Urban League of Greater New Brunswick v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Carteret
| Decision Date | 11 September 1979 |
| Citation | 170 N.J.Super. 461,406 A.2d 1322 |
| Parties | URBAN LEAGUE OF GREATER NEW BRUNSWICK, a nonprofit corporation of the State of New Jersey, Cleveland Benson, Fannie Botts, Judith Champion, Lydia Cruz, Barbara Tippett, Kenneth Tuskey and Jean White, On their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Respondents and Cross- Appellants, v. The MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF the BOROUGH OF CARTERET, Township Committee of the Township of Cranbury, Mayor and Council of the Borough of Dunellen, Township Committee of the Township of East Brunswick, Township Committee of the Township of Edison, Mayor and Council of the Borough of Helmetta, Mayor and Council of the Borough of Highland Park, Mayor and Council of the Borough of Jamesburg, Township Committee of the Township of Madison, Mayor and Council of the Borough of Metuchen, Mayor and Council of the Borough of Middlesex, Mayor and Council of the Borough of Milltown, Township Committee of the Township of Monroe, Township Committee of the Township of North Brunswick, Township Committee of the Township of Piscataway, Township Committee of the Township of Plainsboro, Mayor and Council of the Borough of Sayreville, Mayor and Council of the City of South Amboy, Township Committee of the Township of South Brunswick, Mayor and Council of the Borough of South Plainfield, Mayor and Council of the Borough of South River, Mayor and Council of the Borough of Spotswood, Township Committee of the Township of Woodbridge, Defendants- Appellants and Cross-Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
William C. Moran, Jr., Cranbury, for defendant-appellant Tp. of Cranbury (Huff & Moran, Cranbury, attorneys).
Bertram E. Busch, New Brunswick, for defendant-appellant Tp. Council of Tp. of East Brunswick (Busch & Busch, New Brunswick, attorneys; Marc Morley Kane on the brief).
Thomas R. Farino, Jr., Cranbury, for defendant-appellant Tp. of Monroe.
Joseph H. Burns, Newark, for defendant-appellant Tp. of North brunswick.
Daniel S. Bernstein, Plainfield, for defendant-appellant Tp. of Piscataway (Sachar, Bernstein, Rothberg, Sikora & Mongello, Plainfield, attorneys).
Joseph L. Stonaker, Princeton, for defendant-appellant Tp. Committee of Tp. of Plainsboro.
Barry C. Brechman, Kendall Park, for defendant-appellant Tp. Committee of Tp. of South Brunswick.
Sanford E. Chernin, Somerset, for defendant-appellant Mayor and Council of the Borough of South Plainfield (Chernin & Freeman, Somerset, attorneys).
Marilyn J. Morheuser, Newark, and Martin E. Sloane, Washington, D. C. (pro hac vice) argued the cause for all plaintiffs-respondents (Baumgart & Ben-Asher, East Orange, attorneys).
Before Judges HALPERN, ARD and ANTELL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
ANTELL, J. A. D.
Defendants appeal from a judgment of the Chancery Division invalidating their zoning ordinances to the extent that they make inadequate provision for fair shares of low and moderate-income regional housing needs and requiring them to rezone in accordance with specified allocations.
Plaintiff Urban League is a nonprofit corporation which works to improve the economic conditions of racial and ethnic minority groups and alleges a special interest in the need for low and moderate-income housing. The individual plaintiffs are low and moderate-income persons residing in Northeastern New Jersey. They seek housing and employment opportunities for themselves and educational opportunities for their children in defendant municipalities, but claim these are foreclosed by defendants' allegedly exclusionary land use regulations. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, pursuant to R. 4:32.
The 23 defendants originally sued compose all the municipalities in Middlesex County except for Perth Amboy and New Brunswick. During the proceedings below the complaint was unconditionally dismissed with respect to defendant Dunellen, and consent judgments of conditional dismissal were entered with respect to 11 other defendants. Of the remainder only Old Bridge (formerly known as Madison Township) did not appeal. Appeals are now being pursued only by Cranbury, East Brunswick, Monroe, Piscataway, Plainsboro, Sayreville, South Brunswick and South Plainfield. Also before us is plaintiffs' cross-appeal from the court's denial of relief requested beyond what was granted.
Defendants first contend that the trial judge erred in ruling that the individual plaintiffs had standing to urge state constitutional infirmities in defendants' zoning ordinances. In raising this issue defendants essentially contend that criteria for standing in these cases should be confined to those specifically applied in South Burlington Cty. N. A. A. C. P. v. Mt. Laurel Tp., 67 N.J. 151, 336 A.2d 713 (1975) (hereinafter Mt. Laurel ). They argue that because these plaintiffs, except for one, neither reside in defendant municipalities nor have actively sought housing there they fail to qualify.
But New Jersey rules of standing are characterized by great liberality. The test is whether plaintiffs have a sufficient stake in the outcome of the proceedings and whether their position is truly adverse to that of defendants. Crescent Park Tenants Ass'n v. Realty Eq. Corp. of N. Y., 58 N.J. 98, 107-108, 275 A.2d 433 (1971). As recently explained by our Supreme Court in Home Builders League of South Jersey Inc. v. Berlin Tp., 81 N.J. 127, 405 A.2d 381 (1979):
These prerequisites are inherently fluid and "in cases involving substantial public interest * * * 'but slight private interest, added to and harmonizing with the public interest' is sufficient to give standing." Elizabeth Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Howell, 24 N.J. 488, 499, 132 A.2d 779, 786 (1957). See also In re Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10, 34-35, 335 A.2d 647, Cert. den. 429 U.S. 922, 97 S.Ct. 319, 50 L.Ed.2d 289 (1976). (at 132, 405 A.2d at 384).
It added that the Legislature has expressed the public interest in cases such as these by defining an "interested party" in the Municipal Land Use Law as "any person, whether residing within or without the municipality, whose right to use, acquire, or enjoy property is or may be affected by any action taken under this act * * *." N.J.S.A. 40:55D-4. Also see, Urban League of Essex Cty. v. Mahwah Tp., 147 N.J.Super. 28, 370 A.2d 521 (App.Div.1977) certif. den. 74 N.J. 278, 377 A.2d 682 (1977).
The trial judge correctly resolved the issue of standing with respect to state constitutional issues in plaintiffs' favor.
On the cross-appeal the individual plaintiffs assert that the trial judge erred in denying them standing to argue violations of the 13th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution and violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 3601 Et seq. In ruling as he did the trial judge applied principles formulated in Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). For reasons which we explained in Urban League of Essex Cty. v. Mahwah Tp., supra, 147 N.J.Super. at 33-34, 370 A.2d 521, this was error. New Jersey courts are not bound by federal rules of standing. The rights asserted by the individual plaintiffs could only have arisen under 42 U.S.C.A. § 3612(a) and, by the language of that statute, are enforceable "in appropriate State or local courts of general jurisdiction." See Urban League of Essex Cty. v. Mahwah Tp., supra.
Plaintiffs further claim that the trial judge erred in dismissing the corporate plaintiff's complaint for racial discrimination under the foregoing federal statute. The reason given was that "no credible evidence of deliberate or systematic exclusion of minorities was before the court." Urban League of Greater New Brunswick v. Carteret, 142 N.J.Super. 11, 19, 359 A.2d 526 (Ch.Div.1976), certif. den. 74 N.J. 262, 377 A.2d 682 (1977). 1 Without deciding whether the evidence presented actually suffices to prove a violation, we conclude that the trial judge erred in requiring proof of a discriminatory intent since this ruling is in conflict with controlling authorities. It is settled that in the interpretation of federal statutes courts of this state are bound by decisions of the federal courts. Southern Pacific Co. v. Wheaton Brass Works, 5 N.J. 594, 598, 76 A.2d 890 (1950), Cert. den. 341 U.S. 904, 71 S.Ct. 614, 95 L.Ed. 1343 (1951); Penbrook Hauling Co. v. Sovereign Constr. Co., 128 N.J.Super. 179, 185, 319 A.2d 277 (Law Div.1974), aff'd 136 N.J.Super. 395, 346 A.2d 433 (App.Div.1975).
The pertinent principles are contained in Metropolitan, etc. v. Arlington Heights, 558 F.2d 1283 (7 Cir. 1977), Cert. den. 434 U.S. 1025, 98 S.Ct. 752, 54 L.Ed.2d 772 (1978). There a landowner sued the defendant municipality to compel rezoning of plaintiff's property in order to permit construction of a federally financed low-cost housing project. The suit was brought under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C.A. 3601 Et seq. Section 3604(a) thereof prohibits discrimination "because of race," and the Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the "narrow view" that this language requires a showing of a discriminatory purpose. Instead, it took the "broad view" that "a party commits an act 'because of race' whenever the natural and foreseeable consequence of that act is to discriminate between races, regardless of his intent." At 1288. The court could not agree that "Congress in enacting the Fair Housing Act intended to permit municipalities to systematically deprive minorities of housing opportunities simply because those municipalities act discreetly." Id. at 1290. The holding of that decision, which we deem applicable hereto, was stated in the following language:
We therefore hold that at least under some circumstances a violation of Section 3604(a) can be established by a showing of discriminatory effect without a showing of discriminatory intent. (At 1290)
The court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Mount Laurel Tp.
...for 1,750 units of lower income housing. 2. The Appellate Division Opinion The Appellate Division, in an opinion reported at 170 N.J.Super. 461, 406 A.2d 1322 (1979), reversed the trial court's order allocating to the 11 municipalities a specific fair share quota of lower income housing. Th......
-
Dewey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
...decisions on the interpretation of federal statutes are binding as a matter of law. But see Urban League v. Mayor of Carteret, 170 N.J.Super. 461, 469, 406 A.2d 1322 (App.Div.1979) (federal-court decisions on the interpretation of federal statutes are binding precedent), rev'd on other grou......
-
Urban League of Greater New Brunswick v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Carteret
...was not a proper housing region and that some of the zoning ordinances were not exclusionary. Urban League of New Brunswick v. Mayor of Carteret, 170 N.J.Super. 461, 475, 406 A.2d 1322 (1979). It also ruled that the individual plaintiffs had standing to argue violations of Title VIII, and, ......
-
Urban League of Greater New Brunswick v. Township Committee of Cranbury Tp.
...377 A.2d 667 (1977). Defendants appealed and plaintiffs cross-appealed. The Appellate Division, in a decision reported at 170 N.J.Super. 461, 406 A.2d 1322 (1979), reversed in several respects: (1) the decision that Middlesex County was a proper housing region and that some of the defendant......