Case ID: nj-super_148/html/0249-01.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

SOCIETY FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS, INC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. THE TOWNSHIP OF MAHWAH, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, AND COMMUNITY DOG CONTROL, INC., AND TOWN OF KEARNY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS AND CROSS-APPELLANTS, AND THE BOROUGH OF BERGENFIELD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
    Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
    Argued February 23, 1977
    Decided March 9, 1977.
    Before Judges Lynch, Milmed and Antell.
    
      Mr. John N. Malyslca argued the cause for appellants (Messrs. Meyner, Landis & Verdón, attorneys).
    
      Mr. Kevin W. Funabashi argued the cause for respondent Township of Mahwah (Messrs Breslin & Breslin, attorneys).
    
      Mr. Gregory S. Baxter argued the cause for respondent and cross-appellant Community Dog Control, Inc. (Messrs. Sailing, Gassert & O’Mara, attorneys).
    
      Mr. Norman A. Boyle, Jr. argued the cause for respondent and cross-appellant Town of Kearny.
    
      Mr. Gabriel M. Ambrosio argued the cause for respondent Township of Lyndhurst (Messrs. Ambrosio & Ambrosio, attorneys).
   Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Law Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Pressler’s opinion reported at 138 N. J. Super. 322 (Law Div. 1975).

We note that in the trial judge’s opinion the question of the viability of commercial contracts into which the Hudson-type municipalities have entered was reserved with leave granted to plaintiffs to move, if they so chose, with respect to any such contracts. 138 N. J. Super. at 342-343. Subsequent to Judge Pressler’s opinion plaintiffs filed a stipulation waiving any right they may have to challenge such contracts. The issue is therefore no longer in the case.