Catalano v. Pemberton Tp. Bd. of Adjustment

11 Citing cases

  1. Pennington County v. Moore

    525 N.W.2d 257 (S.D. 1994)   Cited 8 times
    Rejecting acquiescence defense where challenge was brought over twenty years after initial attempts to enact ordinance where county failed to comply with mandatory notice and hearing requirements

    Id. at 254 (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). See also Catalano v. Pemberton Township Bd. of Adjustment, 60 N.J. Super. 82, 158 A.2d 403, 410 (1960) (where zoning ordinance was enacted in violation of statutory procedures, defenses of estoppel and laches cannot be invoked to give vitality to an ordinance that never came into legal being). Further, we cannot conclude that Moores deliberately delayed bringing their challenge in order to prejudice the rights of County or the public.

  2. Brunetti v. Borough of New Milford

    68 N.J. 576 (N.J. 1975)   Cited 209 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that formulae for calculating rent increases that rely on CPI or fixed percentage rates "bear a rational relation to the legitimate municipal purpose of stabilizing rental levels"

    These exceptions included cases involving (1) important and novel constitutional questions; (2) informal or ex parte determinations of legal questions by administrative officials; and (3) important public rather than private interests which require adjudication or clarification.Holloway v. Pennsauken Twp., 12 N.J. 371, 374-75 (1953) (allegations that an ordinance authorizing improvements and assessment was unconstitutional and that fundamental rights of notice and hearing had been violated were not barred by statutory time limit and the doctrine of laches); McKenna v. N.J. HighwayAuthority, 19 N.J. 270, 276, 282 (1955) (allegation that imposition of certain highway tolls was arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional); Oldfield v. Stoeco Homes, Inc., 26 N.J. 246, 262 (1958) (allegation that extending time of performance of certain conditions of a deed was a donation of public lands in violation of a constitutional prohibition); Catalano v. Pemberton Tp. Bd. of Adjustment, 60 N.J. Super. 82, 95-96 (App.Div. 1960) (allegation that township's failure to follow fundamental statutory requirements in enacting zoning ordinance denied plaintiffs' constitutional right of due process); Nelson v. So. Brunswick Planning Bd., 84 N.J. Super. 265, 274-75 (App.Div. 1964) (allegation that planning board's approval of a proposed subdivision infringed upon plaintiffs' right to equal protection was a sufficient constitutional question to avoid dismissal for untimely appeal despite fact that appellants did not show diligence in their efforts to secure relief).Schack v. Trimble, supra, 28 N.J. at 49-50; Olsen v.Borough of Fair Haven, 64 N.J. Super. 90 (App.Div. 196 0).

  3. Willoughby v. Planning Bd.

    306 N.J. Super. 266 (App. Div. 1997)   Cited 52 times
    Reversing the denial of an enlargement

    Our courts have found a sufficient public interest to justify an extension of time for filing a prerogative writ action in a variety of circumstances, including challenges to the validity of ordinances on the ground that they were not adopted in conformity with the applicable statutory requirements. See, id. at 560-61, 538 A.2d 362; Cervase v. Kawaida Towers, Inc., 124 N.J. Super. 547, 569, 308 A.2d 47 (Ch.Div. 1973), aff'd o.b., 129 N.J. Super. 124, 322 A.2d 477 (App.Div. 1974); Wolf v. Borough of Shrewsbury, supra, 182 N.J. Super. at 296, 440 A.2d 1150; Catalano v. Pemberton Township Bd. of Adjustment, 60 N.J. Super. 82, 95-97, 158 A.2d 403 (App.Div. 1960). We conclude that the trial court erred in ruling that plaintiffs' challenge to the ordinance rezoning Wolfson's property was a private rather than a public dispute.

  4. Damurjian v. Board of Adjustment

    299 N.J. Super. 84 (App. Div. 1997)   Cited 9 times
    Finding a zoning ordinance unconstitutionally vague under the United States and New Jersey Constitutions because it provided "no method" for determining whether applicants satisfied the ordinance

    Brunetti, supra, 68 N.J. at 587, 350 A.2d 19. See Catalano v. Pemberton Tp. Bd. of Adj., 60 N.J. Super. 82, 96, 158 A.2d 403 (App.Div. 1960) ("even prior to the amendment of the rule by R.R. 4:88-15(c), it was recognized that cases in which ultra vires acts, or acts affecting the constitutional rights of a plaintiff, were found to exist were not barred by the time limitation in the rule"). See also Ballantyne House Associates v. Newark, 269 N.J. Super. 322, 330, 635 A.2d 551 (App.Div. 1993) ("Actions in lieu of prerogative writs challenging the constitutionality of municipal ordinances have long been afforded the benefit of such enlargements of time.").

  5. Edgewater Park v. Edgewater Park Housing Auth

    187 N.J. Super. 588 (Law Div. 1982)   Cited 16 times
    Stating that irregular actions of municipal bodies may be ratified

    Our decisions require strict compliance with these procedures. Catalano v. Pemberton Tp. Bd. of Adj., 60 N.J. Super. 82 (App.Div. 1960); Masnick v. Cedar Grove, 99 N.J. Super. 436 (Law Div. 1968). A meeting, once started, may be adjourned by a governing body without further publication.

  6. Pop Realty Corp. v. Springfield Board of Adjustment

    176 N.J. Super. 441 (Law Div. 1980)   Cited 9 times
    Discussing planning prior to the enaction of the Municipal Law Use Law

    Grogan v. DeSapio, 11 N.J. 308, 322 (1953). The presumption of regularity which attaches to municipal actions is not conclusive and may be eradicated by affirmative proof that the ordinance was not enacted in obedience to requisite formalities, Catalano v. Pemberton Tp. Bd. of Adj., 60 N.J. Super. 82 (App.Div. 1960). That case also holds that estoppel and laches were not available as a defense.

  7. Houman v. Mayor Coun. Bor. Pompton Lakes

    155 N.J. Super. 129 (Law Div. 1977)   Cited 46 times
    Concluding that public body may subsequently cure and ratify procedurally infirm agreement that it has authority to make

    There is a presumption that a public body has followed statutory procedural requirements, and the burden is on plaintiffs to present affirmative proof that the borough failed to comply with the requisite facilities. Staats v. Washington, 45 N.J.L. 318 (Sup.Ct. 1883), aff'd 46 N.J.L. 209 (1884); Catalano v. Pemberton Tp. Bd. of Adj., 60 N.J. Super. 82 (App.Div. 1960). Therefore, it is not necessary for the court to determine whether the mayor's statement substantially complied with these statutory requirements.

  8. Leimpeter's Disposal Service, Inc. v. Mayor of Borough of Carteret

    121 N.J. Super. 18 (Law Div. 1972)   Cited 3 times

    Schack v. Trimble, 28 N.J. 40 (1958); Oldfield v. Stoeco Homes, Inc., 26 N.J. 246 (1958); McKenna v. N.J. Highway Authority, 19 N.J. 270 (1955); Holloway v. Pennsauken Tp., 12 N.J. 371 (1953); Nelson v. South Brunswick Planning Bd., 84 N.J. Super. 265 (App.Div. 1964); Catalano v. Pemberton Tp. Bd. of Adjustment, 60 N.J. Super. 82 (App.Div. 1960). Though the comment to subsection (c) speaks of a "substantial or novel" constitutional question, more recent cases construing the exception have permitted relaxation whenever a credible constitutional argument is advanced.

  9. Kent v. Borough of Mendham

    111 N.J. Super. 67 (App. Div. 1970)   Cited 7 times

    Cases involving substantial constitutional issues have been held to qualify for relaxation of the rule. See Schack v. Trimble, 28 N.J. 40 (1958); Oldfield v. Stoeco Homes, Inc., 26 N.J. 246 (1956); McKenna v. N.J. Highway Authority, 19 N.J. 270 (1955); Catalano v. Pemberton Tp. Bd. of Adjustment, 60 N.J. Super. 82 (App.Div. 1960). While we recognize plaintiffs' standing to maintain the present suit, see Mulligan v. New Brunswick, 83 N.J. Super. 185 (Law Div. 1964), we are in agreement that, as to them, no substantial constitutional issues were presented.

  10. Weinstein v. City of Newark

    100 N.J. Super. 199 (Law Div. 1968)   Cited 8 times

    Such defense cannot be used to give vitality to an ordinance which never came into legal being or to an act which may require an ordinance for it to be validly performed. Catalano v. Pemberton Tp. Bd. of Adjustment, 60 N.J. Super. 82, 97 ( App. Div. 1960). Plaintiff as a licensed driver seeks to enforce a right to use and traverse the streets of a municipality without the imposition of allegedly illegal prohibitions or limitations.