Case Name: T.W. BERENSON ET AL., T/A THE EXECUTIVE HOUSE OF EAST ORANGE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CITY OF EAST ORANGE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1984-05-21
Citations: 6 N.J. Tax 493
Docket Number: 
Parties: T.W. BERENSON ET AL., T/A THE EXECUTIVE HOUSE OF EAST ORANGE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CITY OF EAST ORANGE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Tax Court Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 493–494

Head Matter:
T.W. BERENSON ET AL., T/A THE EXECUTIVE HOUSE OF EAST ORANGE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CITY OF EAST ORANGE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Submitted April 9, 1984
Decided May 21, 1984.
Before Judges ARD, MORTON I. GREENBERG and TRAUTWEIN.
Starrett & Klinghoffer, for appellant (Steven H. Klinghoffer, on the brief).
Skoloff & Wolfe, for respondent (Saul A. Wolfe, of counsel; Nathan P. Wolf, on the brief).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff appeals from a final judgment of the Tax Court entered August 4,1988 affirming defendant municipality's 1981 tax assessment of a high-rise apartment building in East Orange, New Jersey.
In seeking a reversal of this judgment and remand for a new trial, plaintiff contends (1) that the trial judge erred in quashing the subpoena duces tecum served upon defendant's expert whereby the plaintiff sought discovery of appraisal reports prepared by the expert in relation to other properties in other municipalities and (2) that the trial judge erred in relying on preemptive rent levels fixed by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rather than the contract rents charged by plaintiff.
With respect to plaintiff's contention of error on the part of the trial judge in quashing the subpoena duces tecum, we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed in the oral opinion of Judge Crabtree rendered October 12, 1982.
With respect to the contention of plaintiff that the trial judge erred when he relied on the HUD preemptive rent levels rather than contract rents, we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed in that portion of the published opinion of Judge Crabtree, referable thereto, reported in 6 N.J.Tax 12 (Tax Ct.1983). We expressly take no position on the decision of Judge Crabtree with respect to the applicability of the Freeze Act, N.J.S.A. 54:3-26, which was not raised as an issue on this appeal.
Affirmed.