Case ID: nj-super_219/html/0011-01.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

ETHAN ALLEN SMITH, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. THE BOROUGH OF BARNEGAT LIGHT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
    Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
    Argued June 9, 1987
    Decided June 10, 1987.
    Before Judges KING, DEIGHAN and HAVEY.
    
      Jerry J. Dasti, argued the cause for appellants (Dasti & Murphy, attorneys; Jerry J. Dasti on the brief).
    
      Frank A. Buczynski, Jr., argued the cause for respondents (Shackleton, Hazeltine and Buczynski, attorneys; Frank A. Buczynski on the letter brief).
   PER CURIAM.

This matter comes before us by way of appellants’ motion for a stay pending appeal. By separate order we have denied that motion. .We have accelerated the appeal for purposes of argument and disposition because it involves an election matter. See R. 1:2—5(1).

On our own motion we summarily affirm the judgment below substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Serpentelli in his written opinion of June 4, 1987, reported at 219 N.J.Super. 231 (Law Div.1987). See R. 2:8-3(b).