• Skip to main content
  • Home
  • Contact
  • About
  • Search
    • Search US
    • Search Global
  • Global Litigation
  • U.S. Litigation

Petrozzi v. City of Ocean City

Filing Date: 2005
Case Categories:
  • Adaptation
    • Challenges to adaptation measures
Principal Laws:
Fifth Amendment—Takings, Contract Law, New Jersey Coastal Area Facility Review Act
Description: Suit against City of Ocean City for breaching easement obligation to abide by dune height limitation.
  • Petrozzi v. City of Ocean City
    Docket number(s): 073596
    Court/Admin Entity: N.J.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    06/05/2014 Order Review denied. The New Jersey Supreme Court denied without comment the City of Ocean City’s request that it review the appellate court decision that obligated the City to make restitutionary payments to property owners whose ocean views were affected after the height of a dune system created by the City increased beyond height limitations established in easements granted to the City.
  • Petrozzi v. City of Ocean City
    Docket number(s): A-1633-11T4, A-1677-11T4
    Court/Admin Entity: N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
    Case Documents:
    Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary
    10/28/2013 Opinion Download Opinion issued. Property owners sued the City of Ocean City after the dune system created by the City in the early 1990s increased in height due to natural accretion and exceeded height limitations agreed to in easements granted by the property owners. The City was barred from reducing the dunes’ height because the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection denied it a dune maintenance permit, which was required pursuant to 1994 amendments to New Jersey’s Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA). A trial judge ruled that most of the property owners were not entitled to breach of contract damages because the City’s performance was made impossible or impracticable by the CAFRA amendments; the judge ruled that the City was liable only to two sets of property owners who granted easements after the passage of the CAFRA amendments. The New Jersey Appellate Division ruled, however, that the property owners who granted easements prior to the amendments were entitled to restitution. The court noted that in calculating the restitutionary payments or breach of contract damages due to the property owners, the court should take into account the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Borough of Harvey Cedars v. Karan, in which the court indicated that any reduction in value due to loss of views should be offset by value added due to the dunes’ storm-protection benefits.

© 2023 · Sabin Center for Climate Change Law · U.S. Litigation Chart made in collaboration with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

The materials on this website are intended to provide a general summary of the law and do not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.