Case Name: SALT AND LIGHT CO., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MOUNT HOLLY TWP., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1996-09-04
Citations: 16 N.J. Tax 40
Docket Number: 
Parties: SALT AND LIGHT CO., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MOUNT HOLLY TWP., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Tax Court Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 40–41

Head Matter:
SALT AND LIGHT CO., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MOUNT HOLLY TWP., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Submitted August 20, 1996
Decided September 4, 1996.
Before Judges KLEINER and BRAITHWAITE.
Parker, McCay & Criscuolo, P.C., attorneys for appellant (Robert J. Partlow, of counsel; Frank P. Cavallo, Jr., on the brief).
Respondents did not file a brief.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Mount Holly Township appeals from seven judgments entered in the Tax Court determining that seven separate parcels of land owned by plaintiff are tax exempt for the tax year 1995, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6. On this appeal defendant contends:
THE TAX COURT ERRED IN ITS APPLICATION OP NEW JERSEY CASE LAW DECIDED UNDER N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6 TO THE FACTS OF THIS MATTER IN REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE BURLINGTON COUNT BOARD OF TAXATION, AS THE TAXPAYER SALT AND LIGHT COMPANY, INC.'S PROPERTY IS NOT EXEMPT FROM TAXATION BY DEFENDANT MOUNT HOLLY TOWNSHIP PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6.
We have carefully reviewed the record and, in light of applicable law, we conclude that defendant's contention is clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Hamill's opinion of November 8, 1995, reported at 15 N.J.Tax 274 (Tax 1995).
Affirmed.