Verizon Loses a Tax Case, as the Supreme Court Affirms an Appellate Division Decision for the Reasons the Appellate Division Gave | NJ Appellate Law Blog – NJ Appellate Lawyer Bruce D. Greenberg blogs about Appeals and Appellate Law Practice

Verizon New Jersey, Inc. v. Borough of Hopewell, 258 N.J. 255 (2024). This 6-0 per curiam opinion (Justice Fasciale did not participate) affirmed a 78-page opinion by Judge Accurso at the Appellate Division level last year. That opinion, not previously approved for publication, will now appear at ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2023). (A version of that opinion that remains unpublished is even longer).

This was a tax case. It centered on the meaning of “local telephone exchange,” as used in N.J.S.A. 54:4-1. That statute that statute subjects to taxation the personal and real property of a local exchange telephone company, defined as “a telecommunications carrier providing dial tone and access to 51% of a local telephone exchange.”

When the case was tried in the Tax Court, there was little or no dispute about the facts, and the evidence consisted solely of expert testimony as to the meaning of “local telephone exchange.” In an opinion reported at 31 N.J. Tax. 49 (Tax Ct. 2019), the Tax Court adopted the view espoused by Hopewell that “local telephone exchange” was to be defined “based on … geographic boundaries.” The Appellate Division affirmed that ruling after reviewing industry understandings of that term, statutory history, and other considerations. Judge Accurso concluded that the geographic boundaries interpretation was most consistent with the Legislature’s intent.

Today’s Supreme Court opinion affirmed, substantially for the reasons given by the Appellate Division, that court’s conclusion “that ‘local telephone exchange’ as used in N.J.S.A. 54:4-1 means a local telephone network within a defined geographical area as depicted on Verizon’s tariff exchange maps.” The Court observed that “local telephone exchange” was a term of art, and that terms of art that have had existing legal meanings “are understood to have been used [by the Legislature] in accordance with those meanings.” However, “[w]hen a statute that uses a term of art was enacted decades ago, as this one was, courts should look to the commonly understood technical meaning of the term during the timeframe when the phrase was chosen by the Legislature to glean what the Legislature understood the phrase to mean when choosing it.” The Appellate Division’s decision did that.

Verizon argued that the Appellate Division subjected Verizon and others to “an outdated tax assessment method, divorced from current practices within the telecommunications industry.” But the Court said that, assuming that were true, the Court could “either update nor amend the text to better fit current technological realities.” The Court observed that there are bills pending in the Legislature that would alter the definition of “local telephone exchange company.” The Legislature was free to amend the statute, but the Court was not.

"Hot Fun in the Summertime": Appellate Division Summer Parts

In an Order available here, Chief Justice Rabner announced the lineup for the Appellate Division's summer Parts. As has been customary, the "summer" runs not between the meteorological start and end dates for summer, nor from Memorial Day to Labor Day, but from June 16 through September 7....

The Supreme Court Confirms That Municipalities Can be Subjected to Sanctions for Frivolous Litigation

Borough of Englewood Cliffs v. Trautner, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). This appeal presented the question of whether municipalities can be liable to pay sanctions for frivolous litigation, under the Frivolous Litigation Statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1 ("the FLS"). In a 5-0 opinion written by Justice Fasciale (Chief Justice Rabner and Justice Hoffman did not participate), the Court affirmed, as modified, the decision of the Appellate Division that upheld the Law Division's imposition of FLS sanctions against the Borough....

The "Castle Doctrine"

State v. Bragg, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). A jury found defendant guilty of twelve charged counts, including attempted murder, kidnapping, aggravated assault, terroristic threats, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, endangering, and two lesser-included offenses of harassment. Some of those charges involved the use of deadly force. Persons may not use deadly force if the can retreat with complete safety. But under the "castle doctrine," an exception to the general rule, a person "is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor." N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4(b)(2)(b)(i). That doctrine derives from the common law....

No Arbitrariness in Rejection of Public Construction Bid That Failed to Include a Properly Signed, Required Consent of Surety

In the Matter of Protest Filed by El Sol Contracting and Construction Corp., Contract T100.638, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). This public bidding case resulted in a 5-2 split at the Supreme Court, the first non-unanimous ruling of the current Term. Justice Hoffman wrote the majority opinion, while Justice Fasciale authored the dissent for himself and Justice Pierre-Louis....