Carr v. Burgess

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
Carr v. Burgess, 264 N.J. Super. 10 (1993)
623 A.2d 1384; 1993 N.J. Super. LEXIS 140

Carr v. Burgess

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Chancery Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Epstein in his opinion reported at 264 N.J.Super. 191, 623 A.2d 1384 (Ch.Div. 1993). We are satisfied that the findings of fact are supported by substantial *11credible evidence in the record and find no sound reason or justification to interfere with them. See Rova Farms Resort v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484, 323 A.2d 495 (1974).

Reference

Full Case Name
JOYCE CARR, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT v. ARTHUR W. BURGESS, OF THE ESTATE OF H. THOMAS CARR, BARBARA CARR, MICHAEL T. CARR, KATHLEEN P. CARR AND TIMOTHY F. CARR, AND BERLY INVESTMENT CO. LESLIE GRABOWSKI, JEFFREY KIRSCH, ROBERT ELKINS, RAYMOND BUCK AND AQUAMARINE DEVELOPMENT, INC., INTERVENORS
Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published