Case Name: ROMULUS DEVELOPMENT CORP., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. TOWNSHIP OF WEEHAWKEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; ROMULUS DEVELOPMENT CORP., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. TOWN OF WEST NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1987-03-05
Citations: 9 N.J. Tax 90
Docket Number: 
Parties: ROMULUS DEVELOPMENT CORP., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. TOWNSHIP OF WEEHAWKEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. ROMULUS DEVELOPMENT CORP., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. TOWN OF WEST NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Tax Court Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 90–90

Head Matter:
ROMULUS DEVELOPMENT CORP., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. TOWNSHIP OF WEEHAWKEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. ROMULUS DEVELOPMENT CORP., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. TOWN OF WEST NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Submitted February 19, 1987
Decided March 5, 1987.
Before Judges FURMAN, DREIER and SHEBELL.
Venino & Venino, attorneys for the appellant Township of Weehawkin (Richard Venino of counsel and on the brief).
Sidney I. Turtz, attorney for the appellant Town of West New York.
McCarter & English, attorneys for respondent (William T. Reilly of counsel; Frank E. Ferruggia on the brief).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Lasser in his opinion published at 7 N.J.Tax 305 (Tax Ct.1985).