Case Name: IN RE PETITION FOR REFERENDUM TO REPEAL ORDINANCE 2354-12 OF THE TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE, ESSEX COUNTY, WINDALE SIMPSON, MARK MEYEROWITZ, ALT-HIA TWEITEN, MICHAEL SCHARFSTEIN, AND ROSARY MORELLI, PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. THE TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ROBERT D. PARISI, MAYOR, AND KAREN CARNEVALE, CLERK OF WEST ORANGE TOWNSHIP, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND PRISM GREEN ASSOCIATES IV, L.L.C., PRISM GREEN URBAN RENEWAL ASSOCIATES, IV, L.L.C., AND GP 177 MAIN URBAN RENEWAL, L.L.C., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 2014-01-24
Citations: 217 N.J. 51
Docket Number: 
Parties: IN RE PETITION FOR REFERENDUM TO REPEAL ORDINANCE 2354-12 OF THE TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE, ESSEX COUNTY, WINDALE SIMPSON, MARK MEYEROWITZ, ALT-HIA TWEITEN, MICHAEL SCHARFSTEIN, AND ROSARY MORELLI, PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. THE TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ROBERT D. PARISI, MAYOR, AND KAREN CARNEVALE, CLERK OF WEST ORANGE TOWNSHIP, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND PRISM GREEN ASSOCIATES IV, L.L.C., PRISM GREEN URBAN RENEWAL ASSOCIATES, IV, L.L.C., AND GP 177 MAIN URBAN RENEWAL, L.L.C., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 217
Pages: 51–51

Head Matter:
84 A.3d 600
IN RE PETITION FOR REFERENDUM TO REPEAL ORDINANCE 2354-12 OF THE TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE, ESSEX COUNTY, WINDALE SIMPSON, MARK MEYEROWITZ, ALT-HIA TWEITEN, MICHAEL SCHARFSTEIN, AND ROSARY MORELLI, PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. THE TOWNSHIP OF WEST ORANGE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ROBERT D. PARISI, MAYOR, AND KAREN CARNEVALE, CLERK OF WEST ORANGE TOWNSHIP, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND PRISM GREEN ASSOCIATES IV, L.L.C., PRISM GREEN URBAN RENEWAL ASSOCIATES, IV, L.L.C., AND GP 177 MAIN URBAN RENEWAL, L.L.C., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
January 24, 2014.

Opinion:
ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted limited to the following issues: whether plaintiffs' action challenging the municipal ordinance was time barred; and, if not, whether the ordinance was invalid because of the municipality's failure to submit an application for approval of the issuance of bonds to the Local Finance Board in the Department of Community Affairs.