Court Opinion

ID: 9900289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-18 22:08:39.801285+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:03.580308
License: Public Domain

TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY

                                                                             Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Justice Building
                                                                                  495 MLK Boulevard, 4th Floor
MICHAEL J. DUFFY                                                                 Newark, New Jersey 07102-0690
     JUDGE                                                                          (609) 815-2922 Ext. 54580

                                         October 18, 2023

Vincent Bullaro, pro se
5169 Berkshire Valley Road
Oak Ridge, New Jersey 07438

Lawrence P. Cohen, Esquire
Lavery, Selvaggi, Abromitis & Cohen, P.C.
1001 Route 517
Hackettstown, New Jersey 07840

       Re:     Vincent Bullaro v. Jefferson Township
               Docket No. 011008-2021

Dear Mr. Bullaro and Mr. Cohen:

       This letter shall constitute the court’s opinion in connection with its order to show cause

why the Complaint should not be dismissed as untimely, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:51A-9. Plaintiff

Vincent Bullaro filed written opposition on July 17, 2023, and a hearing was held on September

12, 2023, in which plaintiff testified. For the reasons stated herein, the Complaint is dismissed.

                                        Procedural History

       For tax year 2020, plaintiff filed appeals with the Morris County Board of Taxation for

three properties located in Jefferson Township: Block 357, Lot 1; Block 364, Lot 9; and Block

336, Lot 42. On July 23, 2020, the county board issued a judgment for each property and upheld

the assessments. Each judgment included a judgment code, “5C Taxes/munc. charges not paid.”

The county board judgments were mailed to plaintiff on July 27, 2020.
       On July 13, 2021, plaintiff filed a Complaint with the Tax Court, contesting the July 2020,

county board judgments. The pleading is dated “8/5/20” and includes a handwritten note from

plaintiff, which reads:

               I talked to Ashley – Recommended I [resend] my tax appeal – Have
               not hear anything from [the Tax Court]. [Had] to contact anyone for
               help. Thank you.

       Plaintiff did not include a proof of service for the Complaint, pursuant to R. 8:5-5, or the

required filing fee, pursuant to R. 8:12. On July 20, 2021, the Tax Court returned the deficient

pleading to plaintiff, pursuant to R. 1:5-6(c). On January 3, 2022, the Tax Court dismissed the

Complaint. A year later, on January 4, 2023, the court received a letter from plaintiff asking that

the case be reopened. In his letter, plaintiff explained that the “fee was not provided [due] to a

misunderstanding with court staff” and advised that he “was working with tax assessor and

recommended I reopen [the] matter.” The fee was paid on January 5, 2023, and the Complaint

reinstated on January 6, 2023. 1

       On June 14, 2023, this court entered an order to show cause why the Complaint should not

be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as untimely filed. On July 17, 2023, plaintiff filed written

opposition to the order to show cause. Notably, plaintiff wrote that he originally mailed a

complaint on August 5, 2020, and contacted the Tax Court because his check went uncashed.

In his letter, plaintiff writes that after learning that the court did not have his appeal, he “copied

and sent original receipt from [the United States Post Office]” to the Tax Court, which plaintiff

asserts was around July 13, 2021.

1
  On April 14, 2023, the parties attempted to file a stipulation of settlement. On April 17, 2023,
counsel for defendant was notified by the court that the stipulation of settlement was deficient.

                                                  2
        At the hearing, plaintiff argued that it was unfair to dismiss his complaint at such a late

date and that the court should show leniency. Plaintiff was unable to provide the court with a copy

of the postal service receipt, since plaintiff alleges he lost his file of records pertaining to this

litigation.

                                             Analysis

        N.J.S.A. 54:51A-9 provides, in part, that a “complaint seeking review of adjudication or

judgment of the county board of taxation shall be filed within 45 days of the service of the

judgment.” N.J.S.A. 54:51A-9(a). “Service of the judgment of the County Board of Taxation,

when by mail, shall be deemed complete as of the date the judgment is mailed, subject to the

provisions of R. 1:3-3.” R. 8:4-1(a)(2). For the period at issue, court rules allowed an additional

3 days for service by ordinary mail. R. 1:3-3 (2020). 2

        In this case, plaintiff had forty-eight (48) days to file an appeal with the Tax Court from

July 27, 2020, the date the county board judgments were mailed. 3 The appeal period end date fell

on Sunday, September 13, 2020, but was extended by court rule to Monday, September 14, 2020.

R. 1:3-1. To be timely, the Complaint had to be filed, not merely postmarked, on or before

September 14, 2020. Mayfair Holding Corp. v. Twp. of North Bergen, 4 N.J. Tax 38, 40

(Tax 1982)(citing Prospect Hill Apts. V. Borough of Flemington, 1 N.J. Tax 224, 226 (Tax 1979)).

        The statutory scheme establishing this court’s jurisdiction is “one with which continuing

strict and unerring compliance must be observed.” McMahon v. City of Newark, 195 N.J. 526,

2
  Effective April 1, 2022, R. 1:3-3 was amended to allow an additional 5 days for service by
ordinary mail.
3
  Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the appeal deadline for local property tax cases for tax year
2020 was extended to July 1, 2020. O’Connell v. Tp. of Neptune, 32 N.J. 1 (2020). Since the
COVID-19 extension period expired prior to the county board judgments herein, the standard 45
days + 3 days filing deadline is applicable here.

                                                 3
543 (2008). Strict adherence to statutory filing deadlines is of particular concern in tax matters,

given “the exigencies of taxation and the administration of local government.” F.M.C. Stores v.

Borough of Morris Plains, 100 N.J. 418, 424 (1985). Thus, “[f]ailure to file a timely appeal is a

fatal jurisdictional defect.” Id. at 425. A Complaint that is even one day late must be dismissed

for lack of jurisdiction. Prospect Hill Apts., supra, 1 N.J. Tax at 226.

       The court has no record of a Complaint filed by plaintiff on or about August 5, 2020.

In addition, the court has no record of ever receiving plaintiff’s post office receipt, which plaintiff

asserts was mailed to the court in July 2021. The Complaint filed on July 13, 2021, but dated

“8/5/20,” is insufficient proof of an August 2020 filing. Moreover, the fact that plaintiff concedes

that his initial check went uncashed, only supports this court’s finding that it did not receive a

timely complaint. The only Complaint received by the court was received and filed on July 13,

2021, and is untimely under N.J.S.A. 54:51A-9. This court does not have any discretion to extend

the appeal period by even one day.

                                             Conclusion

       For the aforementioned reasons, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed as untimely. Judgment

reflecting this memorandum opinion will be entered accordingly.

                                                       Very truly yours,

                                                       Hon. Michael J. Duffy, J.T.C.

                                                  4