Court Opinion

ID: 9707491
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:13:20.258761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:33.780180
License: Public Domain

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.