Case Name: SAUL BRAZER AND GLORIA BRAZER, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. BOROUGH OF MOUNTAINSIDE, IN THE COUNTY OF UNION, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAINSIDE IN THE COUNTY OF UNION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1969-02-24
Citations: 104 N.J. Super. 456
Docket Number: 
Parties: SAUL BRAZER AND GLORIA BRAZER, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. BOROUGH OF MOUNTAINSIDE, IN THE COUNTY OF UNION, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAINSIDE IN THE COUNTY OF UNION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 104
Pages: 456–456

Head Matter:
SAUL BRAZER AND GLORIA BRAZER, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. BOROUGH OF MOUNTAINSIDE, IN THE COUNTY OF UNION, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAINSIDE IN THE COUNTY OF UNION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued February 17, 1969
Decided February 24, 1969.
Before Judges Goldmann, Kolovsky and Carton.
Mr. Irvin B. Johnstone, Jr. argued the cause for appellants (Messrs. Johnstone & O’Dwyer, attorneys; Mr. Frank T. Swain, on the brief).
Mr. Charles J. Irwin argued the cause for respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge William E. Wood in the Law Division. 102 N. J. Super. 497 (1968). See, also, Smith v. Morris Tp. Comm., 101 N. J. Super. 271, 280 (App. Div. 1968).