Kaveny v. Board of Com'rs of Town of Montclair, L--10873
Decision Date | 28 June 1961 |
Docket Number | No. L--10873,L--10873 |
Parties | Martin J. KAVENY, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF the TOWN OF MONTCLAIR, Joseph D. Allen, James A. Walsh, Board of Education of the Town of Montclair and New Jersey State Board of Education, Defendants. . Heard |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
Francis F. Welsh, Montclair, for plaintiff.
Samuel Allcorn, Jr., Montclair, for defendants Board of Com'rs of Town of Montclair, Joseph D. Allen and James A. Walsh.
Charles R. L. Hemmersley, Montclair, for defendant Board of Education of Town of Montclair.
David D. Furman, Atty. Gen., by Alfred Abbotts, Trenton, for defendant New Jersey State Bd. of Education.
WAUGH, A.J.S.C.
This is an action in lieu of prerogative writ (mandamus) wherein the plaintiff seeks to compel the defendant building inspector and plumbing inspector of the Town of Montclair to inspect the work on additions to an alteration of the Montclair High School, a public secondary school in the Town of Montclair, Essex County.
The matter is presented before the court on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, a cross-motion by the defendant State Board of Education for summary judgment, a motion by the defendant Board of education of the town of montclair and the board of commissioners of the town of Montclair to dismiss the complaint as not stating a claim upon which relief may be granted.
It is admitted that the Board of Education of the Town of Montclair commenced work on the construction of certain additions to and alteration of the Montclair High School, a public school. The buildings have not yet been completed. It is not denied that the plans and specifications for the improvements being made were approved by the State Board of Education as required by R.S. 18:11-8, N.J.S.A. No change in the plans or specifications have been made without the approval of the State Board of Education.
The Court has proof before it in the affidavit of George Crum, an inspector of school building construction employed by the Division of School Building Services, New Jersey State Department of Education, showing inspections of the Montclair school on March 27, 1961 and May 23, 1961. These inspections show compliance to date with the State Board's rules and regulations concerning plumbing and building construction (with one minor exception). That the inspections of Mr. Crum are supervised by the State Board is proven by the affidavit of Dr. Kenneth Woodbury, Assistant Commissioner in charge of the Division of Business and Finance of the New Jersey State Department of Education.
There is a sharp dispute as to whether or not the work is progressing without inspection by either the plumbing inspector and the building inspector of the Town of Montclair and without the proper supervision of these two departments. The plaintiff charges particularly that the plumbing work does not meet the requirements of the plumbing code of the Town of Montclair. The defendant Board of Education of the town specifically denies these allegations claiming that the building inspector and the plumbing inspector have voluntarily made periodic inspections of the work and have found it to be superior to that required under the Montclair building code. In addition, the contract of the local board provides:
'Sub-paragraph (e) of Paragraph 10 of the General Conditions, entitled 'Surveys, Permits and Regulations,' which are applicable to all six contracts (see photocopy of page 16 hereto annexed provides:
'Sub-paragraph (a) of Paragraph 12 of said General Conditions, entitled 'Inspections and Tests,' (see photocopy of page 17 hereto annexed) provides:
'The paragraph entitled 'Codes, Rules and Permits' of the specifications for the heating and ventilating contract (see photocopy of page HU--4 hereto annexed) provides:
'The specifications for the plumbing work contract contains the following provisions (see photocopy of page P--1 annexed hereto):
But on these motions I may not decide disputed facts. I must assume noninspection and noncompliance. The attorneys for all defendants forthrightly concede this proposition of law and take the position that the plaintiff is not entitled to require or compel any of the defendants to comply with the local building and plumbing ordinance and that they therefore have no authority to inspect such work to determine whether it does or does not comply with the said ordinance. All parties including the plaintiff agree that a decision in this case involves only a question of law.
The pertinent Montclair ordinance provides:
'Application.
'(Buildings Affected)
'Except as otherwise specifically provided for by law, such provisions shall apply with equal force to municipal, county or state buildings as they do to private buildings.' (Italics by the court.)
R.S. 18:11--8, N.J.S.A. provides as follows:
'Approval and filing of plans for school buildings.
R.S. 18:11--11, N.J.S.A. provides as follows:
'No municipal permit for school buildings required
'No board of education of any school district nor any board of education of a county vocational school shall be required to secure the approval of its plans and specifications for the erection or alteration of any school building or vocational school building or any part thereof by the municipality therein; nor shall any board of education or any board of education of a county vocational school or any contractor doing work in connection with school buildings or county vocational school buildings be required to secure a building permit from the municipality.'
From a consideration of the ordinance and the above sections of Title 18, together with R.S. 18:2--4(b), N.J.S.A., which gives the State Board of Education power to 'prescribe and enforce rules and regulations necessary to carry into effect the school laws of this State,' and sub-section (u), which states 'The State Board shall have all other powers requisite to the performance of its duties;' by reason of R.S. 18:3--2, N.J.S.A., one of the assistant commissioners of education has the supervision of business and financial matters; and that by reason of R.S. 18:3--3(a), N.J.S.A. the commissioner has the duty of inspection of buildings and of research, which presumably includes research into types of buildings; by reason of R.S. 18:11--1, N.J.S.A. it is the duty of each district to provide suitable school facilities and accommodations for all children; by reason of R.S. 18:11--6, N.J.S.A., the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Roman Catholic Diocese of Newark v. Borough of Ho-Ho-Kus
...cannot be changed without state board permission. N.J.S.A. 18:11--8. Local plumbing codes do not apply to public schools. Kaveny v. Board of Comm'rs., supra. Moreover, the State Commissioner of Education is authorized to order the making of physical changes in school buildings at any time. ......
-
Gualano v. Board of School Estimate of Elizabeth School Dist., A--60
...of the City of Hackensack v. City of Hackensack, 63 N.J.Super. 560, 165 A.2d 33 (App.Div.1960); Kaveny v. Board of Commissioners of Montclair, 69 N.J.Super. 94, 173 A.2d 536 (Law Div.1961), affirmed 71 N.J.Super. 244, 176 A.2d 802 (App.Div.1962), certif. denied 36 N.J. 597, 178 A.2d 388 Cha......
-
State in Interest of C., In re
...school authorities to be government officers. Durgin v. Brown, 37 N.J. 189, 180 A.2d 136 (1962); Kaveny v. Board of Commissioners, Montclair, 69 N.J.Super. 94, 173 A.2d 536 (Law Div.1961), aff'd 71 N.J.Super. 244, 176 A.2d 802 Generally the actions of a government official who is performing......
-
Paulus v. City of St. Louis
...Mo., 315 S.W.2d 219, 223; State ex rel. Taylor v. Anderson, 362 Mo. 513, 242 S.W.2d 66.8 For contract provisions, see 69 N.J.Super. 94, 173 A.2d 536, 537--538. ...