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.

City of Newark v. Nate's Transportation

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


October 24, 2007

CITY OF NEWARK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
NATE'S TRANSPORTATION, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, L-7817-05.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Argued October 15, 2007

Before Judges Weissbard and S.L. Reisner.

Defendant Nate's Transportation, Inc. appeals from an order dated October 6, 2006, granting summary judgment to the City of Newark (City), ejecting defendant from City-owned property.

Judge Simonelli issued an oral opinion on October 6, 2006. We affirm.

These are the most pertinent facts. Defendant owns a bus company located adjacent to a City owned lot. In 1994, defendant obtained written temporary permission to park buses on the City's property during renovations to defendant's premises. That agreement also contemplated that in the future, defendant would be offered a long-term lease. On September 28, 1994, defendant obtained a variance to park buses on the City-owned lot. However, the record contains no evidence that defendant actually obtained a long-term lease. No such lease appears in the record and, more to the point, there is no evidence that the City Council approved such a lease, as would be required under N.J.S.A. 40A:12-14. Apparently, defendant nonetheless continued to use the property to park buses for the next ten years, without paying rent to the City. In 2005, the City notified defendant that it had designated the property for redevelopment and demanded that defendant vacate the property.

In December 2005, the City filed an action for ejectment seeking to preclude defendant from continuing to park buses on the City-owned property.*fn1 In an oral opinion, Judge Simonelli granted the City's motion for summary judgment based on her conclusion that defendant failed to prove the existence of a properly-executed long-term lease for the disputed property and failed to demonstrate that the City Council had authorized such a lease, as required by N.J.S.A. 40A:12-14.

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that there were no material facts in dispute and that summary judgment was properly granted. Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995); Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Boylan, 307 N.J. Super. 162, 167 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 154 N.J. 608 (1998). Defendant's appellate contentions are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm for the reasons stated in Judge Simonelli's opinion.

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.