R. Neumann & Co. v. City of Hoboken
437 N.J. Super. 384
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2014Background
- Resolution No. 1 designates an area in Hoboken as in need of rehabilitation (AINreh) under LRHL N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-14, including private properties known as Neumann's Leathers.
- The AINreh is flag-shaped and bounded by public streets; Neumann owns most included private parcels.
- Planning Board and Planning Board Engineer/Planner supported the designation based on age/maintenance of water and sewer infrastructure.
- Amendments in 2013 (L. 2013, c. 159) changed the statutory criteria, adding a separate, mandatory focus on aging water/sewer infrastructure (clause 14(a)(6)).
- Council proceeded under pre-2013 wording but ultimately adopted Resolution No. 1 without explaining conformity to the amended statute.
- Trial court denied damages and dismissed prerogative writs; it later granted summary judgment on damages; on appeal, Neumann challenges the designation’s statutory basis and the Council’s motivation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Council properly delineated an AINreh under LRHL as amended | Neumann argues Statute requires adherence to 14(a)(2)-(3) prior to 2013 | City contends designation complied with pre-2013 criteria and planning board input | Resolution vacated due to misapplication of amended statute |
| Whether the designation was arbitrary, capricious, or pretextual | Neumann claims pretext and ulterior motive | City asserts judgment should defer to local discretion if supported by substantial evidence | Pretext invalid under amended law; decision vacated without prejudice to reconsider under current LRHL |
| Whether the plan involves eminent domain or redevelopment powers tied to AINreh | Delineation would threaten condemnation powers | LRHL restricts condemnation in AINreh; redevelopment powers require separate plan | No imminent taking; delineation alone does not authorize eminent domain; vacated |
| Whether post-2013 LRHL amendments resolve the statutory ambiguity | Pre-2013 reading not saved by post-amendment law | Amendments clarifying clause (6) apply; designation failed to meet new standard | Amendments apply; designation fails to meet current criteria; vacate affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryant v. City of Atlantic City, 309 N.J. Super. 596 (App. Div. 1998) (sufficient evidence supports designation under older standards)
- Lyons v. City of Camden, 52 N.J. 89 (Supreme Court 1968) (blight decision-making involves practical judgment and discretion)
- Gallenthin Realty Development, Inc. v. Borough of Paulsboro, 191 N.J. 344 (2007) (substantial evidence standard for blight determinations)
- Wagner v. Mayor & Mun. Council of City of Newark, 24 N.J. 467 (Supreme Court 1957) (municipal powers are limited to legislated authorities)
- Kane Prop., LLC v. City of Hoboken, 214 N.J. 199 (2013) (governing body decision review vs planning board's recommendations)
- Muto v. Kemper Reinsurance Co., 189 N.J. Super. 417 (App. Div. 1983) (abandonment of certain damages arguments on appeal)