Case Name: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, BY THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. BAKERS BASIN REALTY CO., A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND CORTSHIRE DEVELOPMENT CORP., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT; CORTSHIRE DEVELOPMENT CORP., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, BY THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1977-07-21
Citations: 74 N.J. 103
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, BY THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. BAKERS BASIN REALTY CO., A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND CORTSHIRE DEVELOPMENT CORP., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. CORTSHIRE DEVELOPMENT CORP., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, BY THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 74
Pages: 103–109

Head Matter:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, BY THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. BAKERS BASIN REALTY CO., A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND CORTSHIRE DEVELOPMENT CORP., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. CORTSHIRE DEVELOPMENT CORP., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, BY THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Argued January 19, 1977
Decided July 21, 1977.
Mr. G. Frederick Blazure, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant (Mr. William F. Hyland, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Mr. Stephen Skillman, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel).
Mr. Gerald H. Baker argued the cause for respondent (Messrs. Baker, Garber, Duffy and Baker, attorneys).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed essentially for the reasons set forth in Judge (now Justice) Handler's opinion. 138 N. J. Super. 23 (1975).
We agree with the conclusion of the Appellate Division that the three instruments executed and delivered respectively by Bakers Basin Realty Co., John and Jane Kaehmar, and John and Janina Zagorzycki, as sellers, and Cortshire Development Corp. as purchaser should be treated as contracts of sale rather than as options. This makes it unnecessary for us to reconsider our earlier holding in State v. New Jersey Zinc Co., 40 N. J. 560, 576-77 (1963) that an optionee has no standing to intervene in a condemnation proceeding or to share in an award. Por a recent contrary view, see County of San Diego v. Miller, 13 Cal. 3d 684, 119 Cal. Rptr. 491, 532 P. 2d 139 (1975).
We also concur in the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence of unity of use to justify treating the three parcels — Bakers Basin, Kachmar and Zagorzycki — as a single integrated unit for purposes of determining severance damages. Although not precisely in point, Justice Pashman's opinion for this Court in Housing Authority of Newark v. Norfolk Realty Co., 71 N. J. 314 (1976) would appear to be relevant to a consideration of this issue. See 71 N. J. at 321-25.
Affirmed.