Case ID: nj-super_90/html/0126-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DOMINICK DeCARLO AND VISIDOR CORP., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. BOROUGH OF CLIFFSIDE PARK, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
    Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
    Argued January 11, 1966
    Decided January 17, 1966.
    
      Before Judges Goldmans, Eoley and Collesteb.
    
      Mr. Joseph A. Marotta, Jr. argued the cause for appellants.
    
      Mr. Paul L. Basils argued the cause for respondent (Messrs. Basile .& Delchop, attorneys).
   Per Curiam.

The opinion of the Law Division in this case is reported at 86 N. J. Super. 169 (1965). The borough concedes that its installation of the directional sign in question did not comply with A. J. 8. A. 39 :L-197(1) (c) or A. J. 8. A. 39 :4r-8. It was therefore guilty of active wrongdoing, for which it is answerable for such damages as may have been proximately caused to the corporate plaintiff in its tavern and restaurant business. The judgment is reversed and the case remanded to the Law Division to determine the issue of damages.