*1 JONES, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, ARLETHIA v. JAMES BUFORD, DIRECTOR OF WELFARE, HEALTH AND AS AGENT CORP., FOR ROY L. MANAGEMENT DEFEND ANT-APPELLANT. Argued February 9, 1976 Decided November 1976. *2 P. Anthony appellant
Mr. Ambrosio the cause argued Ms. Zulima V. Farber Bucle, attorney; Milton on (Mr. the brief).
Mr. Stanley Varón argued cause for respondent. Meiser, Mr. Kenneth Advocate, ar- Assistant Public Deputy gued the cause for amicus curiae Public Department Ness, G. Stanley Advocate, Advocate Van Public at- (Mr. Meiser, Mr. Mr. torney; Carl S. and Mr. Peter A. Bisgaier Buchsbaum, Assistant Deputy Advocates, Public on the brief). of the court was delivered opinion Plaintiff,
Mountain, in an apart then tenant residing ment in Newark, commenced an action in lieu of prerogative writ defendant, to compel Director of the Newark Depart *3 of Welfare, ment Health and statutory agent act as for her landlord, N. pursuant J. A. S. She 26:3-31(p).1 defendant, to have sought hire such agent, repairmen procure materials to repair the broken boiler the building, in order to restore heat to her adequate apartment.
Some facts should be There is no underlying stated. in the was broken doubt that the boiler and that building heat neither nor A plaintiff receiving hot water. repre- was pass, 1The local board of health shall have alter’ or amend regulations regard public and make rules and ordinances purposes: jurisdiction, following for health within its the agent p. engaging repairmen To as the for landlord in act of parts ordering any necessary operating of and the to restore to condi- furnace, equipment proper boiler or tion the heating other essential to the any by landlord, provided, of residential unit rented said however, elapsed at least 24 that hours since the tenant has complaint lodged health, prior with the local board of to which a attempt by notify bona has been madei the tenant to fide the landlord equipment, heating of of the failure and the landlord has failed appropriate action, temperature to take the outside air is less than 55° F. person supplies Any who material or services in witli accordance by directly filing this section shall bill the landlord approved a notice by health, county clerk, the local board of with the shall premises on have a lien where the materials were used or services supplied. 26:3-31(p)] J. S. A. [N. 436 a man he had
sentative of the testified that engaged landlord had been efficacy that to do the work its necessary repair but prevented1 plaintiff vandalism. He further stated by who was in the building was the one of several tenants only fur unable to make financially rent and that he was paying was ther these accuracy representations The of repairs. time by prior conceded counsel. At some plaintiff’s action, the mu in this for certification filing petition unfit for human authorities declared the nicipal was habitation and Plaintiff ordered vacated. relocated Housing Authority city expense pursuant Newark et Act, 20:4-l, seq. Relocation Assistance and the ap Because of the inherent of the case importance of need for a determination the issue parent dispositive pre sented, we have determined dismiss action as moot. not to lacked afford the power to relief decided it
The trial court Di- complaint. Appellate dismissed sought, and we 209 reversed, Super. granted .(1975), 132 vision J.N. (1975). certification. petition defendant’s of the trial court. and reinstate judgment now reverse We are agencies governmental. Local boards locally police exercising created for the purpose health. of public to matters respect State powers N. J. Township, 9 Woodbridge Health Zullo v. Board Scotch Health Township 431, Board 435 (1952); Pinto, derive their They N. J. 214 (1970). Plains v. Paterson, Grosso from State powers legislation. *4 may 1959). Div. Such legislation Super. (Law statutes accord For purposes forms. present take different as may thought be of boards of health to local powers ing Enabling legislation, self-executing. or being either enabling health, a a or with board of municipality whether concerned the created takes form of entity, some other legislatively elective The board power. an or of optional grant enabled, other is the health, entity by or municipality legis it itself of particular power to avail the lative grant, if of implementation, so. The method whether by chooses do ordinance, in otherwise, resolution or specified is sometimes If so, the act. enabling it must be followed. If generally there no will often specification, the subordinate entity have a choice of means. The is that point emphasized to be enabling legislation form of requires some action appropriate the by board or before it can be- municipality of health effective; come has no absent such action it local vitality. Francis, point was well Justice put by (then Judge) for the Division to our speaking Appellate respect zoning act. enabling municipality political State, owing A is a subdivision the its authority Legisla existence and the extent the will its functioning statutorily delegated
ture. When power generally the orbit of within the legislative character; its actions are in govern decision to act ordinance or in otherwise the area of local generally discretion, particular performance ment is one unless a imposed imperative by enabling Thus, although as an statute. adopt authority zoning ordinance, exists to the determination gov to do so to refrain or therefrom rests in discretion of the erning body. general supervisory power Courts have no over the legislative government exercise of that discretion. The branch acting and its subdivisions within their constitutional and sphere just independent as are of us as are of them. if Even we very could be said that a certain would in ordinance much public welfare, interest and the courts will not issue their mandate compel legislative body it; to enact nor do hav.e we domain, distinguished avoid the effects of inaction in that from express implied duty act, the situation where there an or [citing cases]. We cannot enter the committee room and interfere judgment governing body, with or our substitute [citing remedy in authorities] The such case must be with the Responsibility constituency public to a and a sense of electorate. duty only prompt any legis are the incentives which can in discretion Wayne Township, Super. 375, lative [Finn action. 45 N. J. (App. 1957)] Div. hand, no requires on other Self-executing legislation, statute, pro- at the local level. The implementation act some prio vigore, obliga- bestows cases power, tion, agency government. directly upon » of health general Local boards broad possess powers enact ordinances and to make rules and regulations *5 protecting improving public the interest of health. authorized, A. they again by S. 26 :3-64. are Additionally of of rules and adoption the enactment ordinances certain of concern particular address areas regulations, in this field. most important The granting J. S. A. a of which 26:3-31, is N. subsection power latter — been deal power has above. This grant quoted — in the statute been specific problems identified has as set held not to limit delegation general powers Weehawken Twp. forth in act. Bd. Health the former Co., v. N. Central Sig Y. R. R. J. 299 (1950). fact that with respect nificant to the issue before us is the has to employ to each chosen grant power, Legislature a on part In each case local action enabling acts. implement legislative grant. board of health needed to Finn v. above, Wayne Township, as Just in the case cited it not, or was might might it found that municipality enabling to the fit, zoning pursuant saw ordinance adopt adopt or not may may of health act, too, so local board any power particular specifically implementing an ordinance follows, result This Legislature. available to it made statutory grant. case, in each from the language it field public in the In surveying legislation time, from has, time the Legislature will seen that types enabling self-executing to the both resorted abate instance, power with respect For statute. ordinance, may, by a board of health nuisances, although J. A. is, 26:3-45, S. provide what nuisance define et abatement, N. S. A. 26:3-46 seq., means for its of such implement act even in the absence also empowered local level. legislation at ing nuisances, power given abate local board to remove and to the public foulness, of sickness hazardous to the sources of or causes upon health, depend its board has exercised shall not whether public pass, alter, ordinances relation amend [N. 26:3-47] health. *6 a Similarly, for the State legislation providing adoption Sanitary Code that it be enforced local directing by each health, board of at the local level for its requires nothing activation. The on the of the obligation part authorities see to to enforcement derives from directly its the legislation the of the giving provisions Sanitary State Code the force and N. A. effect law. J. 26 :1A-9. S.
On hand, other is in the legislation there much field public health which is of the As variety. enabling we indicated, have so clas before us must be We sified. its clause: repeat opening pass, The local board of health shall amend to alter have or regulations regard public ordinances rules and malee jurisdiction, following purposes: [N. health within its for J. 26:3-31; emphasis added] S. A. kind. The clearly On its face act enabling full and leaves discretion with each language permissive not, fit, enact or board of health to ordinances as it sees any areas of concern detailed respect specific in the act. also,
We think it act or important, not be read isolation, considered in but rather in the of all framework housing give that seeks to remedial relief to legislation tenants landlords who undue against permit deterioration or who fail buildings condi provide satisfactory living tions, as furnish heat. Munici neglecting adequate instance, palities, broad cause powers dilapidated or dangerous demolished, to be repaired, structures closed or N. J. S. A. 40:48-2.3, and to take upon action appropriate determination that is unfit for human habita N. A. tion. J. S. 40:48-2.4 et seq. may They put prem ises condition proper owner, expense of the such public outlay to become lien J. upon N. S. A. property. 40:48-2.12f. Application may be made for the appointment of a receiver to the rents collect them apply improvement J. N. S. property, 40:48-2.12h, A. N. J. 2A:42-79; court,
S. into the rents thereafter pay available to remedy defective conditions. S. et cer may, A. 2A:42-85 under seq. Municipal agencies circumstances, tain was in tenants, relocate fact done et here with to this S. A. 20:4-1 respect plaintiff. seq. level, At the state the Commissioner of the Depart Affairs, ment Hotel Community under the terms of the Law, A. 55:13A-1 et Multiple seq., Dwelling take in specifically authorized to action to appropriate sure heat in N. J. S. A. 55:13A- multiple homes. adequate *7 J. A. C. 7(h); N. of remedies 5:10-19.4(1). The panoply indeed diversity as it should be. The ample, options a selec available intent that the strongly suggests legislative tion of remain within any particular statutory should remedy authorities. sound discretion other of the municipal inis similar legislation where jurisdictions in other
Cases rather permissive as being such statutes effect have construed where, here, action seeks as than mandatory, especially v. Hayes, Richmond of mandamus. Thus way relief by suit was to brought 2d 784 428, (1971) 212 184 S. Va. E. al respect to take action a officer compel which statute housing pursuant substandard legedly statute be in Einding authorized such clearly relief. the suit. Sim all the court dismissed respects permissive, Ass’n v. Common Clear Acres Homeowners Vue ilarly, wealth, 317 A. 335 court 66, (1974) Pa. Cmwlth. 2d mandamus to State compel refused to issue writ of the- op Environmental Resources to assume Department — a water of its water potability being eration of company — below standards prescribed despite presence allegedly of a clearly such action. See also Com authorizing Action Against Lyons, Lead 43 A. D. munity Poisoning Y. 201, 1974); 2d 350 N. S. 2d Div. aff’d 36 (App. 409, N. Y. 2d 366 N. Y. S. 2d N. E. 2d 870 (1975). conclude, indicated, we have Here we as that the statute and not plaintiff invoked enabling self-executing.
Ml In the municipal absence action it not appropriate available a remedy. as even
Einally, should be noted that were the statute so be drawn as self-executing, of health boards would still surely have discretion to decide whether remedy was in a case. It appropriate particular would be futile and for a board health to improvident compelled repair of a so heating system as be unfit generally dilapidated to be and to beyond repair for human A solution, habitation.2 chosen sensible as was here, would be relocate the tenant.
Eor the set forth reasons hereinabove the judgment the Appellate Division is reversed and the judgment trial court is reinstated.
P ashman, impres This is a case of first (dissenting). sion section construction of concerning recently-enacted J.N. R. em p. 26:3-31. Subsection that statute powers local boards of health landlords to act agents to obtain necessary when the repairs heating equipment fails to apartment function and temperature the outside falls below “F.1 Plaintiff-tenant invoke this sought *8 average per 2It has been that the cost of rehabilitation estimated dwelling $9,000. in income President’s unit low areas Commission Housing, Home, (1968). on A Urban Decent The State Department Community of of Affairs estimated the 44.6% dwelling Dept. in Com units Newark were substandard. J. munity Affairs, Jersey 1970, (1970). in Crisis New introductory p. and A. 1The clause subsection S. 26:3-31 provide: pass, The local of health or amend board shall to alter regulations regard public in ordinances and make rules and the jurisdiction, following purposes: health within its for the p. agent repairmen engaging To for a act as the landlord in the any ordering parts necessary operating and the to restore con- furnace, equipment proper dition the boiler or the other essential heating by any provided, landlord, residential unit rented said
provision order to have the heat and hot water in her apartment restored after the boiler in the building ceased the Division the operating. Although Appellate upheld statute, tenant’s under the reaches rights majority today the a result of a mechanical contrary by approach means construction and hope which defeats the promise afforded N. J. A. by S. 26:3-31(p). L. Man- Roy a tenant of the Arlethia Jones was
Plaintiff in an located apartment building agement Corporation On about October 448 Fail-mount Avenue in Newark. or no that she was 1974, notified the landlord plaintiff in her She apartment. heat or hot water receiving longer Newark of the the Division of Inspections also contacted an in- Welfare, which conducted of Health and Department determined that in fact and spection was to make boiler broken. landlord unwilling was only paying because was the necessary repairs plaintiff tenant the costs were apartment, prohibitive, in the by per- had been frustrated comparable repairs past vandalism. sistent 15, 1974, commenced plaintiff on November
Accordingly, in lieu writ to defendant- compel action of prerogative serve Health and Welfare to Department director landlord, for the to hire repairmen as statutory agent boiler, to N. J. S. material procure repair pursuant A. 26:3-31 Plaintiff contended that N. 26:3-31(p). a mandatory authorization (p) represents however, elapsed has since the tenant that at least hours have- health, prior lodged complaint to which with the local board of notify attempt by bona been tenant fide has made heating equipment, failure of and the landlord landlord appropriate tempera- action, has failed take the outside air F. ture is less than 55° supplies Any person who material or in accordance services directly filing this section shall bill the landlord notice clerk, approved by county health, shall the local board of with the premises have a lien on the where materials used ser- were supplied. vices *9 The trial responsibility. of health to assume this board court, lacked jurisdiction that concluding grant Di relief dismissed the The complaint. Appellate sought, Jones v. Buford, vision reversed in reported opinion. N. J. Super. 1975). Div. (App. Reading provisions et Act, Faulkner J. S. A. 40:69A—1 seq. :3-31, materia, S. A. 26 found pari Division Appellate that the Newark of Health Welfare, as Department “local board of health,” was statute. subject the latter The court then that held power pro conferred vision was administrative nature and a manda imposed on tory duty defendant in ob interests pursue plaintiff’s taining sufficient heat and hot water. In construing statute, the court stated: apparent scope legislation It from the nature Legislature renting intended that residential members of the public, protection for enacted, whose was should have right conferred, to have the thus for their exercised benefit. Super, 215] [132 N. J.
On January 1975, the in the day after oral argument Appellate Division, de the Newark Division of Inspection clared the apartment be unfit for human habita building tion. Pursuant order, Re Division’s vacation and the location Act, N. J. Assistance S. A. 20:4-1 et seq., plaintiff was moved to a different Newark apartment by the Housing Authority. Because of the importance ques tion posed by case, this we declined to dismiss the action as moot and granted defendant’s petition certification. N. J. 151 (1975).
I The majority rejects the Division’s con- Appellate struction reads 26:3-31(p). majority the introductory find, clause the statute to in the absence of any definitive legislative history, that legislation “of the enabling variety.” Enabling legislation, opposed *10 which is unitary that self-executing, requires regulatory before it becomes effective. Because such
implementation is a function in the sound discretion implementation vested courts cannot com- authorities their municipal agents, reason, holds majority local enactment. Eor pel A. that, J. S. by its 'failure promulgate regulations Newark of Health and Welfare :3-31(p), Department has statutory from to the precluded plaintiff resorting afforded remedy by this statute. from its
My majority with the disagreement originates A. N. J. S. statutory 26:3-31(p), construction of erroneous and the from that in unfortunate consequences resulting “shall,” in terpretation. the use of the word Significantly, as N. J. S. statute, such introductory clause of rather than usually per 26:3-31(p), mandatory indicates Harvey missive Justice Schettino observed obligation. As Freeholders, v. Essex J. 381 : Cty. 30 N. (1959) Bd. of directory, “may” permissive ordinarily The word and the mandatory. terms, generally words “must” and “shall” are Such however, interchangeable necessary have been held be whenever Legislature. pri- problem to execute clear intent marily ascertaining Legislature. one of intent [30 391-392]. N. J. at Accord, Taxation, City Passaic v. Passaic Bd. Cty. Harrison, 395-96 Leeds v. 9 N. J. (1955); 202, 213 Thus, (1952). I contrary majoritj', perceive that this statute creates a on its face. mandatory obligation when, here, becomes more compelling
This construction we consider a which confers a substantial benefit upon In such avoid provisions, members public. nega- denial benefit, tion or courts con- important ordinarily strue legislation impose mandatory obligation on to effectuate responsible governmental body the legislative scheme in the of an absence express contrary intent. As one on the commentary subject states: leading grant public officers, pub- A where individuals or the right benefit, mandatory. lic have a exercised for their Sutherland, Statutory (4 1973), [2A Construction ed. 441] § 57.17 at Recognizing important interests served this rule of construction, courts have the rule in a broad and applied liberal Thus, fashion. to avoid the aof deprivation benefit, courts found a im- mandatory obligation *11 plement legislation even where the aof statute is language arguably As permissive. 1860, as early the former Supreme Court observed: giving power permission Words or do am act which concerns public interest, applied public body officers, when a are to requiring done, although phraseology construed as act to be permissive merely, peremptory,
of the statute be not whenever there nothing permissive expression, in the act save form of the may appoint, power so, legis or shall have to do to denote that designed lodge body lature a discretion in the authorized to act. Newark, 491, [State v. (Sup. ; J. 1860) 28 N. L. 497-98 em Ct. phasis supplied]. An extensive line of cases this following has al- precedent most uniformly basic adhered this rule of construction. See Central Land Co. v. Bayonne, (E. N. 56 J. L. 297, 300 & A. 1893); Kennelly v. Jersey 57 J. City, L. 293, 297 Elizabeth, Ct. Clark (Sup. 1894); v. J. L. 565, 581-82 Hoboken, & A. (E. 1898); v. Fagen 85 N. J. 297, L. (E. & A. 1913); McDonald v. Cty. Hudson Bd. Chosen of Freeholders, 99 N. L. 170, 172 &(E. A. 1923); Leeds Harrison, v. 9 N. J. supra, 213; at v. Essex Harvey Bd. Cty. Freeholders, supra, Farms, 30 N. J. 392; at Como v. Inc. of Foran, 6 N. J. Super. 306, 311 Div. (App. 1950); Bayonne North v. Jersey Comm’n, Dist. Water Supply 30 N. J. Super. 409, 417-18 (App. Div. 1954). Furthermore, the "sub- stantial” interests upheld in cases, these such as the of duty a municipality to publish in solely an official newspaper, Hoboken, Fagen v. supra, and the power of a municipality to retire court attendants who reach the 65, of age Harvey Freeholders, in comparison supra,, pale v. Essex Bd. Cty. of —(cid:127) provision in case interest plaintiffs cold weather.
sufficient heat during on the largely proposition decision bases its majority should in enacting of the legislature that the intent con statutory and rules precedents prevail, regardless Sutherland, 15; 45.05 at supra, contrary. struction to the § Taxation, J. 291, 51 N. Monmouth Bd. Cty. v. Malawan Cty. Bd. Freeholders Union Cty. Union 298 (1968); Comm’n, However, the 333, (1964). Park 41 N. adopted scheme was fashion in which this piecemeal to de majority undertaken the inquiry undermines A. 26 :3—31itself intent. legislative lineate the which at separate pieces legislation least 12 the product to discern effort 91-year period. Any were enacted over intent on part ascertainable readily consistent or different of this subsections Legislature adopting which interpretation formidable obstacles statute runs into Furthermore, the majority blithely although are ignored. that the has chosen to Legislature delegate concludes ante acts, health enabling to local boards of through the field of public admits that freely “surveying *12 has, time, from time to it will be seen the Legislature that both to the and of self-executing tj'pes resorted enabling 438. statutes.” Ante additional factors undermine this
Transcending inquiry, is not self-execut- that statute conclusion the majority’s the provision this to is clear that the Legislature It ing. enacted from the health relief hazards practical the tenant afford I with disagree an unheated the apartment. discomforts and of other remedial availability that 'the suggestion majority’s in any way is probative to local: boards options in authorities. The issue municipal discretion vested the statute, board must thé implement whether the have the heating system the tenant to entitling thereby the landlord has failed if to take repaired ap- this must and not whether exercise the action, option propriate of this by the statute under the facts provided particular II, case. See Part infra. re- Moreover, face, N. 26:3-31 neither on its its time of nor indicates implementation, quires further implementation effectiveness is to be until such postponed contrary If intent accomplished. anything, suggests Sutherland, by supra, that found See majority. the A. 26 33.06 at 9. A examination of J. S. :3—31(p) close § sufficiently also shows that it affords detailed guidance any obviate the need for implementing legislation. object of the clearly specifies legislation (“to
statute furnace, restore condition the boiler or operating other essential tire residential equipment any proper heating landlord”), unit rented said by subject its board (“local of health”), powers which are conferred the statute by act as the agent for landlord of re- (“To engaging pairmen ordering any parts necessary to re- . . store . equipment essential who proper heating”), invoke may those powers (“the when the tenant”), powers may invoked . (“24 hours . . the tenant has [after] lodged complaint the local board of health”) conditions which must be prior to met invoking powers bona fide (“a attempt has been made tenant notify the failure the heating landlord equip- ment, . . . the landlord has failed to take appropriate action, and the air outside temperature less than 55° P”). These and the provisions absence of any indication that further was implemention either contemplated or necessary, warrant the conclusion that N. J. S. A. 26:3-31(p) is self-sufficient further requires no implementation.
I am not persuaded that the introductory clause a different requires conclusion. That section provides that the “local board of health shall alter pass, ordinances and make amend rules regulations in re- gard to the public health.” Once it is recognized that *13 statute is it self-executing, is clear that the re- statement fers to the ability the local board of health to rules pass which it is under regulations concerning powers granted
the statute. This author- corresponds quasi-legislative which ity belongs administrative agencies promulgate Davis, rules. interpretative generally, See Administrative Law, Service, 5.03 Civil Cunningham Dep’t (1958); § 69 N. J. 13 the clause leaves (1975). Although promulga- the tion of such discretion, it not agency rules does suggest that this be used power may to neutralize the efficacy fact, statute as a whole. In to the extent that the statute is clear in sufficiently case, for additional necessity is legislation thereby ameliorated. Reference to the quasi- legislative powers the local of health only boards acts an invitation use powers these necessary at later time. if I therefore find that N. J. A. 26 S. :3-31 is a self-executing statute, both operative that subsection avail- is (p) reluctance of the local despite able the failure or board of By to enact virtue supplementary regulations. statute, terms I would express further that Ms. find was entitled to Jones invoice the relief terms of provided under N. J. A. S. Legislature 26:3-31(p).
II availed has not the municipality .finds that majority itself of the by implementing regulations, scheme whether a tenant has in dictum the treating only question A. 26:3-31 ex- inherent in S. right ercised in I find statute to be self- this case. Because nowI address this issue. executing, I which Preliminarily, reiterate that the afforded right file merely tenant under the statute right board health and complaint thereby invoke However, enumerated in be- p. my subsection powers lief under N. J. remedy S. 26 :3— enforcement is, be, and should entrusted to the sound discretion of (p) the local board health. This is in accordance with the interests of best fairness administrative practicalities. While the J. A. remedy provided N. 26:3—31(p) should
449 be readily accessible to tenants who are deprived heating, its administrative enforcement should be based a factual upon determination of need. aTe Situations conceivable where tenant might unjustifiably file a with complaint board of health, invoking S. A. as a means 26:3-31(p) of harassment or oppression. Once it is determined that factual allegations are unfounded, would be it proper for the local board to decline to exercise its discretion. Such an action should only undertaken, however, an exercise of sound discretion purposes consistent of the un derlying See Swede v. legislation. 22 N. Clifton, 303 Furthermore, (1956). avoid arbitrary administrative de terminations and also to provide judicial review, record the reasons for the decision of the local board of health should be reduced to Bd., See v. N. J. writing. Monks State Parole 238, (1971); Donaldson v. N. Wildwood Bd. Educ., J. 236, 65 N. 245 (1974). course,
Of within the context of instant case, de- termination of this is unnecessary sort because Ms. Jones no at 448 Avenue and longer lives the apartment Fairmount in which formerly she resided building has been condemned. However, if even had apartment house not been con- demned, it is that possible Department Health Welfare, in discretion, its sound have might lawfully declined relief. The grant required extensive ex- pensive repairs beyond replacement mere of a boiler. Consequently, possible the desired work repair would have been totally ineffective. Under these circum- stances, the should Department be able to seek other forms of relief such as the condemnation and relocation actually case. effected this fully fails to majority implement important refusal' provide Its
statutory provision. procedures for re- lief in case stands in stark contrast the decisions of an number courts which have increasing recognized suffered by deprivation poorer segments of our society with basic amenities of human regard existence. dimension, amenities, These not constitutional though and have welfare, been the general as essential to regarded down to strike both federal state courts prompted to them. unduly obstacles which restrict access procedural Ed. 1011, 90 Ct. L. Kelly, 397 U. S. Goldberg *15 McDonnell, Ct. 539, v. 418 U. S. 2d 287 (1970); Wolff J. v. 67 N. Clifford, 41 L. 2d 935 Avant 2963, (1974); Ed. necessities 496, 519 Foremost these (1975). among McCrane, N. v. Mortgage Agency shelter. In J. Finance J. 414 (1970), specifically Court stated: citizenry adequate question sufficient and has of whether assessing prime certainly housing considerations one of the body. 420]. general [56 J.N. and welfare of that Robinson reaffirmed this proposition. cases have Subsequent Cahill, 473, Burlington Southern 62 N. 483 (1973); 178-79 NAACP v. Mt. Laurel Cty. Tp., (1975). mere pro- more than anticipates
Shelter something clearly contemplates, and a roof. It of four walls vision McCrcme, which both we stated in housing “adequate” heat- which lacks In this regard, housing “sufficient.” com- below 55° F. does not temperature drops when the ing standards which “sufficient” port “adequate” enunciated. we previously authorities Newark the local
The majority today permits to effect statutory responsibility effectively shirk their as those authorities decide until such time these standards already be an clear legislative I find what implement stand back while the local I refuse authorities mandate. I would affirm freezes. Consequently, fiddle and Ms. Jones Division. Appellate the decision reversal—Chief Justice Justices For Hughes, Mountain, Judge Sullivan, Clifford Sciireiber Conford— 6.
For affirmance—Justice Pashman—1.