JESSE ROSENBLUM VS. BOROUGH OF CLOSTER Â (L-1020-15, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0097-15T2

Rosenblum, pro se, previously litigated farmland tax assessments for property owned by Beverly Ann Watkins in Tax Court and this Court; some prior appeals were dismissed and one was remanded.
After Watkins withdrew applications for farmland assessment following a Tax Court remand, the Tax Court entered an order dismissing Rosenblum's case with prejudice based on an understanding about future fair assessments.
The Borough later issued new assessments for the property; Rosenblum sought relief but was denied conferences and trial in Tax Court.
Rosenblum filed a four-count complaint in the Law Division alleging breach of the Tax Court “agreement,” false statements on tax applications, payment of roll-back taxes tied to disputed valuations, and a conspiracy to qualify the property as farmland.
The Borough moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim and sought sanctions for a frivolous suit; Watkins joined.
The Law Division (Judge Firko) dismissed the complaint with prejudice, imposed monetary sanctions totaling $2,450 against Rosenblum, and denied reconsideration; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Law Division had jurisdiction to hear Rosenblum's tax-assessment claims	Rosenblum contends the assessments were unfair and he could pursue relief in Law Division	Borough and Watkins argued tax appeals belong in Tax Court and the Law Division lacks jurisdiction	Court held Law Division lacked jurisdiction; such claims belong in Tax Court
Whether Rosenblum's complaint was timely	Rosenblum implicitly argued he should be allowed to proceed despite timing	Defendants argued the complaints were untimely under statutory and rule-based time limits	Court held the action was time-barred and not filed within the statutory period or leave to appeal timeframe
Whether Rosenblum stated a legally cognizable claim	Rosenblum alleged breach of an alleged agreement, false tax applications, roll-back tax payments, and conspiracy	Defendants argued the pleadings failed to state a claim and merely re-litigated Tax Court matters	Court held the factual allegations did not establish a colorable claim and dismissal with prejudice was warranted
Whether sanctions were appropriate	Rosenblum did not meaningfully contest sanctions on appeal	Borough argued Rosenblum’s filing was frivolous, warned him under Rule 1:4-8, and sought fees	Court affirmed sanctions: Rosenblum was experienced in tax litigation, filing in Law Division was patently unreasonable, and fees were proper

Flinn v. Amboy Nat'l Bank, 436 N.J. Super. 274 (App. Div.) (de novo review of Rule 4:6-2 dismissal)
Green v. Morgan Props., 215 N.J. 431 (standard that review examines legal sufficiency of complaint)
Cherry Hill Mitsubishi, Inc. v. (case name shortened in opinion), 439 N.J. Super. 462 (App. Div.) (dismissal required where pleading cannot establish a colorable claim)
Rezem Family Assocs., LP v. Borough of Millstone, 423 N.J. Super. 103 (App. Div.) (appellate review standards)
Camden Cnty. Energy Recovery Assocs. v. N.J. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 320 N.J. Super. 59 (App. Div.) (dismissal where discovery would not develop a claim)
Printing Mart-Morristown Shoe Mfg. Corp. v. Sharp, 116 N.J. 739 (principles cited for appellate approach to pleadings)