From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Paramus v. Martin Paint

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Apr 30, 1974
128 N.J. Super. 138 (App. Div. 1974)

Opinion

Argued February 11, 1974 — Submitted for Determination April 9, 1974 —

Decided April 30, 1974.

Before Judges COLLESTER, LYNCH and MICHELS.

Mr. Marvin Olick argued for appellant ( Messrs. Gruen, Sorkow Sorkow, attorneys).

Mr. Martin A. Spritzer argued for respondent.


The Borough of Paramus appeals from a judgment of the Bergen County Court which reversed the Municipal Court conviction of defendant, Martin Paint Stores, Inc., for violation of the Borough's ordinance which prohibited "wordly employment or business" on certain holidays. By an opinion reported at 121 N.J. Super. 595 (Cty.Ct. 1972), County Court Judge Gelman held that the subject matter of the ordinance was preempted by N.J.S.A. 36:1-2 and was therefore void.

On the merits we would affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Gelman in his cited opinion. We wish to state, however, that we conclude that the judgment or acquittal in the County Court is not appealable. State v. Fiore, 69 N.J. Super. 122 (App.Div. 1961), certif. den. 36 N.J. 142 (1961). Appellant argues that R. 3:10-3 and the "Tentative Draft Comment" thereon supports its right to appeal. We conclude that if it were the intent to reverse the holding in Fiore and related cases, the rules would have been amended to explicitly say so. They have not been so amended. The appeal is therefore dismissed.


Summaries of

Paramus v. Martin Paint

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Apr 30, 1974
128 N.J. Super. 138 (App. Div. 1974)
Case details for

Paramus v. Martin Paint

Case Details

Full title:BOROUGH OF PARAMUS, N.J., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MARTIN PAINT STORES…

Court:Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

Date published: Apr 30, 1974

Citations

128 N.J. Super. 138 (App. Div. 1974)
319 A.2d 256

Citing Cases

State v. Woodlands Condo. Ass'n

In the absence of an order of dismissal or a written opinion which could have been sought, R. 1:7-4, the…

State v. Mc Kelvey

The court said (at 112): "[U]nder our current statutes and rules of court no similar review of legal rulings…