. 54:4-23 et seq. requires all real property be assessed for taxation and specifies the method for making and maintaining the assessment records. Each year municipal assessment lists must be filed with the county board of taxation "properly made up in such manner and form required by the Director of the Division of Taxation," to be reviewed and revised by the county board in its official capacity. N.J.S.A. 54:4-35. In Essex County, all the municipal tax assessors use electronic data processing (computers) to create, modify and maintain the tax assessment lists required by various statutes, as do most assessors throughout the state.
The New Jersey Property Tax System MOD IV is a data processing program developed by the Division of Taxation, prescribing the format municipal assessors are to use for computerized record keeping. Even private appraisal firms engaged for revaluations are required to use the MOD IV format if they contract to provide a magnetic tape.
In the event a magnetic tape containing the new values is provided by the firm, said tape will be in a format consistent with the New Jersey Property Tax System MOD IV so that entry of the data can be made directly into the taxing district's Master File.
[ N.J.A.C. 18:12-4.11(c).]
The computerized records of tax assessments in Essex County comply with these regulations and are kept in accordance with the MOD IV system. Using these records, the county board and each municipality can produce the printed tax lists required by N.J.S.A. 54:4-35.
Plaintiffs, State Information Systems and Blau Appraisal Company, maintain their own databases of municipal assessment lists from several counties, and they sell access to these lists to their customers via computers. 1 Wanting to add the Essex County assessment lists to their databases, 2 and knowing the board maintains a centralized access to all the computer records for each municipality except Newark, 3 plaintiffs sought one master electronic copy of the records rather than the printed lists for each municipality. The board initially agreed to deliver a copy of the master computer tape if the municipalities consented, but plaintiffs' quest was frustrated when consent was refused.
The cross-motions for summary judgment dealt with plaintiffs' contention that the computerized records were public records pursuant to the Right-to-Know Law, N.J.A.C. 47:1A-2, and to common law. The judge denied plaintiffs' request for electronic copies of the records mainly because plaintiffs had convenient access to the "written" assessment lists, and partially because they wanted the data in a particular form for their own business reasons.
Plaintiffs' contention that the Right-to-Know Law requires the county board to provide a copy of the master computer tape is erroneous. That law covers only records "required by law to be made, maintained or kept on file." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-2. Any records required to be kept in computerized form are available to all citizens without qualification. However, the maintenance of this computerized conglomeration of the municipal assessment records by the board is not required by any statute nor regulated by the Division of Taxation. Although each municipality must make and keep its assessment records in accordance with the MOD IV system, the MOD IV regulations do not apply to the county board's records, because the consolidated magnetic tape or tapes are merely "a convenient means" by which the county board can perform its mandated functions. Cf., Atlantic City Convention Center Authority v. South Jersey Publishing Co., 135 N.J. 53, 637 A.2d 1261 (1994) (). While the municipal computerized records may be public records under the Right-to-Know Law because they are required to be maintained under the MOD IV system, we conclude the consolidated electronic records maintained by the Essex County Board of Taxation do not fall within the definition of N.J.S.A. 47:1A-2.
Under the common law, however, the electronic tax assessment records maintained by the county board are public records. The common law definition of a public record is very broad, including "almost every document recorded, generated, or produced by public officials, whether or not 'required by law to be made, maintained or kept on file,' as required under the [Right-to-Know Law]." Shuttleworth v. City of Camden, 258 N.J.Super. 573, 582, 610 A.2d 903 (App.Div.1992). Accordingly, by preparing and maintaining a consolidation of the various municipal assessment lists, the county board created a public record.
We also conclude the county board's electronic record of all the municipal assessment lists is a public record under the common law because it is used by the board as an expeditious way to print any particular official municipal assessment list. In Atlantic City, the Court held audio tapes used to prepare official written minutes were public records subject to "balanced disclosure." The Court recognized the versatility of the common law's definition of records in stating:
That our previous definition of a common-law record was drawn from sources that spoke in terms of traces of ink on paper does not limit its scope. The essence of the common law is its adaptability to changing circumstances. We are satisfied that audio tapes may constitute common-law public records. For example, in Evidence Rule 801(e), we define a "writing" to include "sounds, * * * set down or recorded by * * * mechanical or electronic recording * * * and preserved in a perceptible form."
[135 N.J. at 64, 637 A.2d 1261.]
The Court also specified that a "memorial" at common law was not limited to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Higg-A-Rella, Inc. v. County of Essex
...copies mitigated their interest in obtaining computer copies. Id. at 624, 628 A.2d 392. The Appellate Division reversed. 276 N.J.Super. 183, 647 A.2d 862 (1994). Although agreeing with the trial court that the computer tapes were not Right-to-Know documents, the Appellate Division found tha......
-
Board of Educ. of Newark v. New Jersey Dept. of Treasury, Div. of Pensions
...a "convenient means" by which the county board can perform its mandated functions' ") (quoting Higg-A-Rella, Inc. v. County of Essex, 276 N.J.Super. 183, 188, 647 A.2d 862 (App.Div.1994) (quoting Atlantic City Convention Ctr. Auth. v. South Jersey Publishing Co., 135 N.J. 53, 64, 637 A.2d 1......
-
Board of Educ. of Newark v. New Jersey Dept. of Treasury, Div. of Pensions
... ... , testified that similar reports had been produced for Bergen County in 1992 and that the Prudential program was capable of producing claims ... forum to hear Right-to-Know Law cases, citing Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Law & Public Safety, 232 N.J.Super. 458, 557 A.2d 688 ... Ibid. Similarly, in Higg-A-Rella, Inc. v. County of Essex, 276 N.J.Super. 183, 187, 647 A.2d 862 ... ...
- Higg-A-Rella, Inc. v. County of Essex, A-R