Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1941

The Tax Investment Corp. of N.J. v. Hunziker

The Tax Investment Corp. of N.J. v. Hunziker
Supreme Court of New Jersey · Decided May 17, 1941 · Pajuces, Donges, Colie
20 A.2d 37; 126 N.J.L. 412; 1941 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 165 (Atlantic Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

For the prosecutor, I. Irving Wittes. For the respondents Hunziker and City of Paterson, John F. Evans. For the respondents Ehren Realty Company et al., Emanuel Ehrenkranz.

The Tax Investment Corp. of N.J. v. Hunziker

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

We concur in the result reached by Mr. Justice Heher on the original application to him, and in the main for the reasons given in his memorandum, printed above. It is stated in the brief for prosecutor that he was mistaken in saying that six hundred properties were sold, and that in fact less than half that number were actually sold. Be this as it may, the reasoning of his opinion is not affected.

Our own examination of the matter satisfies us, first, that substantial injury to' prosecutor has not been shown: second, that certain personal memoranda of witnesses offered in evidence were clearly incompetent: third, that prosecutor has not sustained the burden of proof: fourth, that, as stated in the memorandum, adequate remedial measures are available: and fifth, that in any event no material loss to the city is at all probable.

Allocatur is therefore denied.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.