Carlin, Ward, Ash & Heiart LLC represented adjoining property owners in the challenge to a condemnation redevelopment area. The matter was quickly resolved once a complaint was filed and the City agreed to remove the properties from the condemnation redevelopment area.
CWAH partner, Michael J. Ash, represents SFIII Kinderkamack in this pending appeal. As part of a recently published opinion in SF III Kinderkamack, LLC v. Borough of Oradell, the Tax Court of New Jersey clarified its earlier decision in Mobil Administrative Services Co. v. Mansfield Twp. to hold that a...
On appeal, the appellate court overturned the decision of the trial court, and found that the record lacked adequate basis for finding that the property was a blighted redevelopment area.
Carlin, Ward, Ash & Heiart, LLC represented the interests of a tennis club when the municipality proposed including a portion of their assembled properties in a condemnation redevelopment area. Our attorneys successfully cross-examined the Borough’s planner resulting in the removal of our clients’ properties from the redevelopment area.
Carlin, Ward, Ash & Heiart LLC represented a neighborhood group including the Zion Lutheran Church in a challenge to the City of Garfield’s classification designating their properties as an area in need of redevelopment. The court rejected the designation of the First Ward Study Area as being a Condemnation Redevelopment Area...
The court rejected Union’s attempt to find the area located at the intersection of Stuyvesant and Morris Avenues to be an area in need of redevelopment. The court identified a misapplication of the law by the Planning Board based on the erroneous advice of counsel, which was misleading in its...
The appellate court found that the Long Branch did not find actual blight under any subsection of the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law, that the record lacked substantial evidence that could have supported the New Jersey Constitution’s standard for finding blight, and that the absence of substantial evidence of blight...
The appellate court upheld the decision of the trial court, who dismissed the condemnation complaint and concluded that the record lacked adequate basis for finding that the defendant’s property was a blighted redevelopment area.