LAW.coLAW.co

JOYCE CARR, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ARTHUR W. BURGESS, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF H. THOMAS CARR, BARBARA CARR, MICHAEL T. CARR, KATHLEEN P. CARR AND TIMOTHY F. CARR, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND BERLY INVESTMENT CO.; LESLIE GRABOWSKI, JEFFREY KIRSCH, ROBERT ELKINS, RAYMOND BUCK AND AQUAMARINE DEVELOPMENT, INC., INTERVENORS

New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division1993-04-05
264 N.J. Super. 10623 A.2d 1384

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Chancery Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Epstein in his opinion reported at 264 N.J.Super. 191, 623 A.2d 1384 (Ch.Div.1993). We are satisfied that the findings of fact are supported by substantial credible evidence in the record and find no sound reason or justification to interfere with them. See Rova Farms Resort v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484, 323 A.2d 495 (1974).