NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE TAX COURT COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS

TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY

**495 Martin Luther King Blvd., Fourth Floor** MARY SIOBHAN BRENNAN **Newark, New Jersey 07102**

JUDGE **609 815**

**- 2922, Ext. 54560**  **Fax: 609 815** 

**- 3079** 

**February 10, 2023**
**Farhan Ali, Esq. Frank Ferruggia, Esq.**  **Attorneys for Plaintiff MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LL**  **P Four Gateway Center**  **100 Mulberry Street Newark**  **, New Jersey 07 102** 
**Kenneth A. Porro, Esq. Edna J. Jordan, Esq.,**  **Attorney for Defendant CHASAN LAMPARELLO MALLON & CAPPUZO, PC**  **300 Lighting Way, Suite 200 Secaucus, New Jersey 07094** 

**Via eCourts** 

**RE: Tonnelle Center LLC v. Township of North Bergen**  **Docket No. :**  **009702-2022**

**This letter opinion sets forth the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law on**

**Defendant ’s**  **R. 8:4-1(a)(5) motion**  **to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for untimely filing. Defendant** 
**maintains that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction resulting from**  **P laintiff’s failure to file a** 
**timely appeal under N.J.S.**  **A. 54:3-**  **21(a)(1)**

**. For the reasons explained below, the court**  **grants**

**Defendant ’s motion** 

**. 2** 

I. Procedural History and Fin ding of Facts

**Tonnelle Center, LLC (“Plaintiff”)**  **owns the property located at 8101 Tonnelle Avenue**
**(“Subject Property”), identified as Block 457.01, Lot 38 on the North Bergen Township**
**(“Township” or “Defendant”**  **) tax map.**  **For tax year 2022, and as the result of a municipal** 

**- wide** 
**revaluation, the Township increased the assessment on the Subject Property from $12,554,400 to** 
**$118,398,600. On August 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed a direct appeal of its 2022 local property taxes** 

**pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:3-**  **21, which allows for direct appeals of assessments more than** 
**$1,000,000.**
**On September 16, 2022, the Township filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for**
**failure to file the complaint by the**  **statutory deadline of May 2**  **, 2022 ,**  **1 pursuant to**  **R. 8:4-**  **1(a)(5). 2** 
**Plaintiff opposed the motion arguing that the court should extend the statutory deadline to “fair ly** 
**protect the principles of due process.” The Township filed a reply brief on October 12, 2022 in** 
**response to Plaintiff’s opposition. Upon review of the moving papers, the court adjourned the** 

**motion and set the matter down for a R.**  **1:6- 6 hearing on December 1, 2022** 

**. The**  **court heard**
**testimony from Township witnesses Edward**  **Giunta, Rick**  **DelGuercio, William**  **Raska , and Robert** 

**Brescia ,**  **and Plaintiff witnesses Isra**  **el Silber, Toby Goldberg**  **er , and M**  **iriam Mayer.**  **Due to**
**additional discovery issues exposed during the hearing, the court suspended the hearing and**
**continued the matter on Wednesday, February 8, 2023.**
**Based upon the multiple certifications**  **and exhibits filed by both parties, and the testimony** 
**of witnesses, the court makes the following findings of facts**  **pursuant to R.**  **1:7- 4(a).** 

**1 The statutory deadline is May 1**  **st ; however,**  **an exception is made when that date falls on a weekend or holiday as it did in 2022.** 

**2 Incorrectly identified in the motion papers as R. 8:4-**  **1(a)(2). 3** 

**The Township underwent a municipal**

**- wide revaluation for tax year 2022.**  **The Township** 
**contracted with Appraisal Systems, Inc. (“ASI”) to conduct the revaluati on.**  **ASI’s project**
**manager, Robert Brescia, had the responsibility for oversight of all aspects of the revaluation.**  **As**
**part of the revaluation process**  , **Alex Kohatsu of ASI perf**  **ormed a property inspection of the interior** 
**and exterior of the Subject Property. It is unknown if the site managers of the property had notice** 
**of the inspection. The Subject Property is a shopping mall open to the public, and**  **the inspector**
**gained access and entered the interior on his own with permission of the tenants** 

**. As part of ASI’s contractual obligations, ASI conducted a program of taxpayer orientati**  **on and education regarding the revaluation program.**  **3 As part of this effort, ASI maile**  **d introductory**
**and explanat ory**  **letters to all taxpayers. ASI President**  **Rick DelGuercio testified that these letters**

**contained information about**  **the upcoming revaluation, contact information for questions from**
**taxpayers, and an informational brochure for ta xpayers.**  **This information also existed for taxpayers**
**on ASI’s website, and the Township website contained information directing taxpaye rs to ASI’s** 
**website for questions regarding the revaluation assessments.**
**As part of concluding the revaluation process**  **, Mr. DelGuercio**  **sent a letter to Plaintiff on** 
**March 9, 2022 notifying them of the change in assessment.**  **The appraiser sent the letter to**
**“Tonnelle Center LLC, PO Box 180240, Brooklyn, NY 11218.” Township’s files list the same** 

**address ,**  **and Township has**  **sent and Plaintiff has received other tax correspondence at this address,** 

**3 N.J.A.C. §18:12-4.8 (a)(11)**  **requires that firm contracts with municipalities include provisions to inform and educate the taxpayers about the revaluation process. The code**  **requires that firm s hold press releases describing the purpose and nature of the**  **revaluation, hold meetings with public groups in the community, and send mailings to all property owners explaining the nature and purpose of the revaluation and setting forth a**  **proposed date for inspection commencement. 4** 

**such as the Township’s Chapter 91 4**  **requests. The March 9, 2022 letter was not returned** 

**undelivered. 5** 

**The March 9, 2022 letter stated that because of**  **the revaluation, Subject Property’s**
**assessment would increase from $12,554,400 in tax year 2021 to $118,393,600 in tax year 2022.**
**The letter also calculated the change in tax payable as an increase from $734,809 i n tax year 2021** 
**to $1,828,074 in tax year 2022. The letter c**  **oncluded by notifying the Plaintiff that it could discuss**
**the market value and new assessment by contacting ASI within seven business days of re ceipt of** 

**the letter.**
**On March 11, 2022, Mr.**  **Brescia emailed both Township assessor, Edward Giunta, and**
**president of MicroSystms**  **-nj.com, 6**  **William Raska (the Township’s contractor for mailing Chapter** 

**75 7**  **assessment cards) , and advised them that ASI had concluded the revaluation.**  **Mr. Raska replied**
**by inquiring whether he could now send the Township taxpayers their 20 22 tax assessment** 

**4 N.J.S.A. 54:4-34 grants assessors the right to request a full and true account of income f**  **rom income-producing property. This request is commonly called a Chapter 91 request.** 

**5 Plaintiff’s counsel made a discovery request of Township to produce Chapter 75 cards that**  **were undeliverable and returned to the Township assessor, but the Township did not produce any**  **. Township assessor testified that when a Chapter 75 card is returned and the Township cannot deliver it, the card is placed in the Township’s file for the property. Township woul**  **d be required to review each individual file, which would be over 12,000 files, to determine how**  **many Chapter 75 cards were returned for tax year 2022.**

**6 MicroSystems**  **-NJ.com, L.L.C. is an infor mation systems tax assessment software company**  **located in in Bridgewater, New Jersey that provides tax software and support to multipl e**  **counties in NJ.**

**7 N.J.S.A. 54:4-38.1 requires that assessors notify by mail each taxpayer of the current**  **assessment and**

**the preceding year’s taxes. Assessors commonly send postcards with the required information to taxpayers. These cards are commonly called Chapter 75**  **assessment cards.** **5**

**(Chapter 75) cards.**  **Mr. Brescia spot checked several cards by confirming that the mail merge**
**pulled the correct information for the cards and then gave his approval to mail out**  **the cards.**
**Thereafter, Mr. Raska prepared the Township 2022 Tax List and created files with t he** 

**inf ormation/values for each of the properties in the Township for**  **Chapter 75 card mailing.**  **The**
**Tax List and the card proofs were posted on the** www.msnj.us **website. 8**  **The card proofs consisted**

**of 100 cards representing**  **the highest valued properties in the Town ship.**  **The Chapter 75**  **card**
**associated with the Subject Property was number 16 in that group.**
**The Township assessor subsequently advised Mr. Raska that he reviewed the information**
**and approved it. Mr. Raska then authorized the preparation of the**  **Chapter 75 a**  **ssessment cards.** 
**On March 12, 2022, the printer sent Mr. Raska, for his review, a PDF**  **file with the 12,277 Chapter** 

**75 assessment cards**  **postcards for mailing to Township property owners**

**. 9**  **Mr. Raska copied the**

**PDF file to his server and ran a program that c**  **ompares each card with the data file sent to the**
**printer. To further verify accuracy, t**  **he program also produces the total number of cards and the**
**total assessed value for the Township. Mr. Raska verified that the total assessed value matched the** 

**Tax List.**  **Plaintiff’s Chapter 75 assessment**  **card was identified as number 17,840 in the printer’s**

**PDF file.**  **Satisfied that the Chapter 75**  **assessment cards for the Township were accurate, Mr. Raska**

**authorized**

**the printer to print and bulk mail the Township’s 2022 assessment postcards.**
**On March 16, 2022, the printer mailed the 12,277 assessment postcards to the owners of**
**record for the Township properties, which included the Subject Property, and certifie d to Mr.** 
**Raska that they mailed the cards on**  **that date . Any**  **card sent back as undeliverable would be**

**8 MicroSystems**  **-NJ.com, L.L.C.**

**9 Mr. Raska at the same time was also preparing Chapter 75 assessment cards**  **for other municipalities that contracted with**  **MicroSystems -NJ.com, L.L.C.** **6**

**returned to the Township assessor, as per the return address**

**. To verify that the printer actually and** 
**successfully mailed the cards, Mr. Raska had a “test” card sent to his home, which he received on** 
**March 18, 2022**

**. The assessment card for the Subject Property was not sent back to the assessor**  **as**

**undeliverable. Mr. Raska also prepared the Certification of Mailing for Mr. Giunta stating tha**  **t the**
**bulk mailing for the Township was completed on March 16, 2022.**

**Plaintif f is a limited liability company owned by**  **Weiss Realty & Management**

**. The** 

**company owns approximately twenty or more**  **properties in New Jersey and New York;**  **has its** 
**main office location in Brooklyn, New York; and has**  **a mailing address of PO Box 180240,**

**Brookl yn, NY 11218.**  **Weiss Realty & Management acquired the Subject Property through** 
**Plaintiff in 2015 and has used this post office box as the mailing address of record for the Subject** 
**Property since that time.**
**Plaintiff has received other tax communications through the mail from the Township wi th** 
**respect to the Subject Property; however, it claims that it never received the M arch 9, 2022** 
**correspondence from ASI setting forth the revaluation assessment, nor the Township as sessment** 
**postcard sent via bulk mail on March 16, 2022. Plaintiff further alleges that it first r eceived** 
**notification of the change in the tax assessment when the bank contacted Weiss Realty &**
**Management on August 9, 2022. Lastly, it claims that**  **it did not receive any tax assessments or**
**similar documentation for tax year 2022 until the middle of August ,**  **when it received the 2022 tax**
**bill for the Q3 and Q4 taxes.**
**Plaintiff’s procedure for receipt of property tax related mail involves thre e individ**  **uals.**
**Israel Silber, an employee of Plaintiff, possesses the key to the post office box and physic ally** 
**retrieves the mail from the post office on Mondays and Thursdays. While Mr. Silber**  **collects the** 
**mail, he does not open it n**  **or sort it. He only delivers the mail to the lobby receptionist, Toby** **7**

**Goldberger. Although Mr. Silber**  **testified that only mail for Plaintiff is delivered to PO Box**
**180240, other witness testimony disputes this. Both of Plaintiff’s other witnesses testified that PO** 

**Box 180240 is the mai ling address for all of Weiss Realty & Management’s incoming mail.** 
**Upon receipt of the mail from Mr. Silber, Ms. Goldberger sorts the mail according to**

**property name. She removes all**  **bank checks (usually rental fees) and readies them for accounting.** 
**She then gives all other mail to Weiss Realty & Management’s office manager, Mi riam Mayer.** 
**Ms. Goldberger has handled, retrieved, and processed all mail addressed to PO Box 180240 since**
**Weiss Realty & Management hired her in 2018. She has personally seen and sorted property tax** 
**assessment cards for the various Weiss properties, and she has always delivered no n** 
**- check mail** 
**to Ms. Mayer for further handling. She does not make any record or log of the mail that is del ivered** 
**for each property.**

**Ms. Goldberger has**  **had past**  **issues with mail addressed to PO Box 180240.**  **She believes**

**mail ha s**  **been lost because tenants reported having mailed**  **rent checks to Weiss Realty &** 
**Management, but Ms. Goldberger did not receive those checks. No tenants reported to**  **Ms.**
**Goldberger that they had any rent checks returned to them.**
**Weiss Realty & Management office manager Ms. Mayer has the responsibility for ha ndl**  **ing**
**all tax related documentation for the Weiss Realty & Management properties, whic h includes the** 
**Subject Property. In addition to the Subject Property, Weiss Realty & Management ma nages four** 
**other properties in New Jersey. Ms. Mayer maintains an electron**  **ic file for each property into which**
**Ms. Mayer scans correspondence when she receives it. She has received mail from the Township** 
**addressed to the P.O. Box prior to the 2022 tax year; however, the assessment card for neither tax** 
**year 2021 nor tax year 2022 exists in Plaintiff’s electronic file** 

**. 8** 

**Every year, Ms. Mayer forwarded each assessment card she received for Weiss Real ty &** 
**Management to the attorney representing Weiss Realty & Management for each specif ic property** 

**for their consideration and advice. S**  **he does not make any decision to appeal property tax**

**assessments herself. The last communication Ms. Mayer recalls receiving from the Township prior** 
**to August 2022 was a July 9, 2021 Township Chapter 91 request to Plaintiff, which Ms. Mayer** 
**responded to on July 26, 2021.**  **Ms. Mayer stated that she did not have any knowledge of a**  **Township revaluation ,**  **nor of the increase in assessment until the bank contacted her on August 9,** 

**2022 ; however, she did state that she was aware of the times of the year when**  **the Township sent** 
**tax information, like the Chapter 75 cards, to the taxpayers.**
**Ms. Mayer could not provide any substantive information regarding ASI’s interior and**
**exterior inspection of the Subject Property during the revaluation process. She assumed th**  **at those**
**arrangements were made directly with the site managers for the Subject Property**

**. On August 9, 2022, Ms. Mayer received an email from the bank notifying her that the tax** 
**escrow account for the Subject Property was substantially underfunded. She re**  **layed the**

**information to her staff**

**, and she mentioned that**  **they should have had a**  **“ freeze**  **” (of the assessment)** 
**on the property. Subsequently, Ms. Mayer immediately contacted Weiss Realty**  **& Management’s** 
**tax attorney for the Subject Property. Ms. Mayer**  **recei ved a tax bill for the Q3 and Q4 taxes on the** 
**Subject Property in the middle of August 2022.**
**On August 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed its complaint with the court. On August 25, 2022,** 
**Township’s counsel confirmed the complaint filing date with Plaintiff’s cou nsel**  **and subsequently**
**filed this motion with the court on September 16, 2022. 9** 

II. Conclusions of Law

**N.J.S.A. 54:3-21 (a)(1)**  **prescribes the procedure**  **for appealing**  **a property assessment**  **by a**

**taxpayer or taxing**  **district that**  **either feels**  **aggrieved by the**  **assessed**

**valuation of property or feels** 

**discriminated against**  **by the assessed**  **valuation of other property. N.J.S.A. 54:3- 21(a)(1)**  **provides,**

**in relevant**  **part, that:** 

**A taxpayer**  **feeling aggrieved**  **by the assessed** 

**valuation...of the taxpayer’s**  **property..., or feeling**  **discriminated against**  **by the** 

**assess ed**  **valuation of other property in**  **the county ...In**  **a taxing district**  **where a municipal-**  **wide revaluation...has**  **been implemented...may**  **appeal before**  **or on May**  **1 to**  **the county board**  **of taxation**  **by filing**  **with it**  **a petition**  **of appeal**  **or, if**  **the assessed**  **valuation of th**  **e property**  **subject to**  **the appeal**  **exceeds $1,000,000,**  **by filing**  **a complaint directly**  **with the**  **tax court.** 
**[N.J.S.A. 54:3-21 (a)(1)**  **]**
**Thus, a necessary**  **predicate to**  **challenging the assessed**  **value of revalued** 

**property requires** 

**that the**  **aggrieved party**  **file a**  **petition of**  **appeal with**  **the county board of**  **taxation or a**  **direct appeal** 

**with the**  **Tax Court by**  **May 1. The “**  **timeliness of a**  **tax appeal**  **is critical.**  **” Prime**  **Accounting Dept.** 
**v. Township of Carney**  **’s Point, 212 N.J.**  **493, 507 (2013). The**  **“ [f]ailure**  **to file**  **a timely**  **appeal**

**pursuant to**  **N.J.S.A. 54:3-21 []** 

**. . . is**  **a fatal**  **jurisdictional defect**  **requiring dismissal**  **of the**
**complaint. ”**  **Regent Care**  **Ctr. V.**  **City of**  **Hackensack , 18**  **N.J. Tax**  **320, 324 (Tax**  **1999).**

**F ailure to file**  **a timely complaint divests this court of jurisdiction even in the absence of**
**harm to the municipality. Lawrenceville Garden Apartments v. Twp.**  **O f Lawrence**  **, 14 N.J. Tax**
**285, 288 (App. Div. 1994). In tax matters, s**  **trict adherence to statutory filing deadlines is of**
**particular concern given the “exigencies of taxation and the administration of l ocal government.”** 
**F.M.C. Stores v. Borough of Morris Plains, 100 N.J. 418, 424 (1985) (citing Princeton Univ. Press**
**v. Borough of Princeton, 35 N.J. 209, 214 (1961)). “The policy of applying strict time limitations 10** 

**to tax matters is based upon the very nature of our administrative tax structure.” Ga lloway Twp.** 
**V. Petkevis, 2 N.J. Tax 85, 92 (Tax 1980).**
**“On the issue of adequacy of notice, as on other issues raised by a plaintiff to excuse a late**
**filing and thereby avoid a limitation of the action the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.” Southway,** 
**Peter & Lena v. Wyckoff Twp ., 20 N.J. Tax 194, 200 (Tax 2002).** 
**Plaintiff argues t hat the**  **Defendant’s motion should be denied because , despite its well** 

**** **established procedure for processing the receipt of mail, Plaintiff never received notice of the** 
**change in assessment until August 9, 2022**

**. Plaintiff maintains that equity and due proces**  **s considerations permit the court to extend the tax appeal filing deadline promulgated** 

**under N.J.S.A. 54:3-21.**

**In New**  **Jersey, a**  **presumption arises**  **that properly**  **addressed, stamped,**  **and posted**  **mail**

**“ was**  **received**

**by the party**  **to whom**  **it was**  **addressed. ” S**  **SI Medical**  **Servs. V.**  **HHS, Div.**  **of**

**Medical Assistance**  **& Health**  **Servs**

. **, 146 N.J.**  **614, 617 (1996); see**  **also Bruce**  **v. James**  **P.**

**MacLean Firm**  **, 238 N.J.**  **Super. 501, 505, (Law**  **Div.), aff**  **’d o.b**

. **, 238 N.J.**  **Super. 408 (App. Div.** 
**1989); Tower**  **Management Corp. v. Podesta, 226**  **N.J. Super. 300, 304 n. 3, (App.**  **Div.**
**1988), Cw**  **iklinski v. Burton**  **, 217 N.J.**  **Super. 506, 509-10 (App. Div.**  **1987). The**  **following**

**conditions serve to establish the**  **presumption : (1) that the mailing was properly addressed; (2) that** 
**proper postage was affixed; (3) that the return address was correct; and (4) that the mailing was** 
**deposited in a proper mail receptacle or at the post office. S**  **SI Medical**  **Servs. V.**  **HHS, Div.**  **of**

**Medica l**  **Assistance &**  **Health Servs** 

. **, 146 N.J.**  **614, 617 (1996).**
**This presumption may be demonstrated through the submission of evidence “of habit or**
**routine practice,” but “evidence of office custom requires other corroboration that the custom was** 
**followed in a particular instance in order to raise a presumption of mailing and re ce**  **ipt and meet** **11**

**the preponderance of the evidence standard.” Where**  **“ items**  **mailed on a**  **daily basis**  **are**
**voluminous,” and**  **it is**  **difficult to**  **obtain proof of whether the routine procedure**  **or custom was** 

**followed “on a given**  **day,” credible**  **corroborating proof can**  **create a “**  **reasonable inference**  **that the** 

**custom was**  **followed on the given occasion,” which**  **can “**  **suffice to**  **establish proof of**  **mailing. ”** 

**Id**

. **at 624. A court must**  **weigh the**  **credibility of**  **such corroborative**  **evidence to**  **decide “whether it** 

**meets the**  **preponderance of the evidence**  **standard, ”**  **and whether**  **it “**  **raises a presumption of** 
**mailing and**  **receipt. ”**  **Id**

. **at 624 n.1. Thus, courts**  **will accept**  **a “ lower**  **standard of proof”**  **such as** 

**for instance,**  **proof of “bulk processing and**  **mailing. ”**  **Davis & Assocs., LLC v. Stafford Twp., 18**
**N.J. Tax 621, 627-628 (Tax 2000).**

**Several Tax**  **Court decisions address**  **exception to**  **the filing**  **deadline established** 
**by N.J.S.A. 54:3-21.**

**In Centorino v. Tewksbury**  **Tp. , 18**  **N.J. Tax**  **303 (Tax**  **1999), due to**  **an error**  **in the** 
**municipality’s mailing**  **system, the taxpayer did not**  **receive notice of**  **an increased**  **property**

**assessment for** 

**1998 until August 1. The**  **property assessment**  **had increased**  **to $601,900**  **from the** 
**previous year’s**  **assessment of $492,100.**  **The taxpayer**  **contacted the**  **tax assessor**  **and filed**  **an appeal,**  **which the**  **municipality rejected**  **as untimely.**  **The taxpayer**  **subsequently filed** 

**a complaint**

**with the**  **Tax Court challenging the**  **assessment. Id.**  **at 308.**  **The municipality**  **contend ed**  **that it** 

**mailed the**  **assessment to**  **the correct**  **address ; however,**  **it conceded**  **that it**  **addressed the notice**  **to**

**the attention**  **of the prior owner. Id.**  **at 307.**  **The taxpayer contended**  **that she**  **never received**  **notice,**

**nor did she receive**  **anything addressed**  **to the previous owner.**  **Id. at**  **309. The court**  **found that**  **the**

**taxpayer never**  **received**

**the notice of assessment**  **prior to**  **August 1998. Id.**  **at 310.**  **The court**  **held**

**that “[u]nder**  **these unique**  **facts and**  **circumstances, the principles of due**  **process necessitate**  **the 12** 

**extension of the filing**  **deadline so**  **that the taxpayer**  **is not**  **denied access**  **to the court and the** 
**opportunity for** 

**a hearing on her**  **appeal. ”**  **Id. at**  **320.**

**In City**  **of East**  **Orange v. Livingston Township, 27**  **N.J. Tax**  **161 (Tax**  **2013), the defendant**
**imposed local**  **property tax**  **assessments on properties known**  **as the**  **East Orange**  **Water Reserve.** 
**During the tax**  **years at**  **issue, notices**  **of a ssessment**  **were forwarded**  **to the**  **City of**  **East Orange** 
**using two**  **different mailing**  **addresses. Plaintiff**  **asserted that**  **the assessments**  **were**
**excessive, erroneous,**  **and unconstitutional,**  **and that**  **plaintiff never**  **received the**  **notices of** 

**assessment because**  **they wer**  **e incorrectly**  **addressed. Defendant**  **maintained that**  **none of the**

**assessment notices**  **w as**  **returned as**  **undeliverable. The**  **court highlighted**  **that the deadline**  **to file** 

**an appeal**  **with the county board of**  **taxation or**  **Tax Court**  **was the**  **later of**  **April 1 or 45 days**  **fr om** 

**the date**  **the taxing district**  **completes the bulk**  **mailing**

**. However,**  **the court**  **noted that**  **“ [w]here**  **a**
**taxpayer fails**  **to receive**  **such notice,**  **and based**  **on the facts**  **of each**  **case, courts**  **have extended**  **the**
**appeal filing**  **deadlines set**  **forth in**  **N.J.S.A. 54:3-21, not only due to**  **the statutory**  **mandate, but** 

**also because**  **lack of** 

**notice implicates**  **due process**  **concerns. ”**  **Id. at**  **169 (citing**  **Centorino, supra,**

**18 N.J.**  **Tax at**  **316 ).** 

**The court highlighted**  **that defendant’s**  **notices of**  **assessment contained**  **several deficiencies** 

**in the**  **recipient address**  **and , thus, did not**  **necessarily support a conclusion of**  **mail delivery.** 

**However, the court**  **stated that**  **the plaintiff**  **gained actual**  **knowledge of the assessments**  **sometime**

**between June 2009**  **and September**  **2009, when**  **it received** 

**the tax**  **bills during a**  **meeting with** 

**defendant’s assessor.**  **P laintiff**  **allowed roughly 18 months**  **to pass**  **after receiving**  **actual notice of** 

**the assessments**  **and failed**  **to file**  **appeals challenging the**  **assessments on**  **the properties until**

**December**

**2010. Concluding that**  **the court lacked**  **subject matter**  **jurisdiction over the**  **taxpayer ’s** 
**complaint under N.J.S.A. 54:3-21, the court obse rved**  **that in**  **considering the due process 13** 

**implications of the**  **alleged failure**  **to receive**  **the notices**  **of assessment,**  **“ actual**  **notice is** 

**relevant. ”**  **Id. at**  **171 (citing**  **Olde Orchard**  **Village Condo**  **Apartments, Inc.**  **v. Township of**
**Pequannock, 21 N.J.**  **Tax 275, 282**  **(Tax 2004))** 

.
**In Davis Assocs., L.L.C. v. Stafford Tp**  **., 18 N.J. Tax 622 (Tax 2000), after development** 
**approval, one of two lots owned by**  **p laintiff suffered an increased assessment of**  **$205,900 to**
**$3,560,000. There was a clear factual dispute over receipt of the assessment notices. The court** 
**found sufficient proof of mailing by the assessor and that, accordingly, a presumption of receipt** 

**had b een established.**  **It further found the evidence presented by the taxpayer insufficient to rebut**
**the presumption. O**  **n the assumption that notice was not actually**  **received, the court considered the**
**taxpayer to be a “**  **sophisticated real estate development company which owns properties and**
**operates commercial enterprises in a number of municipalities. ”**  **Id. at 634.**  **Prudent business**
**practice, the court concluded, would have dictated inquiry to the assessor in Februa ry or March in** 
**the absence of assessment notices. In these circumstances, the court found no basis to extend the** 
**filing period beyond April 1 and dismissed**  **taxpayer ’s complaint filed on August 18.** 

**In Southway,**  **Peter**

**& Lena**  **v. Wyckoff**  **Twp. , supra, 20**  **N.J. Tax**  **194 (Tax**  **2002), the**

**taxpayer maintained**  **that they**  **did not**  **receive notice of the**  **increased tax**  **assessment on**  **their**
**property until they**  **received their**  **tax bill**  **in July; t**  **herefore, the**  **taxpayers argued**  **that they**  **timely**

**filed their**  **petition of**  **appeal with**  **the county board of taxation**  **in August.**  **In rejecting**  **the taxpayer**  **’s**
**claim, the court found**  **that a presumption of**  **receipt attached**  **to defendant’s**  **mailing of the notice** 

**of assessment.**  **The court noted**  **that the**  **Plaintiff “had**  **over forty**  **years of**  **experience in**  **banking**

**and is**  **presumably careful**  **and attentive**  **to financial**  **questions,” but also**  **accepted that**  **Plaintiff**
**honestly never**  **learned of**  **the assessment**  **change until July.**  **Id. at**  **199. Accordingly, because**  **the**

**taxpayers shouldered the burden of proving non-**  **delivery of the notice of**  **assessment and**  **failed to** **14**

**rebut that**  **presumption by**  **a reasonable**  **preponderance of the evidence,**  **the court held**  **that the** 

**taxpayer ’s complaint must be**  **dismissed.**
**Considering the relevant**  **statutes ,**  **applicable case**  **law, and**  **the court’s**  **findings of fact,**  **the**
**court finds that the Township has met the presumption of receipt by Plaintiff.**
**The Township tax assessor completed, and properly certified, the bulk mailing on March** 
**16, 2022. The Township produced a copy of the Chapter 75 assessment card sent to Plaintiff, whi**  **ch**
**demonstrated that it was addressed to “Tonnelle Center LLC,” and sent to the mai ling address of** 
**record, PO Box 180240, Brooklyn, NY 11218. Furthermore,**  **the bulk mailing card sent to Plaintiff**
**was not returned to the Township assessor as undelivered. Plaintiff received other mailings from** 
**the Township, both prior to and after March, April, and May of 2022, sent in the same manner.**
**Additionally, ASI, the appraiser hired by the Township to conduct the municipal**

**- wide revaluation,** 
**sent multiple communications to all taxpayers in the Township, including Plaintiff. Spec ifically,** 

**ASI maile**  **d an introductory explanatory letter about the revaluation, and ASI mailed the March 9,**

**2022 letter**  **to Plaintiff notifying them of the change in assessment.**  **None of these communications**

**was returned as undelivered.**

**Plaintiff’s witnesses**  **outlined an**  **organized and**  **efficient office**  **procedure for**  **the handling**

**of mail.**  **Weiss Realty**  **& Management**  **manages real**  **property as**  **its business.**  **Properly handling** 

**real property**  **tax is**  **a crucial**  **component of that**  **business. The**  **office manager**  **is aware**  **of the** 
**approximate times**  **of year**  **that various important**  **tax documents**  **are re**  **ceived. Specifically,**  **she is** 

**aware that**  **assessment cards**  **are received**  **early in**  **the year,**  **final tax**  **bills are**  **usually received**  **in**
**August, and**  **Chapter**

**91 requests**  **are received**  **later in**  **the year.**  **She has**  **a lengthy history of working**

**with tax**  **appeal counsel**  **an d**  **is aware**  **of New**  **Jersey’s Freeze**  **Act. 15** 

**The court does not question**  **that Ms.**  **Mayer honestly**  **was not**  **aware of the**  **increased**

**assessment and**  **increased tax**  **bill until August 2022.**  **The court finds**  **it unfortunate t**  **hat she did not** 

**notice the absence**  **of**

**the Subject**  **Property’s assessment**  **card in**  **early 2022, but the**  **court also**  **finds**

**it problematic**  **t hat**  **her file**  **on the Subject**  **Property does not**  **contain the 2021**  **assessment card**  **nor**

**any correspondence**  **from ASI.**  **The court**  **additionally finds**  **it perplexing**  **that Plaintiff’s**  **employees**

**track and**  **follow-up on income related**  **mail ,**  **such as**  **rent checks,**  **but do not have a procedure to** 

**ensure receipt**  **of time**  **sensitive expense documents,**  **such as**  **tax assessments**  **, especially** 
**considering a history of reported**  **problems with**  **m ail**  **delivery. As**  **in other**  **cases, Plaintiff’s** 
**sophistication with**  **respect to**  **assessment procedures**  **remains relevant.** 

**The procedures undertaken by the Township**  **assessor and**  **the revaluation**  **firm were** 

**testified to**  **in detail**  **during the R.**  **1:6-6 plenary**  **hearing. The**  **Township took steps**  **to confirm**  **that**

**a Chapter**  **75 card**  **had been**  **prepared for**  **each property**  **, to**  **verify the**  **accuracy of the**  **data recited**  **,**
**and to**  **verify the**  **correctness of the**  **addresses. Certain**  **categories of**  **cards , including the**  **card for** 

**the Subject**  **Property ,**  **were identified**  **for special**  **treatment. The**  **bulk mailing**  **of the cards**  **included**

**a test**  **card that**  **was sent**  **to Mr.**  **Raska ,**  **which was**  **successfully delive**  **red . The**  **card for**  **the Subject** 
**Property was**  **printed with**  **the correct**  **return address**  **and the S**  **ubject Property’s**  **card was**  **not**

**returned. This**  **supports the findings enumerated**  **that establish**  **mailing in**  **SSI Med.**  **Servs., supra**

**and that**  **give rise**  **to a presumption of**  **receipt.**

**As described**  **in Southway, the**  **evidence in**  **this case**  **is consistent**  **with two**  **separate and** 

**distinct conclusions:**  **either the bulk**  **mailing card** 

**and the March**  **9, 2022 letter**  **from ASI**  **addressed**

**to Plaintiff** 

**w ere**  **lost in**  **the mail**  **transit system**  **prior to**  **ever reaching**  **PO Box 180240, Brooklyn,** 

**NY 11218; or both the**  **March 16, 2022 bulk**  **mailing card**  **and the**  **March 9, 2022**  **letter from**  **ASI 16** 

**were misplaced** 

**or lost after**  **Mr. Silber**  **opened the PO**  **Box and**  **retrieved Weiss**  **Realty &** 
**Management’s mail.** 

**The court notes**  **that the Township**  **concedes that**  **P laintiff**  **did not have actual**  **notice of the**

**new assessment**  **resulting from**  **the revaluation** 

**. However,**  **evidence exists**  **of perceived**  **problems**

**with mail**  **delivery to**  **the post office**  **box, and**  **with the**  **filing of**  **relevant and important documents** 

**in Plaintiff’s**  **property file.**  **If this**  **caused the**  **lack of**  **actual notice,**  **it does**  **not overcome the**

**inference of**  **implied**

**notice of the annual tax**  **assessment.**
**Considering the presumption of delivery**  **and the applicable burden of proof, the court must** 

**decide whether the Township’s**  **motion to**  **dismiss the complaint**  **for untimely**  **filing should be** 
**granted.**

**The court**  **considered**

**the fact**  **that ASI’s**  **inspector conducted the interior and**  **exterior**
**inspection of the Subject**  **Property without the**  **attendance of**  **any representative**  **of Plaintiff.**  **Had**

**Plaintiff participated**  **in the inspection,**  **Plaintiff clearly**  **would have**  **known that**  **a revaluation**  **had**

**been taking**  **place. Knowledge of a**  **revaluation would have**  **heightened aware**  **ne ss**  **of a potential**

**incre ased**  **assessment, especially**  **to a**  **real estate**  **management company.**  **However, review**  **of the** 
**N.J.A.C. 18:12-4.8(a) reveals**  **no requirement**  **that Plaintiff**  **be advised** 

**of an**  **inspe ction** 

**. It**  **only**
**require s**  **that the inspection**  **occur. It**  **states as**  **follows:**

9. **The inspection of**  **each property**  **shall be**  **performed in**  **the following manner:**  i. **No less**  **than three**  **attempts shall**  **be made**  **to gain**  **entry to**  **each property;**  ii. **If successful**  **entry has**  **not been**  **made after**  **the first**  **attempt, a**  **card shall**  **be left**  **at the property**  **indicating a**  **date when**  **a second attempt**  **to gain**  **entry will**  **be made;**  iii. **The card**  **shall include a phone number**  **and address**  **to permit**  **the property owner**  **to contact**  **the firm**  **to make**  **other arrangements,**  **if necessary;**  iv. **If entry**  **is not possible upon the**  **second visit,**  **written notice**  **shall be**  **left advising**  **that an**  **assessment will**  **be es**  **timated unless a**  **mutually convenient**  **arrangement is**  **made for** 

**a third**  **visit to**  **gain access**  **to the property;** 

v. **The firm**  **shall schedule inspections during**  **reasonable hours**  **which shall**  **include evenings and** 

**Saturdays; and** **17** vi. **The assessor**  **shall be**  **notified in**  **writing of**  **each failure**  **to gain**  **entry to**  **a property and** 

**a list**  **of all**  **non- entries**  **and reasons for**  **same shall**  **be provided to**  **the assessor** 

**prior to**  **the mailing**  **of values.** 
**N.J.A.C. §18:12-4.8 (a)(9)**  **(Lexis Advance**  **through the New**  **Jersey Register,**  **Vol.**

**55 No.**  **3, February**  **6, 2023).**

**The contract**  **between ASI**  **and the Township**  **reflects the language**  **in the**  **administrative**

**cod e.**  **While the**  **court cannot**  **make a**  **definite finding of**  **fact concerning**  **whether the**  **Chapter 75** 

**assessment card** 

**or ASI’s**  **March 9, 2022**  **letter were**  **received, Township**  **presented sufficient** 

**credible evidence**  **for**

**a presumption of receipt**  **to attach**  **to the**  **mailing of**  **the Chapter**  **75 notice of**

**assessment to**  **Plaintiff for**  **tax year**  **2022. Conversely, P laintiff**  **has not**  **offered sufficient**  **evidence**

**to rebut the presumption of**  **mailing. Because**  **P laintiff**  **bears the**  **burden of proving the non- delivery** 

**of the Chapter** 

**75 notice for**  **tax year** 

**2022 and**  **has failed**  **to offer**  **sufficient evidence**  **to carry**  **such**
**burden, the court**  **cannot excuse**  **P laintiff's**  **untimely filing.** 

**In McMahon, supra, 195**  **N.J. at**  **542-543 (2008), our Supreme Court declared**  **the Tax** 

**Court a "court of limited** 

**jurisdiction." The**  **court's "jurisdiction**  **is constrained**  **by the language of**

**its enabling**  **statutes." Prime**  **Accounting Dept., supra,**  **212 N.J.**  **at 505.**  **The statutory**  **jurisdiction**

**conferred on the court**  **is expressed,**  **in part,**  **as the authority**  **"to review**  **actions or regulations**  **with**

**respect to**  **a tax**  **matter of.** 

**. . [a]**  **county board**  **of taxation;** 

**. . . [a]**  **county or municipal** 

**official." N.J.S.A. 2B:13-2.**  **Strict compliance**  **with filing**  **deadlines is**  **a condition precedent**  **to**
**conferring jurisdiction**  **on the**  **court to**  **review county board of**  **taxation judgments.**  **The "fail**  **ure to** 

**file a**  **timely appeal**  **is a**  **fatal jurisdictional**  **defect." F.M.C.**  **Stores Co.,**  **supra , 100**  **N.J. at**  **424-25.**
**Accordingly, the**  **court concludes**  **that it**  **lacks subject**  **matter jurisdiction**  **under N.J.S.A. 54:3-21**

**in this**  **matter and** 

**grants Defendant**  **'s motion**  **to dismiss**  **P laintiff's**  **Complaint.**