JESSE ROSENBLUM v. BOROUGH OF CLOSTER, et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1329-04T21329-04T2

JESSE ROSENBLUM,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

BOROUGH OF CLOSTER, and

JOSEPH MIELE and GLORIA

MIELE,

Defendants-Respondents.

__________________________________

 

Submitted: December 12, 2005- Decided January 17, 2006

Before Judges Cuff, Lintner and Gilroy.

On appeal from the Tax Court of New Jersey, Docket No. 3316-02.

Jesse Rosenblum, appellant pro se.

Edward Rogan & Associates, attorneys for respondent Borough of Closter (JoAnn Riccardi, on the brief).

Kathryn A. Gilbert, attorney for respondents Joseph and Gloria Miele.

PER CURIAM

In a series of complaints filed in the Tax Court, plaintiff Jesse Rosenblum challenged the farmland assessments for 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, and 2002, of a 9.9 acre property owned by defendants Joseph and Gloria Miele in the Borough of Closter. The challenges to the assessment for 1997 and 1998 were tried over three days in October 1999. In an oral opinion dated October 19, 1999, Judge Pizzuto sustained the farmland assessment. The challenges to the 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 assessments were addressed on motions for summary judgment. Judgments for each challenged assessment were entered on October 1, 2004. The Notice of Appeal, filed on November 10, 2004, is timely.

On appeal, plaintiff presents the following arguments:

I. IT WAS ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND UNREASONABLE TO ACCEPT A WOODLAND/WETLAND PROPERTY AS PERMANENT PASTURE FOR FARMLAND ASSESSMENT.

A. THE DEFENDANTS HAVE IMPROPERLY DEVIATED FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF FORM FA-1.

B. ALTHOUGH THE PROPERTY IS PHYSICALLY AND VISUALLY A WOODLAND, THE DEFENDANTS MAKE IMPROPER CLAIMS TO THE LAND AS PASTURE.

C. ALTHOUGH MOST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS PHYSICALLY A WETLAND AND VISUALLY A WOODLAND, THE DEFENDANTS MAKE IMPROPER CLAIMS TO THE LAND AS PASTURE.

D. DEFENDANTS MAY NOT CLAIM GROSS SALES FROM WOODLAND/WETLAND.

II. TWO TAX ASSESSORS AIDED THE OWNERS TO VIOLATE THE ACT.

Based on our review of the record, we are satisfied that the judgment of the Tax Court is based on findings of fact adequately supported by the evidence and that the arguments presented by plaintiff are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A)(E).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-1329-04T2

January 17, 2006