Yanuzzi v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Spring Lake, A--41
| Decision Date | 19 November 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. A--41,A--41 |
| Citation | 22 N.J. 567,126 A.2d 873 |
| Parties | Thomas J. YANUZZI and George A. Costello, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF SPRING LAKE et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Milton J. Lesnik, Newark, for appellants (Lesnik & Amoscato, Newark, attorneys).
Gilbert H. Van Note, Spring Lake, for respondents.
There was summary judgment for defendants in this proceeding in lieu of the prerogative writ of Mandamus, to compel the installation of 'water and sewer mains at the Borough's expense' for the servicing of Yanuzzi's vacant land on the westerly side of Monroe Avenue, and Costello's vacant land on the easterly side of Third Avenue, in Spring Lake.
The complaint alleges, in separate counts, that Yanuzzi and Costello are severally 'being deprived' of water and sewer facilities because neither Monroe Avenue nor Third Avenue has the 'necessary water and sewer mains'; and that Yanuzzi had proposed, in the alternative, that he 'be permitted to tap the sewer and water lines already in existence on South Boulevard, the closest and only sewer and water lines available, by means of an easement, which plaintiff could create in perpetuity over the westerly side' of the adjacent lot now owned by him, all of which had been refused; and that the 'sewer and water system(s)' are 'owned and operated by the Borough at general public expense.'
At the outset, the landowners' demands were rejected by a resolution of the governing body declaring that they 'may run the water and sewer mains in front of their (respective) properties,' 'at their entire cost and at no cost to the Borough,' but according to the borough's 'specifications' and under its 'supervision'; and also that in the case of Yanuzzi, it was 'contrary to their policy to permit such an easement.' But later on, May 6, 1956, Costello was advised by the borough's attorney that his application 'for extension of water service will probably be granted subject to the availability of funds for the purpose, and that the same situation obtains regarding sewer extension, except that the sewer will be at the expense of the properties benefitted and not as a general improvement.'
When it was found on the oral argument that the parties were not altogether in disagreement as to relevant matters not encompassed by the record, the court suggested that they stipulate the facts no longer in dispute and set down the things bearing upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Joseph v. Passaic Hospital Ass'n
...is sought to enforce a continuing right, the limitation of R.R. 4:88--15(a) is not applicable. Yanuzzi v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Spring Lake, 22 N.J. 567, 126 A.2d 873 (1956); Lettieri v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 24 N.J. 199, 131 A.2d 518 And the question of the propriety ......
-
De Nike v. Board of Trustees of State Emp. Retirement System
...at page 6): 'The general problem implicated here was the subject of attention in both the Yannuzzi (Yanuzzi v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Spring Lake, 22 N.J. 567, 126 A.2d 873 (1956)) and Lettieri (Lettieri v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 24 N.J. 199, 131 A.2d 518 (1957)) cases, ......
-
Schack v. Trimble
...by an expansive treatment of when a cause of action accrues within the meaning of R.R. 4:88--15(a), Yannuzzi v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Spring Lake, 22 N.J. 567, 126 A.2d 873 (1956); Lettieri v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 24 N.J. 199, 131 A.2d 518 (1957). But cf. Marini v. Bo......
-
Manobianco v. City of Hoboken
...through his attorney, demanded a departmental hearing which was denied on March 15, 1967. Plaintiff cites Yanuzzi v. Mayor, etc., of Spring Lake, 22 N.J. 567, 126 A.2d 873, (1956) and Lettieri v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 24 N.J.Super. 199, 131 A.2d 518 (1957), as authority for the ......