TSUNGAS PETROLEUM, INC v. HAROLD RYPKEMA

Annotate this Case

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4024-07T2 4024-07T2

TSUNGAS PETROLEUM, INC.,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

HAROLD RYPKEMA and REGINA JALAKH,

Defendants/Third-Party

Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v.

SALVATORE DELLOMO and TED COHEN,

Third-Party-Defendants-

Appellants.

____________________________________

 

Argued: January 22, 2009 - Decided

Before Judges Fisher and King.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Docket No. L-4092-07.

Andrew J. Karas argued the cause for appellants (Feitlin, Youngman, Karas & Youngman, attorneys; Mr. Karas, on the brief).

Howard P. Davis argued the cause for respondent Tsungas Petroleum, Inc. (Law Office of Howard Davis, attorneys; Mr. Davis, Anne Ronan and C. Nicole Simmons, on the brief).

Beylerian & Associates, attorneys for respondent Regina Jalakh, join in the brief of Salvatore Dellomo and Ted Cohen.

Thomas Melani, attorney for respondent Harold Rypkema, joins in the brief of Salvatore Dellomo and Ted Cohen.

PER CURIAM

This case concerns plaintiff's right of access to defendants' two properties in Clifton for installation of environmental wells and testing. This appeal was pursued by the third-party defendants, tenants of the property owner, who also have a future interest under a lease-purchase agreement.

We agree with the judge that on this record "the plaintiffs have presented a prima facie application entitling them to obtain access to 250 and 264 Clinton Avenue for the purpose of siting wells on those properties to determine whether or not there exists contamination on the subject properties." The controlling statute requires a showing of "reasonable possibility" of contamination. N.J.S.A. 58:10B-16(b)(1). The record amply supports the conclusion of the judge that this modest statutory threshold has been met. We affirm for the reasons given by Judge DeLuccia in his oral opinion of February 4, 2008. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-4024-07T2

February 13, 2009

 


Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.