Port of N.Y. Auth. v. Union City
| Decision Date | 27 May 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 206.,206. |
| Citation | 20 A.2d 653,19 N.J.Misc. 421 |
| Parties | PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY v. UNION CITY et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari proceeding by the Port of New York Authority against the City of Union City and others to review certain assessments.
Assessments canceled.
Argued January term, 1941, before BROGAN, C. J, and PARKER and PERSKIE, JJ.
Russell E. Watson, of New Brunswick (Austin J. Tobin, Daniel B. Goldberg, and C. Thomas Schettino, all of New York City, of counsel), for prosecutor.
James C. Agnew, of Union City, for defendants.
This writ was allowed to review certain assessments for the year 1940 levied on property of the prosecutor, The Port of New York Authority, by the taxing department of the defendant, City of Union City. The validity of the tax is challenged, the prosecutor taking the position that the property acquired, as it admittedly was, for tunnel purposes, is exempt by law from taxation. The prosecutor is a municipal corporate instrumentality of the states of New York and New Jersey and is a body corporate and politic established by compact between the states, dated April 30, 1921, pursuant to chap. 151, P.L.1921, R.S. 32:1-1 et seq., N.J.S.A. 32:1-1 et seq, and chap. 154 of the Laws of New York, 1921, which compact was ratified by resolution of the Congress of the United States, public resolution No. 17—57th Congress; that among the facilities, bridges and tunnels operated and maintained by the prosecutor as the agent of both states is the Lincoln Tunnel (formerly Mid-Town Tunnel). For the construction of that tunnel, and the approaches thereto, it was necessary to acquire certain lands in the City of Union City, N. J, which have been used for that purpose and the lands under consideration here are lands which were so acquired (and part of them used) for such purpose. Indeed certain of the properties in the list of those here assessed were intended when acquired as part of the approaches and right of way to the Lincoln Tunnel. But as the result of modification in design, made subsequent to their purchase, they were not so incorporated. Some of the lots acquired by the prosecutor were only in part used for tunnel approach purposes and the remainder of those lots was of course not so used because not needed; the prosecutor, however, deeming it more economical, purchased such lots, etc, in their entirety in preference to acquiring them in part and paying compensation for damages to the remainder. All...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Port of New York Authority v. Weehawken Tp., C--2001
...601, 606 (Sup.Ct.1939); Howell v. Port of New York Authority, 34 F.Supp. 797, 800 (D.C.N.J.1940); Port of New York Authority v. Union City, 20 A.2d 653, 19 N.J.Misc. 421 (Sup.Ct.1941); Bush Terminal Co. v. City of New York, 282 N.Y. 306, 26 N.E.2d 269 (Ct.App.1940); Graves v. New York ex re......
-
Agesen v. Catherwood, s. 1
...Newark, 17 N.J.Super. 328, 85 A.2d 815; Miller v. Port of New York Authority, 18 N.J.Misc. 601, 15 A.2d 262; Port of New York Authority v. Union City, 19 N.J.Misc. 421, 20 A.2d 653.) Since the state is immune from such regulation or control, it would follow that the Port Authority, too, as ......
-
New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. Washington Tp., Mercer County, A--153
...27:23--12, and while a literal application of the language of the statute has been held in Port of New York Authority v. Union City, 20 A.2d 653, 19 N.J.Misc. 421, at page 422 (Sup.Ct.1941), to justify exemption from taxation of property 'not so used because not needed', the quoted language......
-
Waterford Tp. v. Plate 32, Block 297, Lot 5
...27:23--12, and while a literal application of the language of the statute has been held in Port of New York Authority v. Union City, 20 A.2d 653, 19 N.J.Misc. 421, at page 422 (Sup.Ct.1941); to justify exemption from taxation of property 'not so used because not needed', the quoted language......