In re Issuance of Access Conforming Lot Permit No A-17-N-N040-2007, 417 N.J. Super. 115 (App. Div. 2010). This case involved an appeal by an objector to a highway access permit whose objections were not considered by the New Jersey Department of Transportation. The objector/appellant owned a nearby property and was a business competitor of the occupant of the subject property. The Appellate Division, in an opinion by Judge Skillman, ruled that his objections should have been considered. In doing so, the court touched on three procedural principles.
First, the court denied a motion to dismiss the appeal. The appellant had not served the notice of appeal on the property owner, to whom the access permit was issued. Instead, the notice of appeal was served only on the occupant of the land, a long-term lessee who was undertaking the development project for which the access permit was sought. Due to the close community of interest between the property owner and the long-term lessee, the fact that some of the papers submitted to the DOT could reasonably have left the appellant with the impression that the lessee was the one seeking the permit, and the lack of prejudice to the property owner, the court found that the appellant had substantially complied with the appellate rules.
Second, the court discussed the law of the case doctrine in a relatively unusual context. The respondent had moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appellant lacked standing. The court denied that motion. The respondent renewed its lack of standing argument at the merits stage. The court noted that its motion ruling was the law of the case, but stated that an appellate court may be somewhat more willing to reconsider decisions made in the context of a motion rather than a fully briefed and argued appeal.
Nonetheless, in the third procedural aspect of the appeal, the court reaffirmed its ruling that the appellant had standing. New Jersey takes a liberal approach to standing, and the court cited cases in which nearby property owners and competitors had standing to challenge administrative actions.