Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): DEPRIVED JET URBAN OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL WHEN IT DETERMINED THAT JET URBAN DID NOT SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM FOR BREACH OF THE ABATEMENT AGREEMENT. We have carefully reviewed the record and we conclude that these contentions are clearly without merit, R. 2:11— 3(e)(1)(E), and we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Small in his oral opinion. The City had the right to tax the addition. Plaintiff contends that the City taxed the abated property through the device of an excessive assessment of the addition. Thus, the core of plaintiffs position is the contention that the addition, which the City had the right to tax, was overassessed. The remedy for that contention is a tax appeal. See Tru Urban Renewal Corp. v. City of Newark, supra, 11 N.J.Tax at 70 (<HOLDING>); see also N.J.S.A. 40:55C-65 providing that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that challenge to tax exemption could not be pursued solely on taxpayer basis because it did not involve expenditure of tax funds (B) holding that the granting or denial of an urban renewal tax exemption is reviewable by tax appeal (C) holding that in some rcases there is an adequate remedy at law for an attack on an illegal or unconstitutional tax through the tax appeal board (D) holding that state legislature should determine whether to cure discriminatory tax by enforcing tax as to all or forgiving tax in its entirety (E) holding one who claims tax exemption has burden of showing entitlement to exemption
Output (English): holding that challenge to tax exemption could not be pursued solely on taxpayer basis because it did not involve expenditure of tax funds