Case Name: SIDNEY SILLER AND SHIRLEY SILLER, HIS WIFE; IRVING GAINES AND CORALIE J. GAINES, HIS WIFE; MARSHALL NATAPOFF AND JANET NATAPOFF, HIS WIFE; FRANCIS CLARK AND LUCILLE CLARK, HIS WIFE; AND JOEL KRAMER, SINGLE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, AND HARMON COVE CONDOMINIUM II ASSOCIATION, INC., PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT, v. HARTZ MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATES, A CORPORATION; HARMON COVE I CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., A CORPORATION; AND HARMON COVE RECREATION ASSOCIATION, INC., A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1982-04-28
Citations: 184 N.J. Super. 442
Docket Number: 
Parties: SIDNEY SILLER AND SHIRLEY SILLER, HIS WIFE; IRVING GAINES AND CORALIE J. GAINES, HIS WIFE; MARSHALL NATAPOFF AND JANET NATAPOFF, HIS WIFE; FRANCIS CLARK AND LUCILLE CLARK, HIS WIFE; AND JOEL KRAMER, SINGLE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, AND HARMON COVE CONDOMINIUM II ASSOCIATION, INC., PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT, v. HARTZ MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATES, A CORPORATION; HARMON COVE I CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., A CORPORATION; AND HARMON COVE RECREATION ASSOCIATION, INC., A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 184
Pages: 442–443

Head Matter:
SIDNEY SILLER AND SHIRLEY SILLER, HIS WIFE; IRVING GAINES AND CORALIE J. GAINES, HIS WIFE; MARSHALL NATAPOFF AND JANET NATAPOFF, HIS WIFE; FRANCIS CLARK AND LUCILLE CLARK, HIS WIFE; AND JOEL KRAMER, SINGLE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, AND HARMON COVE CONDOMINIUM II ASSOCIATION, INC., PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT, v. HARTZ MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATES, A CORPORATION; HARMON COVE I CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., A CORPORATION; AND HARMON COVE RECREATION ASSOCIATION, INC., A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued April 5, 1982
Decided April 28, 1982.
Before Judges ALLCORN, FRANCIS and MORTON I. GREENBERG.
John Tomasin argued the cause for appellants.
Jerome A. Vogel argued the cause for defendant-respondent Hartz Mountain Industries Inc. (Jeffer; Hopkinson & Vogel, attorneys).
Richard S. Miller argued the cause for defendants-respondents Harmon Cove I Condominium Association, Inc. and Harmon Cove Recreation Association Inc. (Williams, Caliri, Miller, Otley & Horn, attorneys).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of the Chancery Division is affirmed essentially for the reasons set forth by Judge Gaulkin in his opinion published in 173 NJ.Super.-(1981).
Affirmed.