From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dupree v. City

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Feb 24, 2003
175 N.J. 449 (N.J. 2003)

Summary

maintaining commercial/residential distinction

Summary of this case from Luchejko v. the City of Hoboken

Opinion

A-10 September Term 2002

Argued January 21, 2003

Decided February 24, 2003

On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 351 N.J. Super. 237 (2002).

CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES COLEMAN, LONG, VERNIERO, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI and ALBIN join in this opinion.

Mitchell J. Makowicz, Jr., argued the cause for appellant (Blume, Goldfaden, Berkowitz, Donnelly, Fried Forte, attorneys).

Barry A. Knopf argued the cause for respondent (Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann Knopf, attorneys; Mr. Knopf and Albert L. Cohn, of counsel; Audra DePaolo, on the brief).


The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Newman's opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at 351 N.J. Super. 237 (2002).


Summaries of

Dupree v. City

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Feb 24, 2003
175 N.J. 449 (N.J. 2003)

maintaining commercial/residential distinction

Summary of this case from Luchejko v. the City of Hoboken
Case details for

Dupree v. City

Case Details

Full title:ISA DUPREE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE CITY OF CLIFTON, Defendant, and…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Feb 24, 2003

Citations

175 N.J. 449 (N.J. 2003)
815 A.2d 960

Citing Cases

Luchejko v. the City of Hoboken

We did not then extend sidewalk liability to residential properties, id. at 159 n. 6, 432 A.2d 881, and have…

Luchejko v. City of Hoboken

Thus, if the property is owned for investment or business purposes, the property is classified as commercial…