Hudson Circle Servicenter, Inc. v. Town of Kearny

Citation359 A.2d 862,70 N.J. 289
PartiesHUDSON CIRCLE SERVICENTER, INC., a Corporation of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Respondent, v. TOWN OF KEARNY, a Municipal Corporation of New Jersey, Defendant-Respondent-Cross-Appellant.
Decision Date26 May 1976
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

Page 289

70 N.J. 289
359 A.2d 862
HUDSON CIRCLE SERVICENTER, INC., a Corporation of the State
of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Respondent,
TOWN OF KEARNY, a Municipal Corporation of New Jersey,
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Argued Oct. 20, 1975.
Decided May 26, 1976.

[359 A.2d 863]

Page 291

S. M. Chris Franzblau, Newark, for appellant-cross-respondent (Franzblau, Cohen & Falkin, Newark, attorneys; Franzblau, of counsel and on the brief).

Norman A. Doyle, Jr., Kearny, for respondent-cross-appellant.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by


Plaintiff Hudson Circle Servicenter, Inc. instituted this action in lieu of prerogative writ to challenge an ordinance which was enacted by the Town of Kearny to regulate parking lots operated in conjunction with 'truck stops.' 1

The ordinance at the time of trial provided:

Section 1

1. The owner or operator of any public parking lot in the Town of Kearny used in conjunction with facilities catering principally

Page 292

to truck traffic and known as 'truck stops', with a parking capacity in excess of 30 vehicles shall:

a. Enclose said parking lot with a fence of a minimum height of 7 feet;

b. Provide a supervised entrance and exit thereon with sufficient lighting to illuminate the entire parking area;

c. Provide a uniformed security guard who shall be in attendance at the parking lot at all times;

d. Pave and line said parking lot for parking purposes;

e. Maintain a registration system thereon which shall be made available to the police and fire departments of the Town of Kearny and which shall provide therein the following information:

1. Daily record of all motor vehicles parking in the area with registration and description of all motor vehicles;

2. Driver license number, state and name of the operators of said vehicles with time of entry and departure.

Section 2

Definition: Truck Stops--Those facilities used by carriers primarily for temporary parking of trucks during transit, provided however that such definition shall not apply to service stations or diners.

[359 A.2d 864] In addition, Section 3 of the ordinance prohibited the operation of any public parking lot (as defined therein) which is not in conformity with the requirements of Section 1. 2 Section 4 provided for a $50 fine for the first offense and a $100 fine or 30 days in the county jail or both for each subsequent offense. Section 4A contained a severability clause and Section 5 provided that the ordinance should take effect immediately, although the parties agreed that pending the final outcome of this litigation, the town would not attempt to enforce the ordinance.

In a letter opinion dated April 14, 1972, the trial judge sustained the ordinance in all respects, except: (1) Section 1(b) was invalidated because it lacked sufficient standards and was 'not definite enough to show what it intends to require or

Page 293

prohibit'; (2) Section 1(c) was invalidated on the basis of our decision in Goldberg v. Housing Authority of Newark, 38 N.J. 578, 186 A.2d 291 (1962); (3) the paving requirement in Section 1(d) was deemed to be too costly and unreasonable, and (4) the lining requirement in Section 1(d), though found to be reasonable, was invalidated for lack of definite standards.

Both parties appealed. While the matter was pending unheard in the Appellate Division, the town again amended its ordinance and with consent of the parties the case was remanded to the trial court. 3

On remand, the court held that the amendments did not warrant a different ruling from that which previously concerned the owner's obligation to furnish a uniformed guard. However, the revised definitions of 'sufficient lighting' and 'line' were considered definite enough to overcome the deficiencies of vagueness and indefiniteness which had characterized those provisions.

The Appellate Division affirmed in an unreported opinion and we granted plaintiff's petition for certification and Kearny's cross-petition for certification. 68 N.J. 140, 343 A.2d 428 (1975).

Page 294

Having carefully reviewed the record, we now affirm with certain modifications.

Plaintiff owns 20 acres of land in Kearny located along the Hackensack River near the Junction of U.S. No. 1 (Lincoln Highway) and Hackensack Avenue. This tract is adjacent to the approach to the Hackensack Bridge which spans the Hackensack River to Jersey City. The land is also divided from east to west by a strip of land known as the Scout Avenue Connector.

Plaintiff leases the tract to a firm known as Jersey Truck Center 4 which operates[359 A.2d 865] a truck facility on the premises (hereinafter 'the Center'). The Center contains an office building, a truck scale, a truck washing operation, a lubritorium, a repair shop for minor repairs, a barbershop, a coffee room, a clothing store, a restaurant and a filling station with both gasoline and diesel fuel pumps. These facilities, almost all of which are located to the south of the Scout Avenue Connector, are open to the public. This area and the operations conducted thereon are not affected by the ordinance.

The remainder of plaintiff's land, which consists of 10 or 11 acres located north of the Scout Avenue Connector, is utilized by Jersey Truck Center as a parking lot. It is this area which is subject to the provisions of the ordinance. Unlike the other services which are provided at the Center, the parking lot is not a public facility--a fact which is announced by a sign at its entrance. Instead, the lot is intended for the exclusive use of approximately 30 national trucking firms who are subtenants of Jersey Truck Center and who are provided office accommodations in the main building. Each subtenant has the right to park its tractor trailers on the lot and use the other facilities at the Center. The purpose of this arrangement is to provide these trucking companies with

Page 295

an auxiliary office in the New York Metropolitian area. From this location, they can arrange return loads, reroute vehicles while in transit, periodically service their equipment and provide a temporary haven for their truck drivers.

There are no facilities for overnight lodging at the Center. Ordinarily, when a truck driver uses the Center as a stopping-point, he will sleep at a nearby motel. However, drivers do occasionally stay at the Center overnight by sleeping in the lodging compartments of their truck cabs.

The lot itself, which provides parking space for approximately 200 tractor trailers, is unpaved and becomes muddy when soaked by rain. As a result, it is rutted from the constant passage of heavy trucks. For these reasons, it is difficult to establish and maintain a clear parking scheme by means of lines or markers, despite the efforts of Jersey Truck Center to do so. Although the lot does not have a fence, railroad ties have been used to delineate its perimeter. The only means of gaining vehicular access to the lot is to turn from Hackensack Avenue onto the Scout Avenue Connector and from there onto a dirt path which enters the lot. No parking fees are collected at the entrance and no attendants are on duty there. Consequently, access to and egress from the lot is unsupervised.

Defendant municipality contends that its ordinance is a justified response to problems which the town has incurred from plaintiff's operation. As proof of its contention, the municipality presented the original record books of the Kearny Police and Fire Departments. These books list all the reported incidents allegedly occurring on or near the Center's parking lot between June 18, 1968 and December 25, 1971. 5 Because the town stipulated that there was no wrongdoing

Page 296

directly attributable to plaintiff, the evidence concerning these incidents was introduced solely to illustrate the problems encountered by law enforcement officials in the area. It was not proffered to establish criminal responsibility for the incidents themselves. We have reviewed these records and find that they report substantial illegal activity in this area during the relevant time period.

[359 A.2d 866] Specifically, there were at least 34 reports of trailers or tractor trailer combinations having been stolen from the lot. Many of these units were also loaded with merchandise. A large number of the thefts occurred while the vehicles were parked in the lot for a weekend or overnight.

During the same time period, there were 11 reported thefts from tractors or trailers parked in the lot. In addition, there were 25 reports from Center subtenants that tires, tire rims, doors, license plates and other equipment had been removed from their trucks. Apparently, only three arrests resulted from all these various reports.

Also during this period, eight tractor trailers which had been hijacked elsewhere were abandoned on the lot. Four other stolen vehicles were discovered outside the parking area but within its immediate vicinity. Six collisions in the lot were reported during this period, but on at least two of these occasions the responsible individual departed without identifying himself. Police records also reveal that five major altercations either occurred in the parking area or involved trucking personnel outside of the lot. In addition, there were approximately 18 accidental injuries to truck drivers who were using the facility.

Several armed robberies also occurred on the premises. On one occasion a truck driver was accosted and robbed while he was walking through the lot. At another time, a driver was robbed as he sat in the cab of his own truck. At least three additional armed robberies were reported. On three separate occasions, adolescent runaways, both male and female, were found at the Center and, on another date, a fugitive from justice was apprehended there.

Page 297

Women were arrested on charges of prostitution or for being present at the lot without giving a good account of themselves on 16...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Bally Mfg. Corp. v. New Jersey Casino Control Commission
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 17 Marzo 1981
    ... ... Inc. v. C. A. B., 364 F.2d 139, 142-143 (1 Cir ... g., Hudson Circle Servicenter, Inc. v. Kearney, 70 ... ...
  • Quick Chek Food Stores v. Springfield Tp.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 14 Julio 1980
    ...its inhabitants . . . ." N.J.S.A. 40:48-2. This express delegation of police power to a municipality, Hudson Circle Servicenter, Inc. v. Kearny, 70 N.J. 289, 298, 359 A.2d 862 (1976), is buttressed by the constitutional provision that "any law concerning municipal corporations . . . shall b......
  • Reiser v. Pension Commission of Emp. Retirement System of Passaic County
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • 7 Diciembre 1976
    ...(Ch.Div.1973), aff'd 136 N.J.Super. 60, 344 A.2d 331 (1975); Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. v. Glaser, supra; Hudson Circle Servicenter, Inc. v. Kearny, 70 N.J. 289, 359 A.2d 862 (1976). Thus, this review of the state pension plan must be limited to a determination as to whether all persons with......
  • Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • 9 Agosto 1996
    ... ... 180, 623 A.2d 1366 (1993); Hudson Circle Servicenter v. Town of Kearny, 70 N.J. 289, 359 A.2d ... ...
  • 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