**TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY**

**Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Justice Building 495 MLK Boulevard**  **, 4 th**  **Floor** M ICHAEL J. DUFFY **Newark , New Jersey 0**  **7102**

**- 0690**  JUDGE **( 609**  **) 815** 

**- 2922**  **Ext. 54580**

**October 18, 2023**  **Vincent Bullaro,** pro se **5169 Berkshire Valley Road Oak Ridge, New Jersey 07438** 
**Lawrence P. Cohen, Esquire**  **Laver y, Selvaggi, Abromitis & Cohen, P.C.**  **1001 Route 517 Hackettstown, New Jersey 07840** 
**Re: Vincent**  **Bullaro v. Jefferson Township Docket No. 011008-2021**  **Dear Mr. Bullaro and Mr. Cohen: This letter shall constitute the court’s opinion**  **in connection with it**  **s order to show cause why the Complaint should not be dismissed as untimely, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:51A-9.**  **Plaintiff Vincent**  **Bullaro filed written opposition on July 17, 2023,**  **and a hearing was held on September**  **12, 2023, in which plaintiff testified. For the reasons stated herein, the Complaint is dismissed.**  **Procedural History For tax year** 

**2020, plaintiff**  **filed appeals with the Morris County Board of Taxation for three properties located in Jefferson Township: Block 357, Lot 1; Block 364, Lot 9**  **; and Block**  **336, Lot 42. On July 23, 2020, the county board issued a judgment for each property and upheld the assessments. Each judgment included a judgment code, “5C Taxes/munc. charges not paid.”**  **The county board judgments were mailed to plaintiff on July 27, 2020.** **2**

**On July 13, 2021 , pl**  **aintiff filed a Complaint with**  **the Tax Court, contesting the July 2020, county board judgments. The pleading is dated “8/5/20” and include**  **s a handwritten note from**  **plaintiff , which reads:**  **I talked to Ashley –**  **Recommended I [resend] my tax appeal –**  **Have no**  **t hear anything from [ the**  **Tax Court]. [Had] to contact anyone for help. Thank you.**  **Plaintiff did not**  **include a**  **proof of service**  **for the Complaint, pursuant to R.**  **8:5-5, or the**  **required filing fee**  **, pursuant to R.**  **8:12. On July 20, 2021, the Tax Court returned the deficient pleading to**  **plaintiff**

**, pursuant to R.**  **1:5- 6(c).**  **On January 3, 2022, the Tax Court dismissed the Complaint.**  **A year later, o n**  **January 4, 2023**  **, the court received a letter from plaintiff**  **asking that the case be reopened**  **. In his letter, plaintiff**  **explained that the “fee was not provided [due] to a misunderstanding with court staff” and advised that he “was working with tax assess**  **or and recommend**  **ed I reopen [the] matter.” The fee was paid on January 5,**  **2023, and the Complaint**  **reinstated on January 6, 2023** 

**. 1** 
**On June 14, 2023, this court entered an order to show cause why the Complaint should not**  **be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as untimely filed. On July 17, 2023, plaintiff**  **filed written opposition to the order to show cause. Notably,**  **plaintiff wrote that he originally mailed**  **a complaint on August 5,**  **2020, and contacted the Tax Court because his check**  **went uncashed.** 
**In his letter, plaintiff**  **wr ites that after learning that the court did not have his**  **appeal, he “copied**  **and sent original receipt from [the United States Post Office]” to the Tax Co urt**  **, which pl**  **aintiff asserts was around**  **July 13, 2021.**

**1 On April 14, 2023, the parties attempted to file a stipulation of settlement. On April 17, 2023,**  **counsel for defendant was notified by the court that the stipulation of settlement was de ficient.** **3**

**At the hearin g,**  **plaintiff argued that it was unfair to dismiss his complaint a**  **t such a late date and that the court should**  **show leniency.**  **Plaintiff was unable to provide the court with a copy**  **of the postal service receipt, since plaintiff**  **alleges he lost his file of records pertaining to this**  **litigation. Analysis**  **N.J.S.A. 54:51A-9 provides, in part, that a “complaint seeking review of adjudication o r**  **judgment of the county board of taxation shall be filed within 45 days of the service of the judgment.” N.J.S.A. 54:51A-**  **9(a)**

**. “Service of the judgment of the County Board of Taxation,**  **when by mail, shall be deemed complete as of the date the**  **judgment is mailed, subject to**  **the provisions of**  **R. 1:3-3.”**  **R. 8:4-**  **1(a)(2). For the period at issue, court rules allowed an additional**  **3 days for service by ordinary mail. R.**  **1:3-3 (2020). 2**  **In this case, plaintiff**  **had forty**

**- eight (48) days to file an appeal with the Tax Court**  **from July 27,**  **2020, the date the**  **county board judgments w ere mailed** 

**. 3**  **Th e**  **appeal period end date fell**  **on Sunday, September 13, 2020, but was extended by court rule to Monday, September 14, 2020.**
**R. 1:3-1.**  **To be timely, the Complaint ha d to**  **be filed, not merely postmarked,**  **on or before September 14, 2020.**  **Mayfair Holding Corp. v. T**  **wp. of North Bergen**  **, 4 N.J. Tax 38, 40 (Tax**  **1982) (citing**  **Prospect Hill Apts. V. Boro ugh**  **of Flemington, 1 N.J. Tax 224, 226 (Tax 1979)).**  **The statutory scheme establishing this court’s jurisdiction is “one with which c ontinu**  **ing strict and unerring compliance must be observed.” McMahon v. City of Newark, 195 N.J.**  **526,**

**2 Effective April 1,**  **2022, R.**  **1:3- 3 was amended to allo**  **w an additional 5 days for service by**  **ordinary mail.**

**3 Due to the COVID** 

**- 19 pandemic, the**  **appeal deadline for local property**  **tax case s**  **for tax year**  **2020 was extended to July 1, 2020. O’Connell v. Tp. of Neptune, 32 N.J. 1 (2020). Since t**  **h e**  **COVID**

**- 19 extension period expired prior to the county board judgments herein, the standard 45**  **days + 3 days filing deadline is applicable here.** **4**

**543 (2008) . Strict a**  **dherence to statutory filing deadlines is of particul ar concern in tax matters**  **, given “the exigencies of taxation and the administration of**  **local government.”**  **F.M.C. Stores**  **v. Borough**  **of Morris Plain s,**  **100 N.J. 418, 424 (1985). Thus, “[f]ailure to file**  **a timely appeal is a fatal**  **jurisdictional defect. ”**  **Id. a**  **t 425. A Complaint that is even one day late must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.**  **Prospect Hill Apts. , supra, 1 N.J. Tax at 226.**  **The court has no record of a Complaint filed by plaintiff**  **on or about August 5, 2020.** 
**In addition, th**  **e court has no record of**  **ever receiving plaintiff**  **’s post office receipt**  **, which plaintiff** 

**a sserts**  **was mailed**  **to the court in July 2021. The**  **Complain t filed on July 13, 2021, but dated**  **“8/5/20, ”**  **is insufficient proof of an August 2020 filing. Moreover, the fact that**  **plaintiff concedes**  **that his initial check went uncashed, only supports this court’s finding that it did not rec eive a**  **timely complaint. The only Complain**  **t received by the court**  **was received and filed on July 13,**  **2021, and is untimely under N.J.S.A. 54:51A-9. This court does not have any discretion to extend**  **the appeal period by even one day. Conclusion**  **For the aforementioned reasons, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed as untimely**  **. Judgment reflecting this memorandum opinion will be entered accordingly.**  **Very truly yours,** 

**Hon. Michael J. Duffy, J.T. C.**