Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. City of Perth Amboy

New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division


December 1, 1989

CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
CITY OF PERTH AMBOY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

On appeal from Final Judgment of the Tax Court of New Jersey, which is reported at 10 N.J. Tax. 114 (1988).

Coleman, Brody and Muir.

Per Curiam

[237 NJSuper Page 280]

The City of Perth Amboy appeals from a judgment of the Tax Court. The Tax Court judge framed the issue of the case as whether the real property at plaintiff's refinery in Perth Amboy was, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4-23, properly assessed for local tax purposes for the tax years of 1984 and 1985, and, if not, what the appropriate assessments should be. The judge concluded the City had over-assessed the real property. He set the assessable values, in the aggregate, as:

1984 1985

Land $3,426,000 Land $2,964,300

Improvement 54,191,000 Improvement 45,189,400

---------- ----------

Total $57,617,000 Total $48,153,700

The City, on this appeal, argues:

POINT I: CHEVRON FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS BURDEN OF PROOF TO ESTABLISH BY COMPETENT, DEFINITE AND POSITIVE TESTIMONY

[237 NJSuper Page 281]

THAT ITS REFINERY COULD ONLY PRODUCE ASPHALT IN THE FUTURE. AS A RESULT, VALUATIONS BASED UPON THIS CONCEPT ARE ERRONEOUS AND SHOULD BE SET ASIDE.

POINT II: CHEVRON'S EXPERT APPRAISER ERRONEOUSLY VALUED A GREAT PART OF THE REFINERY'S IMPROVEMENTS BY UNORTHODOX AND UNACCEPTABLE PROCEDURES AND HIS RESULTING VALUATIONS WERE ERRONEOUSLY ACCEPTED BY THE TRIAL COURT.

These contentions raise no issue as to the assessable value of the land. Thus, our review relates only to the assessable value of the improvements.

We have analyzed the record in light of the contentions and applicable principles of law. We find the City's contentions clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A), (E).

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons set forth in Judge Andrew's comprehensive written opinion.*fn1

Affirmed.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.