# City of Newark v. Essex County Board of Taxation

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · January 29, 1975 · 66 N.J. 474

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7296796

## Case

- **Full name:** CITY OF NEWARK, RESPONDENT-CROSS-APPELLANT v. ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** January 29, 1975
- **Citations:** 66 N.J. 474; 333 A.2d 3; 1975 N.J. LEXIS 227
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7296796

## Opinion text

Per Curiam.
The judgment of the Appellate Division is modified in accordance with our decision in City of Trenton v. Mercer County Bd. of Taxation, 66 N. J. 470, decided by us this day, in which we held that no basis had been shown for excluding E.H.A. financed sales as a class from a sales-ratio study in establishing a county equalization table for the apportionment of county taxes among the taxing districts of Mercer County.
We also held that once the sales price in an E.H.A. financed sale is shown to have been substantially distorted by extraordinary charges so that it does not reflect the true consideration for the property as between buyer and seller, no adjustment of the sales price should be attempted and the sale should be discarded and not used in the sales-ratio study *476 at all. However, the county board would have the discretionary right to disregard relatively minor distortions resulting from E.H.A. financing and include such sales “as is” in the sales-ratio studies. We incorporate the City of Trenton holding into the instant case.
As modified, remanded.
For modification and remandment — Chief Justice Hughes, Justices Mountain, Sullivan, Pashman and Clieeobd and Judge Collestee — 6.
Opposed — -None.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7296796. Public record. Not legal advice.