Port of New York Authority v. Essex County Bd. of Taxation, A--12
| Decision Date | 06 December 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. A--12,A--12 |
| Citation | 46 N.J. 51,214 A.2d 705 |
| Parties | The PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Newark et al., Defendants, Appellants. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Norman N. Schiff, Newark, for appellants Mayor and City Council of the City of Newark and others (Steven S. Radin, Newark, of counsel and on the brief).
Joseph A. Hoffman, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellant Essex County Board of Taxation (Harold Leib, Deputy Atty. Gen., of counsel and on the brief; Arthur J. Sills, Atty. Gen., attorney).
Francis A. Mulhern, Newark, for respondent (Sidney Goldstein, New York City, of the New York bar, of counsel).
The opinion of the Court was delivered
The ultimate issues are (1) whether certain real property leased by the City of Newark (herein City) to the Port of New York Authority (herein Port Authority) is subject to local taxation beginning with the year 1960, and (2) if so, whether the Port Authority is liable for the taxes so imposed.
The litigation has been snarled procedurally. It began before the Essex County Board of Taxation which found the property should be assessed for taxation with the Port Authority listed as 'owner.' The Port Authority appealed to the State Board of Taxation where its appeals have yet to be heard. The Port Authority also instituted an action in the Law Division of the Superior Court wherein it assailed the jurisdiction of the County Board of Taxation to fix liability as between the City and the Port Authority. The Port Authority prevailed in that suit and the City's appeal is now before us. The City also sued in the Chancery Division of the Superior Court, and its appeal from an adverse judgment is now before the Appellate Division.
The situation is somewhat unique and perhaps for that reason the litigants have been locked in unproductive procedural disputes. To begin with, the City did not want the property to be taxed if the Port Authority need not pay, but as matters developed the taxes have been levied and the City has had to remit to the County the share due it. The County Board of Taxation, which was asked by an official of the City to tax the property as omitted property, did not have jurisdiction of all phases of controversy between the City and the Port Authority. The County Board did have jurisdiction to decide whether under statute the lessee interest of the Port...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Newark v. Essex County Bd. of Taxation
...reached the Supreme Court on appeal. Because of procedural snarls, the Supreme Court in Port of New York Authority v. Essex County Board of Taxation, 46 N.J. 51, 214 A.2d 705 (1965), remanded all matters to the Law Division with directions to hear De novo the entire controversy as to all ye......
-
City of Newark v. Essex County Bd. of Taxation
...remanding all phases of the controversy to the Law Division for a De novo hearing and determination. Port of N.Y. Auth. v. Essex Co. Bd. of Taxation, 46 N.J. 51, 214 A.2d 705 (1965). After the remand, the city and the Authority made a settlement under which the annual rental payable by the ......
-
City of East Orange v. Livingston Tp.
...to which the discretion of the administrative agency should be invoked in an adjudication. Cf. Port of N.Y. Authority v. Essex Cty. Board of Taxation, 46 N.J. 51, 214 A.2d 705 (1965). Many of these factors are present here. The litigants are governmental bodies. The controversy involves dir......
-
Exxon Corp. v. East Brunswick Tp.
...administrative remedies has frequently been excused in the interest of justice in taxation cases. Port of N.Y. Auth. v. Essex County Bd. of Taxation, 46 N.J. 51, 53-54, 214 A.2d 705 (1965); Matawan v. Monmouth Cty. Board of Tax., 51 N.J. 291, 296, 240 A.2d 8 (1968); Registrar & Transfer Co.......