From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sudler Lakewood Land v. Lakewood TP

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Jan 31, 2001
19 N.J. Tax 305 (Tax 2001)

Opinion

Argued January 10, 2001

Decided January 31, 2001.

Before Judges KEEFE and STEINBERG.

On appeal from the Tax Court of New Jersey, Docket No. 2491-98.

Anthony Mancuso, argued the cause for appellant ( Starkey, Kelly, Blaney White, attorneys; Mr. Mancuso, of counsel and on the brief).

Bruce H. Snyder, argued the cause for respondent ( Lasser Hochman, L.L.C., attorneys; Mr. Snyder, on the brief).



Lakewood Township appeals from a determination of the Tax Court, after trial, that the taxpayer, Sudler Lakewood Land, L.L.C., (the taxpayer) is entitled to a farmland assessment on two lots owned by it. The issues raised on appeal are that the trial court erred in finding that the taxpayer met the income requirements of the Farmland Assessment Act, and also erred in concluding that the taxpayer's activity on the property was not prohibited by Lakewood's zoning ordinances.

Initially, we note that factual determinations made by a trial judge are considered binding on appeal if they are supported by adequate, substantial and credible evidence. Rova Farms Resort v. Investors Ins. Co. of America, 65 N.J. 474 , 484, 323 A.2d 495 (1974). We may not disturb the factual findings of the trial judge "unless we are convinced that they are manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice." Ibid. In that context, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and conclude that the Tax Court's judge's findings of fact are amply supported by substantial evidence in the record, giving due deference to the judge's ability to determine the credibility of the witnesses. Accordingly, we accept them.

Having accepted the factual determinations of the judge, we have carefully considered the record, the arguments of counsel, the briefs filed, and the applicable law and conclude that the legal arguments made are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Francine I. Axelrad in her well-reasoned opinion which is published at 18 N.J.Tax 451 (1999).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Sudler Lakewood Land v. Lakewood TP

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Jan 31, 2001
19 N.J. Tax 305 (Tax 2001)
Case details for

Sudler Lakewood Land v. Lakewood TP

Case Details

Full title:SUDLER LAKEWOOD LAND, L.L.C., AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO C.P. LAKEWOOD…

Court:Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

Date published: Jan 31, 2001

Citations

19 N.J. Tax 305 (Tax 2001)

Citing Cases

Society of Holy Child v. Summit

Our holding in Cheyenne Corp. has been subsequently adopted and applied by the Tax Court. See, e.g., Sudler…

Sinopoli v. Borough of Rumson

The purpose of the Farmland Assessment Act was to preserve the family farm and maintain open spaces. See…