Continental Paper Co. v. Village of Ridgefield Park

32 Citing cases

  1. Wickes Asset Management, Inc. v. Dupuis, 87-2103 (1993)

    C.A. No. 87-2103, 87-4753, 89-1204, 89-5493, 91-7766, 92-1672, 92-1671 (consolidated) (R.I. Super. Apr. 28, 1993)

    We need go no further than the Piscataway jurisdiction, New Jersey, to find case law disfavoring the use of this raw ratio data in setting property assessments, whether by assessors or the courts. Continental Paper Co. v. Village of Ridgefield Park, 300 A.2d 850 (N.J. Super.App. Div. 1973) and Murnick v. Asbury Park, 471 A.2d 1196 (N.J. 1984), make it perfectly clear that the test for disproportionate taxation, as in Rhode Island, is one of discriminatory purpose, not discriminatory effect. That is, provided a town's assessor uses the same percentage of value as its assessment figure for all properties in a given year, the analysis is at an end.

  2. Little Ferry Bor. v. Vecchiotti

    7 N.J. Tax 389 (Tax 1985)   Cited 26 times
    Noting that "unless a subsequent event is clearly barred by considerations such as remoteness in time or location, or is virtually totally dissimilar to the property in question, the mere fact that it took place subsequent to the assessment date should not bar it from consideration in the valuation process"

    The chapter 123 ratios were 106% in 1979, 98% in 1980, and 96% in 1981. The elements of a Kents action ( In re Appeal of Kents, 34 N.J. 21, 166 A.2d 763 (1961)) were succinctly set forth in Continental Paper Co. v. Ridgefield Park, 122 N.J. Super. 446, 300 A.2d 850 (App.Div. 1973): In order to make out a case of actionable discrimination, these elements must be proved: (1) that the real property generally in the municipality was assessed at less than true value; (2) what the common assessment level was and (3) the true value of the subject property upon which the common level percentage would operate.

  3. Riorano, Inc. v. Weymouth TP

    4 N.J. Tax 550 (Tax 1982)   Cited 23 times
    Noting that "problems relating to size and assemblage cost are overcome by using the sales of the entire subject property as was done by the appraiser."

    Each plaintiff also claimed "its full rights under" the provisions of N.J.S.A. 54:2-40.4 et seq., L. 1973, c. 123, commonly known as chapter 123. The court's determinations in these cases are circumscribed by Continental Paper Co. v. Ridgefield Park, 122 N.J. Super. 446, 300 A.2d (App.Div. 1973), in which the Appellate Division said: In order to make out a case of actionable discrimination, these elements must be proved: (1) that the real property generally in the municipality was assessed at less than true value; (2) what the common assessment level was, and (3) the true value of the subject property upon which the common level percentage would operate.

  4. Sunshine Biscuits, Inc. v. Sayreville

    4 N.J. Tax 486 (Tax 1982)   Cited 26 times
    Concluding that "[t]he market for a particular parcel of real estate consists of the potential purchasers, unlimited by a specific geographical location."

    Id. at 29, 166 A.2d 763. Following Kents, the Appellate Division in Continental Paper Co. v. Ridgeville Park, 122 N.J. Super. 446, 300 A.2d 850 (App.Div. 1973), held that in order to establish a case of actionable discrimination the following elements must be proved:. . . (1) that the real property generally in the municipality was assessed at less than true value; (2) what the common assessment level was and (3) the true value of the subject property upon which the common level percentage would operate.

  5. 525 Realty Hold. Co. v. Hasbrouck Heights

    3 N.J. Tax 206 (Tax 1981)   Cited 21 times
    In 525 Hold. Co. v. Hasbrouck Heights, 3 N.J. Tax 206 (Tax Ct. 1981), Judge Evers was confronted with substantially the same issue as here.

    Prior to the advent of chapter 123 a party was often hard-pressed to prove its claim of discrimination. The elements of such proofs were succinctly set forth in Continental Paper Co. v. Ridgefield Part, 122 N.J. Super. 446, 300 A.2d 850 (App.Div. 1973). In order to make out a case of actionable discrimination, these elements must be proved: (1) that the real property generally in the municipality was assessed at less than true value; (2) what the common assessment level was and (3) the true value of the subject property upon which the common level percentage would operate.

  6. Skytop Gardens, Inc. v. Sayreville

    3 N.J. Tax 187 (Tax 1981)   Cited 9 times

    (citations omitted) If there is no common level shown and there is none which the assessor is endeavoring to apply, and the assessment is substantially higher than the "average ratio" determined by the Director of Taxation, the "average ratio" may be applied under Kents, and the assessment reduced by that proportion. [ Continental Paper Co. v. Ridgefield Park Vil., 122 N.J. Super. 446, 450-451, 300 A.2d 850 (App.Div. 1973)]. In Continental Paper Co. discrimination relief was denied because there was no evidential foundation in the record to support a finding of a common level of assessment, nor was there a showing that there was no common level, in which event the Director's ratio could be enlisted.

  7. Atlantic City v. Moltich

    3 N.J. Tax 147 (Tax 1981)   Cited 5 times

    In re Appeals of Kents, 34 N.J. 21, 23, 166 A.2d 763 (1961). The evidence required to establish a case of actionable discrimination entitling a taxpayer to relief was set forth in Continental Paper Co. v. Ridgefield Park, 122 N.J. Super. 446, 300 A.2d 850 (1973), as follows: In order to make out a case of actionable discrimination these elements must be proved: (1) that the real property generally in the municipality was assessed at less than true value; (2) what the common level was; and, (3) the true value of the subject property upon which the common level percentage would operate.

  8. Diament v. Fort Lee

    3 N.J. Tax 70 (Tax 1981)   Cited 11 times
    Noting parties stipulated the income approach be used to assess the Sands Casino

    This rule has been followed faithfully. See Matawan v. Tree Haven Apartments, Inc., 108 N.J. Super. 111, 260 A.2d 235 (App.Div. 1969); Continental Paper Co. v. Ridgefield Park, 122 N.J. Super. 446, 300 A.2d 850 (App.Div. 1973), certif. den. 63 N.J. 328, 307 A.2d 101 (1973), and Anaconda Co. v. Perth Amboy, 157 N.J. Super. 42, 384 A.2d 531 (App.Div. 1978), certif.

  9. Devonshire Develop. Assoc. v. Hackensack

    2 N.J. Tax 392 (Tax 1981)   Cited 8 times

    ( In re Appeal of Kents, 34 N.J. 21, 166 A.2d 763 (1961)). The elements of a Kents action were succinctly set forth in Continental Paper Co. v. Ridgefield Park, 122 N.J. Super. 446, 300 A.2d 850 (App.Div. 1973): . . .

  10. Piscataway Assoc., Inc. v. Tp. of Piscataway

    139 N.J. Super. 276 (App. Div. 1976)   Cited 6 times

    The assessments and the judgments of the Division were as follows: 1971 1972 1973 Assessments $4,807,900 $5,010,400 $15,031,200 Judgments appealed from 4,572,835 4,572,835 10,558,022 The Division's judgment was on two grounds: (1) the taxpayer had established its claim of "discrimination" (see In re Appeals of Kents, 2124 Atlantic Ave., 34 N.J. 21 (1961); Continental Paper Co. v. Ridgefield Park, 122 N.J. Super. 446, 450-451 (App.Div.), certif. den. 63 N.J. 328 (1973)), and therefore application of the average ratio of the Director of Taxation was justified; (2) reduction in the true value of the property was appropriate.