Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-2644-14T3
04-27-2016
FATMA E. AND ALI N. CEZZAROGLU, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOROUGH OF ROSELLE, Defendant-Respondent.
Fatma and Ali Cezzaroglu, appellants pro se. Palumbo Renaud & DeAppolonio, L.L.C., attorneys for respondent (Adam J. Colicchio, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Reisner and Whipple. On appeal from the Tax Court of New Jersey, Docket No. 013730-2013. Fatma and Ali Cezzaroglu, appellants pro se. Palumbo Renaud & DeAppolonio, L.L.C., attorneys for respondent (Adam J. Colicchio, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Plaintiffs appeal a December 5, 2014 order dismissing their appeal of the Borough of Roselle's (the Borough's) tax assessment on their home for the 2013 tax year. Plaintiffs specifically argue that the Tax Court judge erroneously accorded deference to the Borough's assessment and did not accord sufficient weight to plaintiffs' expert witness's testimony. We affirm for the reasons stated in the thorough and well-reasoned opinion of Judge Joshua D. Novin of the Tax Court. We add the following comments.
We "generally defer to the Tax Court's expertise and limit [our] review to a determination of whether the Tax Court came to its decision in an arbitrary fashion and whether its findings of fact are supported by substantial credible evidence." Little Egg Harbor Twp. v. Bonsangue, 316 N.J. Super. 271, 285 (App. Div. 1998) (citations omitted). Because the Tax Court has "special expertise," its findings will not be disturbed unless they are arbitrary or lack substantial evidentiary support in the record. Yilmaz, Inc. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 390 N.J. Super. 435, 443 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 192 N.J. 69 (2007).
In this case, we agree with Judge Joshua Novin's well-reasoned opinion that because plaintiffs' expert real estate appraiser presented an inadequate and unreliable opinion, plaintiffs did not present evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of the Borough's assessment, and we adopt it here. We do not address any of plaintiffs' remaining arguments because they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION