Case Name: JERSEY CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, A BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, AND NEWPORT ASSOCIATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR-APPELLANT, v. TUG AND BARGE URBAN RENEWAL CORPORATION, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION; STATE OF NEW JERSEY; AND STATE OF NEW JERSEY THROUGH THE TIDELANDS RESOURCE COUNCIL IN THE DIVISION OF COASTAL RESOURCES IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND GENERAL ELECTRIC CREDIT CORPORATION, A NEW YORK CORPORATION; UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK; CITY OF JERSEY CITY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; JERSEY CITY SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, A BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; AND TUG & BARGE DRY DOCKS, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS; JERSEY CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, A BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. TUG AND BARGE URBAN RENEWAL CORPORATION, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1988-02-08
Citations: 228 N.J. Super. 24
Docket Number: 
Parties: JERSEY CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, A BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, AND NEWPORT ASSOCIATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR-APPELLANT, v. TUG AND BARGE URBAN RENEWAL CORPORATION, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION; STATE OF NEW JERSEY; AND STATE OF NEW JERSEY THROUGH THE TIDELANDS RESOURCE COUNCIL IN THE DIVISION OF COASTAL RESOURCES IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND GENERAL ELECTRIC CREDIT CORPORATION, A NEW YORK CORPORATION; UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK; CITY OF JERSEY CITY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; JERSEY CITY SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, A BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; AND TUG & BARGE DRY DOCKS, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS. JERSEY CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, A BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. TUG AND BARGE URBAN RENEWAL CORPORATION, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 228
Pages: 24–25

Head Matter:
JERSEY CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, A BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, AND NEWPORT ASSOCIATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR-APPELLANT, v. TUG AND BARGE URBAN RENEWAL CORPORATION, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION; STATE OF NEW JERSEY; AND STATE OF NEW JERSEY THROUGH THE TIDELANDS RESOURCE COUNCIL IN THE DIVISION OF COASTAL RESOURCES IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND GENERAL ELECTRIC CREDIT CORPORATION, A NEW YORK CORPORATION; UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK; CITY OF JERSEY CITY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; JERSEY CITY SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, A BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; AND TUG & BARGE DRY DOCKS, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS. JERSEY CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, A BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. TUG AND BARGE URBAN RENEWAL CORPORATION, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued January 19, 1988—
Decided February 8, 1988.
Before Judges MICHELS, GAYNOR and ARNOLD M. STEIN.
John J. Curley argued the cause for appellant Jersey City Redevelopment Agency {Lepis, Lepis & Curley, attorneys; John J. Curley, on the brief).
Kenneth N. Laptook argued the cause for appellant Newport Associates Development Company (Kimmelman, Wolff & Samson, attorneys; Ronald E. Wiss, on the brief).
Dennis J. Drasco argued the cause for respondent Tug & Barge Urban Renewal Corporation {Lum, Hoens, Abeles, Conant & Danzis, attorneys; Dennis J. Drasco, of counsel, and Dennis B. O’Brien, on the brief).
William E. Andersen, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent State of New Jersey (W. Cary Edwards, Attorney General, attorney; James J. Ciancia, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; William E. Andersen and Stephen E. Brower, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment of the Superior Court, Law Division, is affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth in the comprehensive and well-reasoned letter opinions of Judge Humphreys dated February 16, 1987 and July 2, 1987, as supplemented by his written opinion dated January 21, 1988, reported in 228 N.J.Super. 88 (Law Div.1988).
Affirmed.