CITY OF ASBURY PARK v. SPRINGWOOD LAKE, LLC

Nos. A-0836-10T1, A-1863-10T1, A-1864-10T1, A-1865-10T1, A-1866-10T1

CITY OF ASBURY PARK, a Municipal Corporation of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SPRINGWOOD LAKE, LLC, Defendant-Appellant, and JCP&L and/or NEW JERSEY BELL TELEPHONE CO., CITY OF ASBURY PARK, Defendants. CITY OF ASBURY PARK, a Municipal Corporation of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. VINCENT H. GIFFORD, Defendant-Appellant, and CITY OF ASBURY PARK, CITY OF ASBURY PARK SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, Defendants. CITY OF ASBURY PARK, a Municipal Corporation of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TL PROPERTIES, INC., VINCENT H. GIFFORD, COASTAL JERSEY PROPERTIES, INC., Defendants-Appellants, and CITY OF ASBURY PARK, CITY OF ASBURY PARK SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, Defendants. CITY OF ASBURY PARK, a Municipal Corporation of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. VINCENT H. GIFFORD, Defendant-Appellant, and CITY OF ASBURY PARK, CITY OF ASBURY PARK SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, Defendants. CITY OF ASBURY PARK, a Municipal Corporation of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. COASTAL JERSEY PROPERTIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant, and TRANSAMERICA BUSINESS CREDIT, CRUSADER SERVICING CORP., CITY OF ASBURY PARK SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, Defendants.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Decided March 26, 2012.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Paul V. Fernicola argued the cause for appellants (Paul V. Fernicola & Associates, LLC; Mr. Fernicola , of counsel; Robert E. Moore , on the brief).

Lawrence H. Shapiro argued the cause for respondent (Ansell, Grimm & Aaron, P.C., attorneys for respondent (Mr. Shapiro , on the brief).

Before Judges Graves, J. N. Harris and Koblitz.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM.

These five consolidated condemnation appeals present identical issues relating to the Eminent Domain Act of 1971 (the Eminent Domain Act), N.J.S.A. 20:3-1 to-50. Appellants are aggrieved by the City of Asbury Park's abandonment of eminent domain proceedings and the Law Division's refusal to order the municipality to re-commence them. In addition, appellants claim that they were entitled to more than...

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