RAJESHWAR SINGH YADAV v. WEST WINDSOR TOWNSHIP

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1619-08T21619-08T2

RAJESHWAR SINGH YADAV and

ROOPA YADAV,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

WEST WINDSOR TOWNSHIP,

Defendant-Respondent.

_________________________________

 

Argued November 18, 2009 - Decided

Before Judges Cuff and Waugh.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County, Docket No. L-1201-08.

Rajeshwar Singh Yadav, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Michael W. Herbert argued the cause for respondent (Herbert, Van Ness, Cayci & Goodell, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Herbert, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Since 1981, plaintiffs Rajeshwar Singh Yadav and Roopa Yadav have initiated nine lawsuits against defendant West Windsor Township in both federal and state courts regarding (1) their unsuccessful efforts to subdivide their 4.47-acre property in the Township and (2) challenging zoning changes in the Township that they claim have decreased the value of their property. The Yadavs have maintained for over twenty-eight years that they are entitled to subdivide their property into seven lots, despite zoning laws requiring larger lot sizes. They have also maintained that all of the Board's zoning changes have been unconstitutional, implemented without required due process, and prejudicial to the value of their property. They have not won any of their previous lawsuits. In fact, they have been barred from litigating their contentions any further in federal court and must seek permission to file additional actions in state court.

 
The Yadavs appeal the Law Division's order dated September 2, 2008, which dismissed their fifth Superior Court action, Docket No. Mer-L-1201-08, awarded counsel fees to the Township, denied reconsideration, and required the Yadavs to obtain the Assignment Judge's permission to file further actions; and the order dated November 18, 2008, which denied their motion seeking, in addition to other relief, to vacate the September order and reopen Mer-L-1201-08. We affirm for the reasons stated by Judge Linda R. Feinberg in her comprehensive opinions dated July 11, 2008, and November 7, 2008.

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-1619-08T2

December 2, 2009