Case Name: HUDSON COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, HUDSON COUNTY DISTRICT COUNCIL OF LABORERS PENSION FUND, SQUARE PLUS OPERATING CORP., CUNNINGHAM GRAPHICS, INC., AND MARGULIES, WIND, HERRINGTON & KNOPF, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1998-04-09
Citations: 153 N.J. 254
Docket Number: 
Parties: HUDSON COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, HUDSON COUNTY DISTRICT COUNCIL OF LABORERS PENSION FUND, SQUARE PLUS OPERATING CORP., CUNNINGHAM GRAPHICS, INC., AND MARGULIES, WIND, HERRINGTON & KNOPF, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 153
Pages: 254–268

Head Matter:
708 A.2d 690
HUDSON COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, HUDSON COUNTY DISTRICT COUNCIL OF LABORERS PENSION FUND, SQUARE PLUS OPERATING CORP., CUNNINGHAM GRAPHICS, INC., AND MARGULIES, WIND, HERRINGTON & KNOPF, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Argued February 2, 1998
Decided April 9, 1998.
Dennis J. Drasco, argued the cause for appellant (Lum, Danzis, Drasco, Positan & Kleinberg, attorneys; Mr. Drasco and Colin M. Danzis, of counsel and on the briefs).
Robert E. Margulies, argued the cause for respondents (Margulies, Wind, Herrington & Knopf, attorneys; Jack Jay Wind, on the briefs).
William John Kearns, Jr., argued the cause for amici curiae New Jersey State League of Municipalities and New Jersey Institute of Municipal Attorneys (Kearns, Vassallo, Guest & Kearns, attorneys).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons set forth in that court's opinion. 310 N.J.Super. 208, 708 A.2d 699 (1997). However, we conclude that prejudgment interest should not have been awarded. Because Jersey City is a governmental entity and interest is not provided for by statute, "particular circumspection" in the granting of prejudgment interest is required, and "a showing of overriding and compelling equitable reasons" is essential to justify the award. Board of Educ. v. Levitt, 197 N.J.Super. 239, 244, 484 A.2d 723 (App.Div. 1984). In our view, no aspect of Jersey City's conduct in imposing and collecting the payroll taxes at issue warrants the imposition of prejudgment interest.