State v. CIB Intern.
| Decision Date | 05 June 1979 |
| Citation | 169 N.J.Super. 69,404 A.2d 316 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CIB INTERNATIONAL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Goodman, Stoldt & Horan, Hackensack, for defendant-appellant (Arthur N. Chagaris, Hackensack, on the brief).
Geoffrey Lebar, Hackensack, for plaintiff-respondent on the brief.
Before Judges CONFORD, PRESSLER and KING.
Defendant appeals its conviction of violating a provision of the Borough of Little Ferry zoning ordinance which requires the owner of a multi-family dwelling to obtain a certificate of occupancy from the building inspector before any unit of that dwelling may be re-rented to a new tenant or occupant. Defendant sought unsuccessfully to dismiss this charge in both the municipal court and during his De novo trial on the record in County Court. He was found guilty at both levels and on appeal he reiterates his contentions that the Little Ferry zoning ordinance provision (a) is an invalid attempt by the municipality to utilize certificates of occupancy to enforce health ordinances; (b) unconstitutionally discriminates and denies equal protection of the laws to owners of multi-family dwellings, and (c) is invalid because the State has preempted the field of multiple-family dwelling regulation by its enactment of the Hotel and Multiple Dwelling Law, N.J.S.A. 55:13A-1 Et seq.
It suffices to say we conclude defendant is right on the first of the foregoing grounds of objection to the ordinance requirement, and we need not consider the others.
The requirement in a zoning ordinance for a certificate of occupation as a condition of use of a new structure or of a change of use of a structure or land is related to the character of zoning and building ordinances as regulatory of the uses and construction of property and is recognized as a legitimate enforcement device in respect of municipal regulatory functions in those areas. See Dresner v. Carrara, 69 N.J. 237, 353 A.2d 505 (1976). However, absent a change in the use of property, there is no statutory authorization for the requirement of a certificate of occupancy upon the mere lease of property. Ibid. It would follow, A fortiori, that such a requirement is unauthorized upon a mere re-rental of an apartment in an apartment house, particularly when the regulatory purpose is, as here, to inspect the apartment for violations of the health ordinances of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. C. I. B. Intern.
...regulation by its enactment of the Hotel and Multiple Dwelling Law, N.J.S.A. 55:13A-1 et seq. (State v. C.I.B. International, 169 N.J.Super. 69, 71, 404 A.2d 316, 317 (App.Div.1979)) In a per curiam opinion, the Appellate Division reversed the conviction on the first enumerated ground witho......
-
CITY OF HOUSTON v. CLIFTON MORRIS III AND TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION
... ... Dotson v. Texas State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 612 S.W.2d 921, 922 (Tex. 1981); Sanchez v. Huntsville Indep. Sch. Dist., 844 S.W.2d ... 286, 290 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st ... ...
-
Laino v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
... ... N.J.S.A. 39:3-4 requires, in pertinent part, that: ... * * * every resident of this State and every nonresident whose automobile or motorcycle shall be driven in this State shall before using such vehicles on the public highways, register ... ...
-
State v. C. I. B. International.
...of New Jersey v. C. I. B. INTERNATIONAL. Supreme Court of New Jersey. Sept. 24, 1979. Petition for certification granted. (See 169 N.J.Super. 69, 404 A.2d 316). ...