Levy v. Ackerman, 245.
| Decision Date | 15 May 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 245.,245. |
| Citation | 133 N.J.L. 69,42 A.2d 372 |
| Parties | LEVY v. ACKERMAN et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
David L. Levy was convicted of violating a provision of the zoning ordinance of the City of Passaic, and he brings certiorari against Frank I. Ackerman, Supervisor of Building of such city, and the city itself to review a judgment affirming the judgment of conviction.
Judgment for defendants, and writ dismissed.
January term, 1945, before BROGAN, C. J., and DONGES and PERSKIE, JJ.
John O. McGuire, of Passaic (Nicholas A. Carella, of Lyndhurst, of counsel), for prosecutor.
Thomas E. Duffy, City Counsel, of Passaic (Irving L. Werksman, of Passaic, of counsel), for defendants.
Certiorari was allowed to review a judgment of the Passaic County Court of Common Pleas affirming a judgment of the Passaic Police Court which adjudged the prosecutor guilty of violating a provision of the zoning ordinance of the City of Passaic. The prosecutor owns a sixteen room house in District ‘A’ an area which, by the provisions of the ordinance, is reversed for single family dwelling use. His offense arose out of renting rooms and apartments to roomers and several families without obtaining the required occupancy permit. The prosecutor took possession of the premises in July, 1936. From that time on he rented rooms to lodgers. In June, 1943, the dwelling was greatly damaged by fire and prosecutor repaired and redecorated the place. When the prosecutor took over the house in 1936 he represented to the building department of Passaic that the dwelling would be used as a one family house. He made the same representation in 1943, to wit, on July 2, 1943, and again on August 2, 1943, after the fire damage had been repaired. These representations were false and amounted to fraud on the applicant's part.
On this appeal it is conceded by the prosecutor that his use of the premises is at variance with the provisions of the 1940 ordinance. Notwithstanding that, it is argued that the nonconforming use which theretofore he made of the premises may be continued, relying on the statute, R.S. 40:55-48, N.J.S.A. He points out that under the 1922 zoning ordinance he was permitted to use the premises for one family and roomers as well. But it was found that the prosecutor not only rented rooms to individuals but that part of the house was let to a second family. This use was not permitted by either the ordinance of 1922 or of 1940.
On September 21, 1943, prosecut...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gross v. Allan, A--517
...when begun cannot rise to the status of a nonconforming use protected by the statute. R.S. 40:55--48, N.J.S.A.; Levy v. Ackerman, 133 N.J.L. 69, 42 A.2d 372 (Sup.Ct.1945); and see State v. Casper, 5 N.J.Super. 150, 153, 68 A.2d 545 (App.Div.1949); 1 Yokley, op. cit., supra (§ 148, at p. 363......
-
Universal Holding Co. v. North Bergen Tp.
...violation of a zoning ordinance when his use begins may not predicate a protected nonconforming status on such use. Levy v. Ackerman, 133 N.J.L. 69, 42 A.2d 372 (Sup.Ct.1945); and see Frank J. Durkin Lumber Co. v. Fitzsimmons, 106 N.J.L. 183, 190, 147 A. 555 (E. & A.1929); cf. Scavone v. Ma......
-
Botchlett v. City of Bethany, 41440
...115 A.2d 418; Arsenault v. City of Keene, 104 N.H. 356, 187 A.2d 60; Gross v. Allan, 37 N.J.Super. 262, 117 A.2d 275; and Levy v. Ackerman, 133 N.J.L. 69, 42 A.2d 372. It is stated in 101 C.J.S. Zoning § 188, p. 945, in part as 'A land owner acquires no advantage from a non-conforming use p......
-
Scavone v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Totowa
...They cite such cases as Frank J. Durkin Lumber Co. v. Fitzsimmons, 106 N.J.L. 183, 189, 147 A. 555 (E. & A.1929); Levy v. Ackerman, 133 N.J.L. 69, 42 A.2d 372 (Sup.Ct.1945); and State v. Casper, 5 N.J.Super. 150, 68 A.2d 545 (App.Div.1949). In none of these, however, except the Casper case,......