BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF COUNTY OF MORRIS v. STATE (1998)

Superior Court of New Jersey,Appellate Division.

BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF the COUNTY OF MORRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of New Jersey, Defendant-Respondent.
BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF the COUNTY OF CAMDEN, Plaintiff-Intervenor/Appellant, v. STATE of New Jersey, Defendant-Respondent.
BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF the COUNTY OF BERGEN, Plaintiff-Intervenor/Appellant, v. STATE of New Jersey, Defendant-Respondent.

Decided: May 18, 1998

Before Judges PRESSLER, CONLEY and CARCHMAN.

Ronald Kevitz, Morris County Counsel, for plaintiff-appellant County of Morris (Mr. Kevitz, on the brief). Robert G. Millenky, Camden County Counsel, for plaintiff-intervenor-appellant County of Camden (Deborah Silverman Katz, Assistant County Counsel, on the brief). Ellen D. Julis, Assistant Bergen County Counsel, for plaintiff-intervenor-appellant County of Bergen (Murshell Johnson Bland, Bergen County Counsel, attorney; Ms. Julis, on the brief). Jaynee LaVecchia, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent (Peter Verniero, Attorney General, attorney; Ms. LaVecchia, of counsel; Karen A. DuMars, Trenton, on the brief). David A. Wallace, Warren County Counsel, for amicus curiae, County of Warren.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Plaintiffs appeal a judgment entered May 8, 1997, declaring that Article VI, § VIII, ¶ 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, adopted November 3, 1992, did not obligate the State to assume “the construction costs and any related borrowing costs of courthouses constructed, expanded or renovated after July 1, 1993.” In his April 24, 1997 written opinion reported at 311 N.J.Super. 637, 710 A.2d 1060 (Law Div.1997), Judge Stanton concluded that it did not.

We have considered the contentions raised by the plaintiffs and amicus curiae. We reject their contentions and affirm for the reasons set forth by Judge Stanton in his reported opinion. Simply put, Article VI, § VIII, ¶ 1 imposes on the State “certain” judicial costs. Neither the definition of “judicial costs” nor the definition of excluded “judicial facility costs” contained in Article VI, § VIII, ¶ 1(b)(1) and (3) encompasses capital costs implicated in the construction, renovation or expansion of the courthouses. Thus, the only affirmative obligation of the State for judicial facility costs continues to be for the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, and the Chancery Division, other than the Family Part. N.J.S.A. 2B:6-1(a).

CONLEY, J.A.D.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network