1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.J.
  4. 66 N.J.
  5. 66 N.J. 1 (1974)
 

BOROUGH OF PARAMUS v. CAPELLO

66 N.J. 1 (1974)

326 A.2d 685

BOROUGH OF PARAMUS, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. DOMINICK R. CAPELLO, TREASURER OF THE COUNTY OF BERGEN; BENJAMIN GREEN, SAMUEL P. BARTOLETTA, ROBERT J. INGLIMA, ARTHUR MINUSKIN AND BERNARD STRACHER, MEMBERS OF THE BERGEN COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION; WILLIAM J. CORGAN, FRANK A. BUNNO, EUGENE FRANCIS, HENRY HOEBEL, MRS. DORIS MAHALICK, WILLIAM D. McDOWELL, JAMES F. McGUIRE, FRANK PERROTTA, JR. AND BENJAMIN WALENCZYK, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF BERGEN, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH HACKENSACK AND THE BOROUGH OF HASBROUCK HEIGHTS AND THE BOROUGH OF FAIR LAWN AND THE BOROUGH OF CLIFFSIDE PARK, MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS IN THE COUNTY OF BERGEN, BOROUGH OF HO-HO-KUS, TOWNSHIP OF TEANECK, BOROUGH OF NORTH ARLINGTON, BOROUGH OF WALDWICK, VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD, BOROUGHS OF NORWOOD AND WALLINGTON, INTERVENORS-DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Decided October 22, 1974.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Mr. Gary S. Stein argued the cause for appellant.

Mr. Michael E. Goldman, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for the State of New Jersey (Mr. William F. Hyland, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney).

Mr. Jacob Schneider argued the cause for intervenor-respondent Township of Teaneck.

Mr. Frank J. Cuccio argued the cause for respondents Dominick R. Capello and the Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Bergen.

Mr. Ralph W. Chandless argued the cause for intervenor-respondents Township of South Hackensack and Borough of Hasbrouck Heights (Messrs. Chandless, Weller & Kramer, attorneys).

Mr. Joseph C. Zisa argued the cause for intervenor-respondent City of Hackensack.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff Borough of Paramus seeks a rebate or credit from Bergen County of a sum equal to three-fourths of the county tax rate applied to the entire amount of ratables in the borough subject to taxation for the years 1967 and 1968. The claim is made under N.J.S.A. 54:4-5 which in pertinent part1 and prior to February 21, 1969 provided as follows:

* * * A taxing district...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

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.

Citing Cases