No Second Bite at the Apple for Taxpayer
Following a revaluation by defendant West Caldwell, a pro se plaintiff successfully challenged the assessment of his property before the Essex County Board of Taxation. Unsatisfied with his success, he then appealed for a further reduction to the Tax Court. At trial, both parties provided comparable sales information which was rejected by the Tax Court. A judgment was entered October 12, 2012, affirming the County Board’s judgment. On November 2, 2012, plaintiff sent the Tax Court judge an email seeking reconsideration of the court’s judgment, but failed to copy defendant’s attorney on the email. Plaintiff requested a status update on November 20th, and the judge’s law clerk replied on November 26th by email that the request did not comply with R. 1:6-2(a), and that plaintiff failed to serve notice on defendant. Plaintiff immediately served defendant, who submitted opposition, and the matter was scheduled to be considered on December 21, 2012.
The judge found plaintiff’s email requesting reconsideration was timely filed, but failed to satisfy the standard in R. 4:49-2 necessary to grant a motion for reconsideration. The rule requires a party “state with specificity the basis on which it is made, including a statement of the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked or as to which it has erred.” The judge determined plaintiff’s motion arguments merely repeated the arguments made at trial and considered by the court without providing any controlling decisions which the court overlooked, or showed how the court erred in its analysis. Therefore, the court refused to vacate the judgment, and denied the plaintiff’s motion.
Motions for reconsideration are granted under very narrow circumstances, and typically denied because a party merely rehashes its original arguments while adding that the court was wrong in its holding. As noted in the oft cited case D’Atria v. D’Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401 (Ch. Div. 1990), motions “must come to an end at some point, and if repetitive bites at the apple are allowed, the core will swiftly sour.”
A copy of the Tax Court’s opinion in Matthew Tuck v. Tp. of West Caldwell may be found here.
For more blog posts on different type of motions considered by courts in valuation litigation cases, please see the following:
Two More Taxpayers Victims of Chapter 91 “Litigation Gamesmanship”
No Relaxation For Lakewood Taxpayer
NJDOT Complaints Dismissed for Failure to Engage in Bona Fide Negotiations with Property Owners
