Decisions

Add To Favorites

City of Long Branch v. Anzalone

Appellate Division, November 6, 2006

The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court granted the request of property owners Louis and Lillian Anzalone for a stay of the eminent domain action threatened against their home located at 32 Ocean Avenue, Long Branch, New Jersey. The Order for Stay, signed by presiding judge Jack L. Lintner, will prevent Long Branch from seizing the Anzalone property while the appeal is pending. The City of Long Branch also filed a motion to accelerate the appeal. That motion was denied. Download both orders of the court.

Township of Bloomfield v. 110 Washington Street

Appellate Division (per curiam), 5 pages, August 29, 2006

Eminent Domain - The court upheld the August 3, 2005 decision of Essex County Assignment Judge Patricia Costello, who dismissed the condemnation complaint and concluded that the
record lacked adequate basis for finding that the use of defendant's property posed a detriment to the public health, safety or welfare, or was underutilized. Click here to read the entire decision. For further commentary on the decision please visit the New Jersey Eminent Domain Law Blog.

City of Long Branch v. Gregory P. Bower et al (MTOTSA)

New Jersey Superior Court (Lawrence Lawson, A.J.S.C.), 60 pages, June 26, 2006

Eminent Domain - The court heard oral arguments on March 24 and reserved decision. The court decided to deny the application of the defendants for a hearing on the right to take issue, and issued final judgement in favor of the plaintiff, City of Long Branch, and will appoint condemnation commissioners. Since the decision is a final judgement, it is appealable within 45 days. For further commentary see the New Jersey Eminent Domain Law Blog post of June 23, 2006.

Township of Bloomfield v. 110 Washington Street Associates

New Jersey Superior Court (Patricia Costello, A.J.S.C.), 13 pages, August 3, 2005

Eminent Domain - The court found that the underlying planning process was fatally flawed. The Heyer and Gruel Planning Report improperly designated 110 Washington Street as meeting the definitions of blighted property under the Local Redevelopment Housing Law. In addition, the court ruled that it was improper for attorney Steven Martino to represent both the planning board and the mayor and council during the consideration of the redevelopment plan and the approval of the plan by the municipality.To read the decision in PDF click here. 

For further commentary about this case, please read the NJ Eminent Domain Law Blog post of August 5, 2005.

City of Long Branch v. Strahlendorf, et ux, etc.

Appellate Division (per curiam), 10 pages, November 19, 2004.

Eminent Domain - The City of Long Branch did not file its appeal from the date of the order of final judgement until over 100 days after the final judgement was entered. The panel dismissed the appeal as untimely, as the notice of appeal was clearly filed beyond the 75 days permitted by rule, and time was not tolled in the interval. The jury determined that the defendants were entitled to $500,000 in just compensation for the City's acquisition of their property. To read the decision of the Appellate Division in PDF file, click here .

City of Linden, etc. v. Benedict Motel Corp, etc., et al

Appellate Division (Carchman, J.A.D.), 34 pages, February 11, 2004.

Eminent Domain - The City of Linden condemned land in front of the Benedict Motel on Route 1 and 9, thus eliminating 15 parking spaces that existed on the property. The panel upheld the ruling of the trial judge that the spaces were lawfully created and properly utilized and that the motel was entitled to compensation for damages to the remainder. The verdict of the jury was two million dollars. To read the decision of the Appellate Division in PDF file, click here.

Supreme Court of New Jersey, May 21, 2004.
The Petition for Certification by the plaintiff, City of Linden, was denied.

Housing Authority Of The City Of New Brunswick V. Sudyam Investors, L.L.C., July 10, 2003

New Jersey Supreme Court, A-68/69, July 10, 2003. By Long,J. joined by Poritz, Coleman, Verniero, LaVecchia, and Zazzali. Albin, J. did not participate. On certification to the Appellate Division, 355 N.J. Super. 530 (2002).

Contaminated property that is the subject of condemnation must be valued as if it has been remediated, and the condemnor should reserve the right to maintain a separate cost-recovery action to obtain remediation or cleanup costs. The value of the condemnation award should be deposited into a trust-escrow account with the court, and the condemnor may seek and order requiring that a portion of the award be set aside to satisfy the condemnee's cleanup and transfer obligations.

For appellant/cross-respondent: James M. Turteltaub (Carlin & Ward; William J. Ward of counsel and on the briefs).