JERSEY CITY REDEV. v. TUG & BARGE


228 N.J. Super. 24 (1988)

548 A.2d 1133

JERSEY CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, A BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, AND NEWPORT ASSOCIATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR-APPELLANT, v. TUG AND BARGE URBAN RENEWAL CORPORATION, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION; STATE OF NEW JERSEY; AND STATE OF NEW JERSEY THROUGH THE TIDELANDS RESOURCE COUNCIL IN THE DIVISION OF COASTAL RESOURCES IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND GENERAL ELECTRIC CREDIT CORPORATION, A NEW YORK CORPORATION; UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK; CITY OF JERSEY CITY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; JERSEY CITY SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, A BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; AND TUG & BARGE DRY DOCKS, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS. JERSEY CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, A BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. TUG AND BARGE URBAN RENEWAL CORPORATION, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Decided February 8, 1988.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

John J. Curley argued the cause for appellant Jersey City Redevelopment Agency (Lepis, Lepis & Curley, attorneys; John J. Curley, on the brief).

Kenneth N. Laptook argued the cause for appellant Newport Associates Development Company (Kimmelman, Wolff & Samson, attorneys; Ronald E. Wiss, on the brief).

Dennis J. Drasco argued the cause for respondent Tug & Barge Urban Renewal Corporation (Lum, Hoens, Abeles, Conant & Danzis, attorneys; Dennis J. Drasco, of counsel, and Dennis B. O'Brien, on the brief).

William E. Andersen, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent State of New Jersey (W. Cary Edwards, Attorney General, attorney; James J. Ciancia, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; William E. Andersen and Stephen E. Brower, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Before Judges MICHELS, GAYNOR and ARNOLD M. STEIN.


PER CURIAM.

The final judgment of the Superior Court, Law Division, is affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth in the comprehensive and well-reasoned letter opinions of Judge Humphreys dated February 16, 1987 and July 2, 1987, as supplemented by his written opinion dated January 21, 1988, reported in 228 N.J.Super. 88 (Law Div. 1988).

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