Case Name: MONTGOMERY ASSOCIATES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTGOMERY, IN THE COUNTY OF SOMERSET AND STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTGOMERY, IN THE COUNTY OF SOMERSET AND STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1978-06-09
Citations: 160 N.J. Super. 219
Docket Number: 
Parties: MONTGOMERY ASSOCIATES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTGOMERY, IN THE COUNTY OF SOMERSET AND STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTGOMERY, IN THE COUNTY OF SOMERSET AND STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 160
Pages: 219–220

Head Matter:
MONTGOMERY ASSOCIATES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTGOMERY, IN THE COUNTY OF SOMERSET AND STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND THE TOWNSHIP OF MONTGOMERY, IN THE COUNTY OF SOMERSET AND STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Submitted May 31, 1978
Decided June 9, 1978.
Before Judges Halpern, Larner and King.
Messrs. Strauss, Wills & Baxendale, attorneys for plaintiff-appellant (Mr. G. Robert Wills and Mr. Gordon C. Strauss, on the brief).
Messrs. Mason, Griffin & Pierson, attorneys for defendant-respondent The Township of Montgomery.
Mr. John Palaschak, Jr., attorney for defendant-respondent The Board of Adjustment of the Township of Montgomery.
Mr. Henry A. Hill, Jr., on the joint brief for defendants-respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
Plaintiff instituted an action in lieu of prerogative writs in which it attacked the propriety of the denial of a section (d) use variance and the constitutionality of the municipal zoning ordinance. The variance count was heard on the record made before the board of adjustment and resulted in an affirmance in a letter opinion dated April 29, 1976. The issue of constitutionality was heard separately by the court in a plenary proceeding and resulted in a finding that the ordinance was constitutional, in an opinion published at 149 N. J. Super. 536. Plaintiff appeals from the whole of the judgment entered on both counts.
We have carefully considered the points raised by appellant in the context of the record below and conclude that the judgment should be affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth in the opinions filed by Judge Meredith.