SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3547-17T2

CHRISTIAN MISSION 

JOHN 316,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. 

PASSAIC CITY,

Defendant-Respondent.

__________________________

Argued March 12, 2019 – Decided August 30, 2019

Before Judges Hoffman, Suter and Geiger.

On appeal from the Tax Court of New Jersey, Docket 

No. 013203-2013, whose opinion is reported at 30 N.J. 

Tax 357 (Tax 2018).

Tova L. Lutz argued the cause for appellant (Lutz Law 

Group, LLC, attorneys; Tova L. Lutz, of counsel and 

on the briefs; Jeffrey Zajac, on the briefs). 

Kenneth A. Porro argued the cause for respondent 

(Chasan Lamparello Mallon & Cappuzzo, PC, 

attorneys; Kenneth A. Porro, of counsel and on the 

brief; Edna J. Jordan, on the brief).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-3547-17T2

Christopher John Stracco argued the cause for amicus 

curiae Gill St. Bernards School, Inc. (Day Pitney LLP, 

attorneys; Christopher John Stracco and Jennifer Gorga 

Capone, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Christian Mission John 316 (Christian Mission) appeals the 

February 28, 2018 order of the Tax Court that denied its motion for summary

judgment and granted the cross-motion by defendant City of Passaic, the result 

of which was to dismiss Christian Mission's complaint for tax exemption for the 

2013 tax year. We affirm the Tax Court's order.

Christian Mission is a church in the City of Passaic. Its parking lot and 

church building are on lots twelve and thirteen of a specific block. In 2009, it 

purchased lot eleven in the same block. That lot contained a warehouse that 

previously was used by a commercial business. Between 2009 and 2011, 

Christian Mission used the warehouse "as an extension of its regular religious 

activities," although these "primarily" were conducted at the existing church.

Reverend Francisco Joissim certified that from 2009 to 2011, the warehouse 

"remained in its original form, essentially that of a large open space." Activities 

there included "ceremonial activities, religious services during mild weather 

months, youth rallies, women's rallies, fundraising activities, fairs and storage 

of various items associated with church functions. At all times the basement 
3

A-3547-17T2

was used for storage of church items." At some point between 2009 and 2011, 

Christian Mission applied for a tax exemption for lot eleven, having obtained 

exemption for lots twelve and thirteen in prior years. Its application was denied

and it did not appeal.

In late 2011, Christian Mission wanted to renovate the warehouse on lot 

eleven to transition it "to a formal church." It applied for, and was granted, a 

number of construction-related permits. A tax assessor for defendant certified

that as part of the reconstruction, "[t]he walls and interior [of the building were] 

stripped down to the frame, the windows [were] covered with plastic," and by 

July 2012, the "building was essentially a shell or frame . . . ." 

The reverend certified that "significant renovations" were made to the 

warehouse beginning in January 2012, and "conclude[ed] around September

2012." He also certified that "[c]ommunity religious services began sometime 

around September [2012] with formal services commenc[ing] around the time 

of Thanksgiving 2012 . . . ." The reverend noted the warehouse was used 

between January and September 2012 for religious services at the construction

site. 

These services were comprised of approximately [ten]

people, including church members who were part of the 

construction crew, and often other members and/or 

spouses joining. These services lasted approximately 
4

A-3547-17T2

[twenty] minutes . . . and concluded with [the reverend]

blessing the workers as they were about to begin their 

work day ahead.

Sometimes participants would bring food. At other times, the reverend

counseled congregants at the site. 

City inspections of the property were conducted on several dates both 

before and after Thanksgiving 2012, and continued through July 2013. These 

included inspections of the building, fire alarm and electrical and mechanical 

systems. Christian Mission was issued a temporary certificate of occupancy on 

April 15, 2013. The final certificate of occupancy was issued on July 23, 2013.

Christian Mission's application for a 2013 tax year exemption for the 

warehouse lot was denied by defendant on July 31, 2013.1 Shortly after, it filed 

a complaint in the Tax Court in which it contested both the denial of the 2013 

tax year exemption and the amount of taxes assessed.

2

In October 2017, 

Christian Mission filed a motion for summary judgment, and the next month, 

defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on the exemption issue. 

 

1 The next year, Christian Mission was granted a tax exemption for the 2014 tax 

year. 

2 Plaintiff subsequently withdrew its claim about the amount of taxes assessed.
5

A-3547-17T2

In February 2018, the Tax Court denied Christian Mission's motion for 

summary judgment and granted defendant's, the effect of which was to deny 

plaintiff's request in 2013 for a tax exemption for the warehouse lot. In its 

written decision, the Tax Court found that as of October 1, 2012, which was the 

assessing date, "plaintiff was making limited use of the partially renovated 

structure . . . by conducting daily [twenty] minute morning prayer services." 

Christian Mission John 316 v. Passaic City, 30 N.J. Tax 357, 372 (Tax 2018).

However, these were "limited to church members, who were part of the 

construction team offering inspirational blessings as they began their workday 

to renovate the subject property." Ibid. It found that these "were not available

to the public," and concluded that this was not actual use as contemplated by

N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6. Ibid. It found that formal services began around 

Thanksgiving in 2012, after the assessing date. City inspections of the building 

continued thereafter. A temporary certificate of occupancy was not issued until 

April 2013. Because of this, the Tax Court found "plaintiff was not in a position

to provide its services and/or benefits to the public, as of the October 1, 2012 

assessment date." Id. at 373. In fact, 

as of the assessing date, the only recipients of plaintiff's

religious services on the subject property were the 

parishioners and their spouses, who were part of the 

construction team, dedicated to renovating the 
6

A-3547-17T2

structure. Neither the public, nor the vast majority of 

plaintiff's congregation[,] derived any benefit from the 

partially completed structure as of the October 1, 2012 

assessing date.

[Ibid.]

The Tax Court rejected the argument that the failure to have a certificate 

of occupancy was not dispositive of "actual use" within the statute. Id. at 374-

76. Citing N.J.S.A. 52:27D-133, the Tax Court concluded the State Uniform 

Construction Code Act, N.J.S.A. 52:27D-119 to -141, "prohibit[ed] the use or 

occupancy of a structure until a certificate of occupancy has issued." Id. at 377. 

For properties not previously afforded a tax exemption, the court concluded that 

N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6 implied "that the use cannot be achieved at the expense of the 

safety, welfare and well-being of the public." Id. at 377. Because this property 

did not have a temporary certificate of occupancy until April 2013, under the 

statute, the property "cannot be viewed as actually in use." Id. at 378. The Tax 

Court limited its holding to properties, such as this, "that: (1) have not been 

previously granted tax exemption; (2) are experiencing new construction or 

renovation to permit an intended use of the property for an exempt purpose; and 

(3) have not been the subject of an added assessment." Ibid. The Tax Court 

granted defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment because the warehouse 

lot "was not ready to be occupied and used by the public for a tax-exempt 
7

A-3547-17T2

purpose until sometime following the October 1, 2012 assessment date." Id. at

380. 

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the Tax Court erred in finding plaintiff 

was not "actually using" the property for religious purposes prior to the October 

1, 2012 assessment date. It contends the lack of a certificate of occupancy 

should not have been dispositive about its actual use of the property. It also 

argues that it was contrary to public policy and equitable considerations to deny 

it a tax exemption.

We review a court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the 

same standard as the trial court. Conley v. Guerrero, 228 N.J. 339, 346 (2017)

(citing Templo Fuente De Vida Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 

224 N.J. 189, 199 (2016)). Summary judgment must be granted if "the 

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, 

together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any 

material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or 

order as a matter of law." Templo Fuente De Vida Corp., 224 N.J. at 199

(quoting R. 4:46-2(c)). On this appeal, we review the facts most favorably to 

Christian Mission. See ibid.
8

A-3547-17T2

"[A]ll real property is subject to local property taxation . . . unless its use 

has been exempted." Hunterdon Med. Ctr. v. Twp. of Readington, 195 N.J. 549, 

553 (2007). N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6 sets forth certain exemptions. Christian Mission

filed for an exemption for its warehouse lot under this statute. In relevant part, 

it provides an exemption for "all buildings actually used in the work of 

associations and corporations organized exclusively for religious purposes, 

including religious worship, or charitable purposes." N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6. 

Our Supreme Court has recognized that this statute "requires three criteria 

for exemption, (1) [the owner of the property] must be organized exclusively for 

the [exempt purpose]; (2) its property must be actually and exclusively[3] used 

for the tax-exempt purpose; and (3) its operation and use of its property must 

not be conducted for profit." Hunterdon Med. Ctr., 195 N.J. at 561 (alteration 

in original) (footnote omitted) (quoting Paper Mill Playhouse v. Millburn Twp., 

95 N.J. 503, 506 (1984)). These criteria have been applied to the religious 

purposes exemption. See Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark v. City of E. 

Orange, 18 N.J. Tax 649, 653 (App. Div. 2000). 

 

3 The exclusive use requirement was deleted by Legislative amendment in 1985; 

now the property must be "actually" used for the tax-exempt purpose, rather than 

"actually and exclusively used." See Int'l Schs. Servs. Inc. v. West Windsor

Twp., 207 N.J. 3, 21 (2011); Compare L. 1985, c. 395 § 1, with L. 1983, c. 224 

§ 1. 
9

A-3547-17T2

In this case, defendant did not contest that Christian Mission satisfied the 

first and third criteria. Its request for an exemption was denied based on the 

"actual use" criterion.

"Tax-exemption statutes are strictly construed against those claiming 

exemption because of the compelling public policy that all property bear its fair 

share of the burden of taxation." N.J. Carpenters Apprentice Training & Educ. 

Fund v. Borough of Kenilworth, 147 N.J. 171, 177 (1996) (citing Princeton 

Univ. Press v. Borough of Princeton, 35 N.J. 209, 214 (1961)). "The 'legislative 

design' of [N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6] . . . has been long-recognized as '[a] concession 

. . . due as quid pro quo for the performance of a service essentially public, and 

which the state thereby is relieved . . . from the necessity of performing.'" 

Society of the Holy Child Jesus v. City of Summit, 418 N.J. Super. 365, 373 

(App. Div. 2011) (second alteration in original) (quoting Carteret Acad. v. State 

Bd. of Taxes & Assessment, 102 N.J.L. 525, 528 (Sup. Ct. 1926)). The Supreme 

Court noted "[t]he exemption is granted by the State because of the contribution 

of the exempt facility to the public good." Roman Catholic Diocese of Newark 

v. Ho-Ho-Kus Borough, 42 N.J. 556, 566 (1964). "[T]he Tax Court evaluates

whether the property is 'reasonably necessary' for such tax-exempt purposes." 

Borough of Hamburg v. Tr. of Presbytery of Newton, 28 N.J. Tax 311, 318 (Tax 
10 A-3547-17T2

Ct. 2015) (quoting Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark v. East Orange City, 

18 N.J. Tax 649 (Tax 2000)).

Christian Mission argues the Tax Court erred in denying its motion for 

summary judgment because it actually was using the warehouse as of October 

1, 2012 by holding religious services there and by storing church items. We 

agree with the Tax Court that Christian Mission did not meet its burden of 

proving actual use based on the uncontested facts. 

The uses of the warehouse from 2009 to 2011 prior to reconstruction in 

January 2012 are not determinative of the issue raised. Although Christian 

Mission applied for an exemption prior to 2011, that exemption application was 

denied and then not appealed. In addition, properties are assessed "on October 

1 in each year," thus, it is the use of the property on October 1, 2012 that 

determines whether the property can be exempt from taxes. See Atlantic Cty. 

New School, Inc. v. City of Pleasantville, 2 N.J. Tax 192, 195-96 (Tax 1981); 

see also N.J.S.A. 54:4-23. Christian Mission acknowledges that the building

underwent extensive renovation beginning in January 2012. It did not dispute 

that by July 2012, "the building was essentially a shell or frame . . . ." Taking 

the facts alleged by Christian Mission, the reverend certified that the building

was used to store church items from 2009 to 2011; there actually was no 
11 A-3547-17T2

evidence that items were stored after the extensive renovations started in January

2012 or that it was used for storage as of October 1, 2012. Storage prior to 

reconstruction was not actual use on the assessment date. "[E]ach annual 

assessment [is] a separate entity distinct from the assessments for other years." 

City of E. Orange v. Church of Our Lady of Most Blessed Sacrament, 25 N.J. 

Misc. 58, 61 (Div. Tax App. 1946). 

Christian Mission acknowledged that formal church services commenced

around Thanksgiving 2012, which was after the assessment date of October 1, 

2012. Just before that acknowledgement in his certification, the reverend states

that "community religious services began some time around September" of the 

same year. The certification's description—about the services that occurred

before the "formal services" started in Thanksgiving—stated that there were

prayer services for the construction workers, who were members of the 

congregation, and that sometimes their spouses joined them. Christian Mission 

has not claimed the services were open to the public or even to other congregants

of the church who may have been present. There was no allegation the church's

regular services were being held at the warehouse until Thanksgiving 2012. 

That the building did not have even a temporary certificate of occupancy

is some evidence that the building was not open to the general public. In Grace 
12 A-3547-17T2

& Peace Fellowship Church, Inc. v. Cranford Twp., 4 N.J. Tax 391, 401 (Tax 

1982), the Tax Court would not grant an exemption for a church building that 

was incomplete and had no temporary certificate of occupancy although it was 

used for occasional meetings of prayer groups while the construction was in 

progress. The church volunteers worked at the site and held prayer services. Id.

at 394-95. Citing a series of case precedents that denied tax exemptions for 

buildings under construction, the Tax Court reasoned that the public benefit 

underlying tax exemption had not yet begun, and that denying the tax exemption 

was both consistent with the language of the statute and was an appropriate 

incentive for the exempt organization to complete the construction. Id. at 397-

401; see Inst. of Holy Angels v. Borough of Fort Lee, 80 N.J.L. 545 (Sup. Ct.

1910) (church building under construction not exempt from property tax); see 

also Holy Cross Precious Zion Glorious Church of God v. Trenton City, 2 N.J. 

Tax 352, 357-58 (1981) (holding the intent to make use of building under 

renovation for religious purposes did not constitute actual use as required by 

exemption statute). The plaintiff in Grace and Peace, "was not in a position to 

provide its services and/or benefits to the public in general." 4 N.J. Tax at 401. 

The building in that case was "not available nor was it used for the public 

benefit" until after the tax assessment date. Ibid. The Tax Court noted that it 
13 A-3547-17T2

was unlikely "the Legislature had intended to encourage the use of incomplete 

structures so that taxpayers could avoid taxation during the construction period." 

Ibid.

Similarly here, there was no evidence the warehouse was available for 

public use or was being used for the public benefit as of October 1, 2012. This 

is particularly the case because there was no certificate of occupancy, which

implied that the building was not actually in use for religious activities at the 

relevant time. 

This case is distinguishable from Society of the Holy Child Jesus, 418 N.J. 

Super. at 365. In that case, the City of Summit revoked the plaintiff's longstanding tax exemption because a property that previously was used as a 

residence for nuns was converted to use for school purposes, which was contrary 

to a zoning ordinance without a conditional use variance. Id. at 368-71. In 

reversing the Tax Court, we were "convinced that [N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6 did] not 

require the property to be a lawful use under the municipality's zoning ordinance 

in order to qualify for tax exemption." Id. at 386. We said that "the [s]tatute

clearly and unambiguously contains no such requirement." Ibid. One of our 

concerns was that the statute could be subject to inconsistent applications if the 
14 A-3547-17T2

Tax Court were required "to evaluate the nature of the zoning violation before 

deciding whether the property is exempt . . . ." Id. at 378.

It is not a case involving the revocation of a long-standing exemption 

based on a change in use. Christian Mission's warehouse had no tax exemption

because the prior owner previously used it for commercial purposes. More 

importantly, this case does not involve any evaluation of the nature of a zoning 

violation because there simply was no certificate of occupancy, temporary or 

permanent. The Tax Court was not called upon to interpret the zoning laws, as 

it was acknowledged that there simply was no certificate. We see no reason why 

the Tax Court could not consider this as evidence in evaluating whether the 

property was in actual use by the public in considering an exemption under 

N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6. 

The Tax Court's order was not contrary to public policy or equitable 

considerations. It was Christian Mission that had the burden of proving it was 

entitled to the tax exemption. Although it claims the date for issuing a certificate

of occupancy could be subject to manipulation, we have no need to address this

because there was no allegation of delay in this case, and the tax exemption was 

granted the next tax year. Therefore, we agree with the Tax Court that use of 
15 A-3547-17T2

the property on October 1, 2012 did not constitute actual use as required by 

N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6 for a tax exemption in 2013. 

Affirmed.