STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Plaintiff-Respondent/Cross-Respondent,
v.
CENTENNIAL LAND & DEVELOPMENT CORP., DEVEL, LLC and STEPHEN D. SAMOST, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Respondents, and
TOWNSHIP OF MEDFORD and COUNTY OF BURLINGTON, Defendants-Respondents/Cross-Respondents, and
JOSEPH SAMOST, Defendant-Respondent/Cross-Appellant, and
CENTENNIAL PINES CLUB, Defendant-Respondent Third-Party Plaintiff/Cross-Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH SAMOST, Third-Party Defendant/Fourth-Party Plaintiff,
v.
STEPHEN D. SAMOST, Fourth-Party Defendant.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued May 9, 2016.
Decided October 21, 2016.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Paul A. Leodori argued the cause for appellants Centennial Land & Development Corp. and Devel, LLC (Mr. Leodori, on the joint brief).
Peter J. Boyer argued the cause for pro se appellant Stephen Samost (Hyland Levin, LLP, attorneys; Stephen Samost, pro se, on the joint brief).
Aaron A. Love , Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent Department of Environmental Protection ( Robert Lougy , Acting Attorney General, attorney; Melissa H. Raksa , Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mr. Love, on the brief).
Christopher J. Norman argued the cause for respondent Township of Medford (Raymond, Coleman, Heinold & Norman, LLP, attorneys; Mr. Norman, on the brief).
James J. Madden argued the cause for respondent County of Burlington (Madden & Madden, P.A., attorneys; Mr. Madden, on the brief).
Jay H. Greenblatt argued the cause for respondent/cross-appellant Centennial Pines Club (Greenblatt & Laube, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Greenblatt, on the briefs).
Thomas J. Hagner argued the cause for respondent/cross-appellant Joseph Samost (Hagner & Zohlman, LLC, attorneys; Mr. Hagner and Andrew T. McGuire , on the briefs).
Before Judges Lihotz, Nugent and Higbee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.
PER CURIAM.
In this protracted...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
