Weber v. Pieretti
| Decision Date | 19 December 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. A--739,A--739 |
| Citation | 186 A.2d 702,77 N.J.Super. 423 |
| Parties | Louis WEBER et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Joseph PIERETTI, Jr. and Marie Piertti, individually and t/a Brookdale Beverage Co., Defendants-Appellants, and Mayor and Council of the Town of Bloomfield et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Bernard Hellring, Newark, for appellants (Hellring, Lindeman & Lieberman, Newark, attorneys, Norman Bruck, Newark, on the brief).
David A. Rappeport, Bloomfield, for respondents.
Before Judges GOLDMANN, FREUND and FOLEY.
The judgment under appeal is affirmed for the reasons stated by Judge Mintz sitting in the Chancery Division, Weber v. Pieretti, 72 N.J.Super. 184, 178 A.2d 92 (1962), except that we do not join in that part of his decision relating to collateral estoppel by judgment (at pages 192--193, 178 A.2d at page 97).
Defendants Pieretti call attention to the fact that the trial judge failed to consider their contention that their present business operations constitute no more than 'a valid intensification of their valid preexisting non-conforming use.' Our reading of the lengthy record convinces us that these operations are not merely an intensification of a use predating the adoption of the Bloomfield zoning ordinance of 1930. The proofs clearly demonstrate that the Pieretti enterprise constitutes an invalid enlargement of the business beyond all reasonable limits--an enlargement deliberately and brazenly pursued in the face of repeated complaints to municipal officials by neighbors, municipal court proceedings, and the warning signals raised in Pieretti v. Johnson, 132 N.J.L. 576, 41 A.2d 896 (Sup.Ct.1945), and Pieretti v. Mayor and Council, etc. Bloomfield, 35 N.J. 382...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Newburgh v. Arrigo
...a weighing of equitable considerations. See Weber v. Pieretti, 72 N.J.Super. 184, 178 A.2d 92 (Ch.Div.1962), aff'd, 77 N.J.Super. 423, 186 A.2d 702 (App.Div.1962); Pierce v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 147 F.Supp. 934 (D.C.N.J.1957). Therefore, while laches does not dispose of this cas......
-
Reichenbach v. Windward at Southampton
...semblance of either compliance with or authorization in the ordinance (Weber v. Pieretti, 72 N.J.Super. 184, 178 A.2d 92, aff'd 77 N.J.Super. 423, 186 A.2d 702). In the instant case, the successive grants of use variances by the building inspector contrary to state or local law cannot const......
-
Rotter v. Coconino County
...v. City of Rahway, 117 N.J.L. 589, 190 A. 506, 508 (1937); Weber v. Pieretti, 72 N.J.Super. 184, 178 A.2d 92 (1962), aff'd, 77 N.J.Super. 423, 186 A.2d 702 (1962); Struyk v. Samuel Braen's Sons, 17 N.J.Super. 1, 85 A.2d 279, 281 (1951), aff'd, 9 N.J. 294, 88 A.2d 201 (1952); Rodrigues v. Ro......
-
Trenkamp v. Burlington Tp.
...522, 528, 156 A.2d 732 (App.Div.1959); Weber v. Pieretti, 72 N.J.Super. 184, 191, 178 A.2d 92 (Law Div.), aff'd in part 77 N.J.Super. 423, 186 A.2d 702 (App.Div.1962). The issue before the court is not whether a particular paper should be revoked, but rather what legal rights stem from the ......