# B.P.U.M. Development & Urban Renewal Corp. v. City of Camden

> New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 1, 1989 · 11 N.J. Tax 95

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9309034

## Case

- **Full name:** B.P.U.M. DEVELOPMENT AND URBAN RENEWAL CORPORATION v. CITY OF CAMDEN, AND CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT CITY OF CAMDEN v. CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
- **Court:** New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
- **Decided:** May 1, 1989
- **Citations:** 11 N.J. Tax 95
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 6 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/9309034

## Opinion text

PER CURIAM.
Substantially for the reasons expressed in his opinion reported at 9 N.J.Tax. 490 (1988), we conclude that Judge Lario correctly held (1) that both the Urban Renewal Law (N.J.S.A. 40:55C-40 et seq.) and the Tax Abatement Law (N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.95 et seq.) require “the acceptance and execution of appropriate agreements as a precondition for an eligible project to receive tax abatement” and (2) that “there exists no equitable reason to waive the statutory prerequisites.” B.P.U.M. Dev. & Urb. Renewal v. Camden, 9 N.J.Tax. at 502-503, 507.
The judgment is accordingly affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9309034. Public record. Not legal advice.