From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DeBold v. Township of Monroe

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
May 11, 1971
114 N.J. Super. 502 (App. Div. 1971)

Opinion

Argued April 27, 1971 —

Decided May 11, 1971.

On appeal from the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Middlesex County.

Before Judges LEWIS, MATTHEWS and MINTZ.

Mr. Stanley Tannenbaum argued the cause for appellants ( Messsr. Reibel, Isaac, Tannenbaum Epstein, attorneys).

Mr. Richard S. Cohen argued the cause for respondents Township of Monroe and Joseph Indyk.

Mr. Joseph L. Stonaker argued the cause for respondent Monroe Planning Board. Messrs. Hutt and Berkow filed a brief amicus curiae for New Jersey Builders Association ( Mr. Stewart M. Hutt, of counsel and on the brief, appeared; Mr. Richard W. Kracht, on the brief).


The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in the reported opinion of Judge Furman, 110 N.J. Super. 287.

This affirmance is without prejudice to plaintiffs' right to apply to the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Monroe for variances from the 1957 zoning ordinance for their respective parcels of realty.


Summaries of

DeBold v. Township of Monroe

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
May 11, 1971
114 N.J. Super. 502 (App. Div. 1971)
Case details for

DeBold v. Township of Monroe

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM DEBOLD, GEORGE FULLER AND FREDERICK SMITHLINE, TRUSTEES IN…

Court:Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

Date published: May 11, 1971

Citations

114 N.J. Super. 502 (App. Div. 1971)
277 A.2d 404

Citing Cases

Manalapan Holding Co. v. Hamilton Tp. Plan. Bd.

However, where, as here, an employee makes a good faith representation to an individual, an estoppel may not…

East Wind Realty, Ltd. v. Board of Adjustment of Township of Wall

That argument also is groundless. Prevailing law is as stated in Debold v. Tp. of Monroe, 110 N.J. Super.…