Case Name: CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. HENRY H. STADLER, SALVATORE DIMARTINO, JOSEPH A. SULPIZIE, JAMES SPROULES AND JAMES M. MCCULLOGH, JR., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1980-04-18
Citations: 173 N.J. Super. 235
Docket Number: 
Parties: CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. HENRY H. STADLER, SALVATORE DIMARTINO, JOSEPH A. SULPIZIE, JAMES SPROULES AND JAMES M. MCCULLOGH, JR., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 173
Pages: 235–235

Head Matter:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. HENRY H. STADLER, SALVATORE DIMARTINO, JOSEPH A. SULPIZIE, JAMES SPROULES AND JAMES M. MCCULLOGH, JR., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued April 1, 1980
Decided April 18, 1980.
Before Júdges FRITZ, KOLE and LANE.
William S. Ruggierio argued the cause for appellant (Ruggierio & Freeman, attorneys).
Charles Crabbe Thomas argued the cause for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the judgment essentially for the reasons given in Judge Wells' published opinion. Philadelphia v. Stadler, 164 N.J.Super. 281 (Cty.D.Ct.1978). See, also, Philadelphia v. Smith, 82 N.J. 429 (1980), aff'g 169 N.J.Super. 156 (App.Div.1979).
We find no merit to any of the contentions raised on this appeal as grounds for reversal.
Affirmed.