Court Opinion

ID: 9694263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:33:14.433871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:58.323094
License: Public Domain

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 *105Cortshire 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.