Case Law Summaries

Richardson v. UN Empress Properties, LLC

VEIL PIERCING — Courts recognize that principals of small businesses sometimes loosely refer to themselves as “owners,” but that, by itself, does not make them liable for their company’s debts.

• Opinion Date: April 7, 2010
• Business Law

N.J. Bergen Development Co., LLC v. Fleisher

CONTRACTS; CONTINGENCIES — Where a contract of sale gives the buyer specific remedies upon its seller’s default, and those remedies do not include tolling of approval or contingency periods, the buyer is not permitted to delay its performance under the contract based on the seller’s defaults or even by reason of the seller’s bad faith efforts to avoid fulfilling its contractual obligations.

• Opinion Date: March 19, 2010
• Real Property Law

Zeman v. Township of River Vale Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING; VARIANCES — To obtain a variance, an applicant needs to show that the deviation from the zoning requirements would advance the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law, that the variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, that the benefits outweigh the detriments, and that the variance would not substantially impair the intent and purposes of the zoning plan and ordinances.

• Opinion Date: March 19, 2010
• Real Property Law

Kite v. Township of Pennsville Planning Board

ZONING; SITE PLANS — New Jersey law only requires an amended site plan application if the plans submitted for final approval are substantially different from those submitted for preliminary approval.

• Opinion Date: March 2, 2010
• Real Property Law

Eagan v. Gory

PARTNERSHIPS — Although a person who shares in the profits of a business is presumed to be a partner unless the profits are received in payment of specific obligations of the partnership, there are seven other elements that must be considered.

• Opinion Date: April 12, 2010
• Business Law

Steliga v. Ostrum

CONTRACTS; SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE — One of the consequences of the equitable nature of specific performance is that the party seeking the remedy must have acted in a fair, just, and an equitable manner in order to be awarded specific performance.

• Opinion Date: March 19, 2010
• Real Property Law

Davanne Realty v. Edison Township

TAXATION; CHAPTER 91 — Barring a property owner’s appeal rights when it fails to respond to a municipality’s Chapter 91 for income information for a property is not a violation of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

• Opinion Date: March 17, 2010
• Real Property Law

1717 Realty Associates, LLC v. Borough of Fair Lawn

TAXATION; CHAPTER 91 REQUESTS — If a property owner fails to respond to a Chapter 91 request, then the owner can only challenge the reasonableness of the assessor’s valuation based on the data available and the reasonableness of the underlying data; such an outcome does not constitute an “excessive fine” in violation of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

• Opinion Date: March 17, 2010
• Real Property Law

Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Township of Berkeley Heights

TAXATION; CHAPTER 91 REQUESTS — The 180 day deadline for moving to dismiss a tax appeal for failing to comply with Chapter 91 requests applies to the time for filing a dismissal motion based on a taxpayer’s submission of false or fraudulent information, but the taxpayer can still challenge the reasonableness of an assessor’s valuation based on the data available and the reasonableness of the underlying data.

• Opinion Date: March 17, 2010
• Real Property Law

New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Hanover

ZONING; VARIANCES — A land use board can impose a landscaping maintenance requirement if the purpose is to create a buffer that mitigates the negative impact of a feature of the approved plan, such as a high fence, so long as the maintenance obligation is reasonably related to the objective sought to be satisfied.

• Opinion Date: March 10, 2010
• Real Property Law