Case ID: nj_34/html/0177-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JERSEY CITY ASSOCIATION FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY AND SETON HALL COLLEGE OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION (THE CITY BEING A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION), DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
    Argued January 24, 1961
    Decided February 6, 1961.
    
      
      Mr. Boberl Greenberg argued the cause for appellant.
    
      Mr. Meyer Pesin argued the cause for respondent The City of Jersey City (Mr. Ezra L. Nolan, Corporation Counsel, attorney; Mr. Meyer Pesin, of counsel).
    
      Mr. James F. X. O'Brien argued the cause for respondent Seton Hall College of Medicine and Dentistry.
   The opinion was delivered

Pee Curiam.

We certified the appeal on our motion before the Appellate Division considered it.

The summary judgment was improvidently granted. The interrogatories served by plaintiff appear at least in part to have been proper. In any event, the trial court should have adjourned defendants’ motion for summary judgment to permit plaintiff to prepare to meet it in the light of the court’s concurrent action in striking the interrogatories.

We see no merit in defendants’ attack upon plaintiff’s standing.

Litigation involving public matters should be expedited. The trial court may on application of either party fix a short date for completion of discovery and an early peremptory date thereafter for final trial.

Plaintiff has moved before us for a restraint with respect to a contract allegedly made or to be made by the city. In view of our action upon the appeal, the motion is denied without prejudice to prompt renewal before the trial court. We add, however, that insofar as plaintiff seeks to rely upon asserted non-compliance with the bidding statute, the issue is not within the pleadings. Plaintiff should amend its complaint.

The judgment is reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

For reversal and remandment—Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Jacobs, Erancis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Haneman—7.

For affirmance—Hone.