New Jersey Tax Court Decisions 2012
COMCAST OF SOUTH JERSEY, INC. v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION
Date: December 18, 2012
Docket Number: 01153-04
Date: December 18, 2012
Docket Number: 01153-04
Victor & Mary Aliotta, & Silo, Inc. v. Township of Belleville
Date: October 19, 2012
Docket Number: 07055-08
Date: October 19, 2012
Docket Number: 07055-08
Garlatti Realty, LLP v. New Brunswick City
Date: September 28, 2012
Docket Number: 14894-09 This matter comes before the court on defendant's motions to dismiss the complaints on the ground that plaintiff has failed to prosecute these actions. The motions are not opposed, and are granted for the following reasons.
Date: September 28, 2012
Docket Number: 14894-09 This matter comes before the court on defendant's motions to dismiss the complaints on the ground that plaintiff has failed to prosecute these actions. The motions are not opposed, and are granted for the following reasons.
Union Manor Associates v. Borough of Rutherford
Date: August 17, 2012
Docket Number: 05303-06opn This letter constitutes the court's opinion after trial in the above-referenced matters challenging the assessment on plaintiff's property for tax years 2006, 2007 and 2008. For the reasons stated more fully below, the court will enter Judgments revising the assessment on the property for all of the tax years in question.
Date: August 17, 2012
Docket Number: 05303-06opn This letter constitutes the court's opinion after trial in the above-referenced matters challenging the assessment on plaintiff's property for tax years 2006, 2007 and 2008. For the reasons stated more fully below, the court will enter Judgments revising the assessment on the property for all of the tax years in question.
Rosenberg v. City of Newark
Date: August 16, 2012
Docket Number: 18030-09 This letter constitutes the court's decision after trial of this matter where plaintiff timely appealed the judgment of the Essex County Board of Taxation affirming the assessment on the property owned by plaintiff. The court affirms the assessment for the reasons set forth below.
Date: August 16, 2012
Docket Number: 18030-09 This letter constitutes the court's decision after trial of this matter where plaintiff timely appealed the judgment of the Essex County Board of Taxation affirming the assessment on the property owned by plaintiff. The court affirms the assessment for the reasons set forth below.
City of East Orange et al. v. Township of Livingston et al.
Date: August 15, 2012
Docket Number: 00007-12 This letter constitutes the court's opinion with respect to the parties' respective motions in connection with the above matter. Plaintiffs, City of East Orange and the Board of Water Commissioners moved to have this court annul or by trial, reduce, the local property assessments imposed by defendant Township of Livingston against properties which are used and known as the East Orange Water Reservoir for tax years 2009 and 2010. Livingston moved to dismiss East Orange's complaint on grounds of untimely filing. Because the record is unclear whether East Orange was properly notified of the assessment in time to file an appeal for tax year 2009, the court will hold a plenary hearing in this regard.
Date: August 15, 2012
Docket Number: 00007-12 This letter constitutes the court's opinion with respect to the parties' respective motions in connection with the above matter. Plaintiffs, City of East Orange and the Board of Water Commissioners moved to have this court annul or by trial, reduce, the local property assessments imposed by defendant Township of Livingston against properties which are used and known as the East Orange Water Reservoir for tax years 2009 and 2010. Livingston moved to dismiss East Orange's complaint on grounds of untimely filing. Because the record is unclear whether East Orange was properly notified of the assessment in time to file an appeal for tax year 2009, the court will hold a plenary hearing in this regard.
The Top Condominium v. Township of South Orange Village
Date: August 15, 2012
Docket Number: 014840-11 This letter constitutes the court's opinion with respect to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in the above-captioned matter. Plaintiff contends that defendant cannot impose local property tax upon the above referenced property because it constitutes part of the common elements of a condominium complex located in Maplewood Township, and is thus not separately assessable. Defendant opposes the motion on grounds that its assessor is statutorily and constitutionally mandated to impose assessment on non-exempt property located in the township, and further, plaintiff has not established that Maplewood Township's assessment of each of the individual condominium units includes a proportionate share of the value of the common elements located in defendant township. Because the court finds that the issue of whether the property's assessment was or was not included in the assessment of the individual condominium units is a materially disputed fact, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied and the matter will be set for trial.
Date: August 15, 2012
Docket Number: 014840-11 This letter constitutes the court's opinion with respect to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in the above-captioned matter. Plaintiff contends that defendant cannot impose local property tax upon the above referenced property because it constitutes part of the common elements of a condominium complex located in Maplewood Township, and is thus not separately assessable. Defendant opposes the motion on grounds that its assessor is statutorily and constitutionally mandated to impose assessment on non-exempt property located in the township, and further, plaintiff has not established that Maplewood Township's assessment of each of the individual condominium units includes a proportionate share of the value of the common elements located in defendant township. Because the court finds that the issue of whether the property's assessment was or was not included in the assessment of the individual condominium units is a materially disputed fact, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied and the matter will be set for trial.
Beach Creek Marina, Inc. v. City of North Wildwood
Date: August 15, 2012
Docket Number: 07566-09 This letter constitutes the court's opinion with respect to defendant's motion to compel the production of plaintiff's tax returns for tax years 2008, 2009 and 2010. For the reasons explained more fully below, the court grants defendant's motion in part.
Date: August 15, 2012
Docket Number: 07566-09 This letter constitutes the court's opinion with respect to defendant's motion to compel the production of plaintiff's tax returns for tax years 2008, 2009 and 2010. For the reasons explained more fully below, the court grants defendant's motion in part.
Rosenberg v. City of Newark
Date: August 15, 2012
Docket Number: 18029-09opn This letter constitutes the court's decision after trial of this matter where plaintiff timely appealed the judgment of the Essex County Board of Taxation affirming the tax assessment on property owned by plaintiff. The court affirms the assessment for the reasons fully set forth below.
Date: August 15, 2012
Docket Number: 18029-09opn This letter constitutes the court's decision after trial of this matter where plaintiff timely appealed the judgment of the Essex County Board of Taxation affirming the tax assessment on property owned by plaintiff. The court affirms the assessment for the reasons fully set forth below.
Matthew Tuck v. Township of West Caldwell
Date: August 10, 2012
Docket Number: 012017-11 This letter opinion constitutes the court's decision with respect to the above-captioned matter involving the value of plaintiff's residence at 325 Passaic Avenue, West Caldwell, designated as Block 3307, Lot 4 for purposes of local property tax.
Date: August 10, 2012
Docket Number: 012017-11 This letter opinion constitutes the court's decision with respect to the above-captioned matter involving the value of plaintiff's residence at 325 Passaic Avenue, West Caldwell, designated as Block 3307, Lot 4 for purposes of local property tax.
The Top Condominium v. Township of South Orange Village
Date: July 21, 2012
Docket Number: 014840-11opn
Date: July 21, 2012
Docket Number: 014840-11opn
Chai Center for Living Judaism v. Township of Millburn
Date: July 19, 2012
Docket Number: 008543-10 This letter constitutes the court's opinion in the above-referenced matters. Plaintiff Chai Center for Living Judaism moved for summary judgment arguing that the residence located at 1 Jefferson Avenue, Short Hills, New Jersey, designated as Block 2306, Lot 10 is tax-exempt for tax years 2010 and 2011 under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6. Defendant opposed the motion claiming there are material facts in dispute as evidenced in the zoning litigation concerning the Subject. The court finds that Chai Center is eligible for religious use exemption for both tax years because it is undisputed that the Subject was actually used for the conduct of religious services.
Date: July 19, 2012
Docket Number: 008543-10 This letter constitutes the court's opinion in the above-referenced matters. Plaintiff Chai Center for Living Judaism moved for summary judgment arguing that the residence located at 1 Jefferson Avenue, Short Hills, New Jersey, designated as Block 2306, Lot 10 is tax-exempt for tax years 2010 and 2011 under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6. Defendant opposed the motion claiming there are material facts in dispute as evidenced in the zoning litigation concerning the Subject. The court finds that Chai Center is eligible for religious use exemption for both tax years because it is undisputed that the Subject was actually used for the conduct of religious services.
Chai Center for Living Judaism v. Township of Milburn
Date: July 19, 2012
Docket Number: 008543-10opn
Date: July 19, 2012
Docket Number: 008543-10opn
GATHERINGS AT CAPE MAY HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. v. MIDDLE TOWNSHIP
Date: July 17, 2012
Docket Number: 12186-10 BRENNAN, J.T.C. This is the court's opinion in connection with the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment in the above captioned Real Property Tax Appeal. The issue presented is whether the common area of an adult community developed pursuant to the Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act and deeded in the name of the homeowners association, is a separate taxable entity from an individual homeowner's unit, or whether the value of the common area land and improvements is included in the assessed value of the individual homeowner's unit and therefore not a separate taxable entity.
Date: July 17, 2012
Docket Number: 12186-10 BRENNAN, J.T.C. This is the court's opinion in connection with the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment in the above captioned Real Property Tax Appeal. The issue presented is whether the common area of an adult community developed pursuant to the Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act and deeded in the name of the homeowners association, is a separate taxable entity from an individual homeowner's unit, or whether the value of the common area land and improvements is included in the assessed value of the individual homeowner's unit and therefore not a separate taxable entity.
IGT v. Director, Division of Taxation
Date: July 13, 2012
Docket Number: 06886-10 The parties have reached an amicable resolution of this matter in which plaintiff challenges the Director, Division of Taxation's assessment of Corporation Business Tax.
Date: July 13, 2012
Docket Number: 06886-10 The parties have reached an amicable resolution of this matter in which plaintiff challenges the Director, Division of Taxation's assessment of Corporation Business Tax.
Schweitzer-Mauduit International Inc. v. Director
Date: February 14, 2012
Docket Number: 07376-05opn
Date: February 14, 2012
Docket Number: 07376-05opn
The opinions published on Justia State Caselaw are sourced from individual state court sites.
These court opinions may not be the official published versions, and you should check your local court rules before citing to them.
We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site,
or the information linked to on the state site.
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.
