Nizar Tellawy v. Kinnelon Borough

TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Justice Building
495 MLK Boulevard, 4th Floor
MICHAEL J. DUFFY 	Newark, New Jersey 07102-0690
JUDGE 	(609) 815-2922 Ext. 54580
August 11, 2026
Nizar Tellawy
6 Nicholas Drive
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
Pro Se Plaintiff
Brian T. Giblin, Esq.
Giblin & Gannaio, LLC
2 Forest Avenue #200
Oradell, NJ 07649
Attorney for Defendant
Re: 	Nizar Tellawy v. Kinnelon Borough
Docket No. 001081-2024
Dear Mr. Tellawy and Mr. Giblin:
This letter shall constitute the court’s opinion following trial in the above matter.
Plaintiff challenges a 12-month added assessment, for tax year 2023, on his single-family
residence. 	After a two-day trial, the court finds that there is insufficient data in the record to
determine the market value of the property and upholds the imposition of an added assessment.
However, the court finds that the improvements were completed on April 20, 2023, and therefore,
will adjust the added assessment to reflect a prorated 8-month period, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4-
63.3.
I. 	INTRODUCTION
Nizar Tellawy (“Plaintiff”) is the owner of the single-family residence located at 6 Nicholas
Drive, Kinnelon Borough, Morris County. The property is identified on defendant Kinnelon
Borough’s (“Kinnelon”) tax map as Block 23201, Lot 134 (the “subject property”).

Nizar Tellawy v. Kinnelon Borough
Docket No. 001081-2024
2
The subject property, which was under construction, was initially assessed on October 1,
2022, for tax year 2023, as follows:
Land: 	$191,100.00
Improvements: 	$300,000.00
Total 	$491,100.00
On September 29, 2023, Kinnelon’s assessor subsequently imposed an added assessment
on the subject property in the amount of $621,500 for tax year 2023, which was prorated for
12 months. 	Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Morris County Board of Taxation (“Board”).
On December 21, 2023, the Board affirmed the added assessment. Plaintiff appealed the judgment
of the Board to the Tax Court.1 Kinnelon did not file an answer or counterclaim.
For tax year 2023, Kinnelon’s average ratio of assessed to true value, commonly referred
to as the Chapter 123 ratio, is 93.58% with an upper limit of 107.62% and lower limit of 79.54%.
See N.J.S.A. 54:1-35a(a). 	When the average ratio is applied to the subject property’s 2023 tax
year total assessment of $1,112,600, it has an implied equalized value of $1,188,929.
The matter was tried to conclusion over two days. During trial, Plaintiff, a self-represented
litigant, offered testimony and submitted comparable sales information on nine single-family
residences sold in Kinnelon. 	The court ultimately excluded one of the comparable sales.2
In addition, Plaintiff submitted street-level photographs for three additional properties on his
block.
1 On July 24, 2024, the court entered an order to show cause why the Complaint should not be
dismissed as untimely. In an order, dated September 27, 2024, the court concluded that this action
is timely since Plaintiff established that a copy of the Complaint was e-mailed to the Tax Court
Management Office on February 2, 2024.
2 Plaintiff offered as a comparable the April 2021 sale of 50 South Glen Road in Kinnelon (P-5).
Kinnelon objected to its use as an impermissible private sale. Plaintiff was given an opportunity
to respond but failed to offer any rebuttal. As a result, the court excluded the sale.

Nizar Tellawy v. Kinnelon Borough
Docket No. 001081-2024
3
In response, Kinnelon offered testimony from a State of New Jersey certified residential
real estate appraiser, who was accepted by the court as an expert in the property valuation field
(“appraiser”). 	Kinnelon’s 	appraiser 	prepared 	an 	appraisal 	report 	(“appraisal 	report”)
dated February 	10, 	2025, 	containing 	comparable 	sales 	information 	on 	five 	single-family
residences sold in Kinnelon.
Following the closure of the trial record on the issue of valuation, the court reopened the
record for the limited purpose of determining the date of completion of the improvements.
The court heard testimony from Plaintiff and Kinnelon’s assessor and received additional exhibits
into evidence.
The subject property is a 2-story colonial, with a contemporary flair, single-family
residence that is situated on a 2.096-acre irregular-shaped lot. 	The interior and exterior
photographs of the subject property depict a newly constructed single-family residence containing
lower quality finishings.3 The home possesses 4,199 square feet of gross living area consisting of
9 rooms including 4 bedrooms, 4 full bathrooms, a 3-car garage, and an unfinished basement.4
From photographs, it appears that the first floor of the home features a kitchen, living room, dining
room, den, and full bathroom. The second floor of the home includes a laundry room, finished
room above the garage, 3 full bathrooms, and 4 bedrooms including the primary bedroom.
The subject property’s kitchen is noted to have low-quality cabinets. 	The home features a faux
3 The tile flooring is not level and was installed with poor workmanship, with grout chipping in
large sections.
4 	The appraiser testified as to disparities between his inspection and the property record card.
For example, the room above the garage was finished despite the building plan identifying the
space as unfinished, which added approximately 336 square feet to the subject property. At trial,
Plaintiff agreed with this adjustment.

Nizar Tellawy v. Kinnelon Borough
Docket No. 001081-2024
4
fireplace. The primary bathroom includes a portable jacuzzi. In addition, the subject property has
a deck and a patio but has minimal landscaping.
The subject property is in the southwest corner of Kinnelon within the Estate at Kinnelon
development. It is on the upper side of the development and along a short cul-de-sac comprised
of nine building lots. Eight of these lots have been developed. The homes in this development are
mostly custom designed and well maintained.
The subject property is zoned A - Residential. The subject property’s use as a single-family
home is legally permitted and conforming use.
II. 	ADDED ASSESSMENT
All real property must be valued as of October 1 of the pre-tax year. 	N.J.S.A. 54:4-23.
There are three additional types of assessments: added assessments, omitted assessments and
omitted added assessments. 	An added assessment “is intended to capture any increase in value
that occurs as a consequence of the completion of the erection, addition to or improvement of any
building or structure after the October 1 valuation date for a particular tax year.” 	Arsenis v.
Borough of Bernardsville, 476 N.J. Super. 195, 207 (App. Div. 2023).5
An added assessment may be imposed under one of two statutes. The first statute,
N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.2, permits an added assessment when a structure has been erected, added to or
improved after the October 1 valuation date and completed before the January 1 of the tax year.
In such a case, the assessor makes a pro-rated added assessment for the remainder of the pre-tax
year (from the first day of the month following completion through December 31) and an added
5 For an appeal of an added assessment, the court must determine “the taxable value of the property
as completed (land and improvements combined) and then subtract the existing assessment
(making any necessary ratio adjustments).” 	New Jersey Foreign Trade Zone Venture v. Mount
Olive Twp., 10 N.J. Tax 330, 333 (Tax 1989), aff’d, 242 N.J. Super. 170 (App. Div. 1990).

Nizar Tellawy v. Kinnelon Borough
Docket No. 001081-2024
5
assessment for the entire tax year (i.e., subsequent year). Ibid. The second statute, N.J.S.A. 54:4-
63.3, permits an added assessment where a structure has been erected, added to or improved after
the October 1 valuation date and completed between January 1 and October 1 of the tax year.
In such a case, the added assessment is prorated for the remainder of the tax year, beginning the
first day of the month following completion. Ibid.
For purposes of the added assessment law, “completed” means “substantially ready for the
use for which it was intended.” N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.1. Our courts have adopted two tests to determine
when a building or structure is substantially ready for its intended use. The economic viability test
requires the court to discern whether the construction has “reached the point where an
economically viable structure” exists. Beranto v. City of Passaic, 1 N.J. Tax 344, 349 (Tax 1980).
The functional test centers on whether the building or structure could be used for its intended
purpose. Litton Business Sys., Inc. v. Borough of Morris Plains, 8 N.J. Tax 520, 538 (Tax 1986),
aff’d, 9 N.J. Tax 651 (App. Div. 1988). Moreover, “qualification of a building for a certificate of
occupancy is not per se determinative of the building’s readiness for occupancy within the meaning
of the taxing statute.” 	Beranto, 1 N.J. Tax at 349. 	The “failure to qualify for a certificate of
occupancy is only one of several circumstances to be considered.” Ibid.
The parties dispute the date of completion of the improvements. 	Kinnelon’s assessor
maintains that the parties previously agreed that the date of completion was December 31, 2022.6
6 On or about November 28, 2023, Kinnelon petitioned the Board to vacate a 2022 added
assessment assessed against the subject property. An unsigned copy of Kinnelon’s petition recites
as the reason for appeal: “evidence shows dwelling was not to be finished prior to 12/31/2022.”
The petition also identifies the date of completion as “12/31/2022.” The petition, however, does
not establish that Plaintiff adopted the recited date of completion. The subsequent stipulation of
settlement is silent as to the date of completion.

Nizar Tellawy v. Kinnelon Borough
Docket No. 001081-2024
6
Plaintiff denies that there was any prior agreement and asserts that the date of completion was
April 20, 2023, the date the certificate of occupancy was issued.
Kinnelon’s assessor testified that he initially learned of the permit for the certificate of
occupancy in April 2023 and that, based on his research at the time, it appeared that the
improvements were substantially completed for their intended use “possibly in ’22 – ’23.”
While the court finds the assessor credible, his testimony is of limited probative value.
The assessor’s own testimony confirms that he was unable to establish an exact completion date.
Moreover, the court is unable to ascertain from the record if there ever was an actual meeting of
the minds between Plaintiff and the assessor as to the completion date.
Kinnelon also offered into evidence a document entitled “Inspection History” for the
subject property. The document shows that the subject property failed the final fire and electrical
inspections on January 17, 2023, and subsequently passed the inspections on March 16, 2023.
There is no evidence in the trial record as to the reason(s) the subject property failed the
inspections. Plaintiff, however, provided photographs of additional drywall that was delivered in
April 2023. 	The photographs, date-stamped April 3, 2023, show approximately 60 sheets of
drywall, each 4-feet by 8-feet. Plaintiff testified that it took nineteen (19) days to install the new
drywall. 	On cross-examination, Plaintiff conceded that much of that drywall was used in the
basement.
The inspection history and drywall photographs are not determinative evidence of the
subject property’s completion date. Based on the record herein, the court finds that the certificate
of occupancy, dated April 20, 2023, is the best evidence of the date when the improvements were
completed and substantially ready for its intended use. Accordingly, the 2023 added assessment

Nizar Tellawy v. Kinnelon Borough
Docket No. 001081-2024
7
shall be modified and pro-rated for only eight (8) months beginning May 1, 2023, pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.3.
III. 	VALUATION
A. Highest and Best Use
“For local property tax purposes, property must be valued at its highest and best use.”
Entenmann’s Inc. v. Totowa Borough, 18 N.J. Tax 540, 545 (Tax 2000). The highest and best use
analysis involves the “sequential consideration of the following four criteria, determining whether
the use of the subject property is: 1) legally permissible; 2) physically possible; 3) financially
feasible; and 4) maximally productive.” Clemente v. South Hackensack Twp., 27 N.J. Tax 255,
267-69 (Tax 2013), aff’d, 28 N.J. Tax 337 (App. Div. 2015).
Based on the trial testimony of Plaintiff and the appraiser, the court finds that the highest
and best use of the subject property is its current use as a single-family residential.
B. Sales Comparison Method
New Jersey courts recognize “three traditional appraisal methods utilized to predict what a
willing buyer would pay a willing seller on a given date . . . the comparable sales method,
capitalization of income and cost.” 	Brown v. Glen Rock Borough, 19 N.J. Tax 366, 376
(App. Div. 2001). “The comparable sales approach is generally accepted as an appropriate method
of estimating the value of a single family residence.” 	Elrabie v. Franklin Lakes Borough,
24 N.J. Tax 158, 176 (Tax 2008).
The sales comparison method is a “set of procedures in which a value indication is derived
by comparing the property being appraised to similar properties that have been sold recently,
applying appropriate units of comparison, and making adjustments to the sale prices of the
comparables 	based 	on 	the 	elements 	of 	comparison.” 	Ibid. 	(quoting 	Appraisal

Nizar Tellawy v. Kinnelon Borough
Docket No. 001081-2024
8
Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate, 417 (12th ed. 2001)). It is regarded “as the most significant
and consistently reliable valuation method when properly developed from an adequate sample of
market data.” State of New Jersey, Division of Taxation, Real Property Appraisal Manual for New
Jersey Assessors 99 (2021) (emphasis added).
Both parties relied on the sales comparison approach.7 	The court finds that the sales
comparison approach is the most appropriate method to determine the subject property’s fair
market value.
C. Plaintiff’s Comparable Sales
Plaintiff relied on an aerial photograph taken by Google and the property record card for
each of the eight comparables.8 According to Plaintiff, each comparable was within 3 miles of the
subject property. 	Plaintiff testified that he received the sales price for each comparable by
7 The appraiser did not utilize the cost approach due to the lack of comparable land sales and
difficulty in establishing an accurate rate for all the forms of depreciation that affect residential
property.
8 At trial, Kinnelon objected to Plaintiff’s comparable sales 1 through 5 as too distant from the
date of valuation (October 1, 2022) and, thus, wholly irrelevant. 	See N.J.R.E. 401. 	The court
overruled the objection. 	In this instance, the court will weigh, rather than exclude, the
comparables.
Kinnelon also objected to Plaintiff’s comparable sales 6 and 7 since those houses were a
contemporary style, whereas the subject property was a colonial (with a contemporary flair).
Plaintiff maintains that his house is also a contemporary. At trial, the court reserved its decision
on the objection. 	The court will weigh, rather than exclude, the comparables since the subject
property exhibits both colonial and contemporary features.
For Plaintiff’s comparable sale 8, Kinnelon objected to the use of the comparable as the sale
occurred at a time when the property was subject to the Freeze Act, N.J.S.A. 54:3-26. The court
is unpersuaded because the Freeze Act impacts the assessment and unlikely impacts the
sale/purchase price of that property, thus the property can be a valid comparable as long it meets
other requirements (such as it being at arms-length transaction).

Nizar Tellawy v. Kinnelon Borough
Docket No. 001081-2024
9
requesting the same from the real estate agent. Plaintiff later testified that he confirmed the sale
transactions from a government website.
Plaintiff’s
Comparable
# 1 (P-2) 	# 2 (P-3) 	# 3 (P-4) 	# 4 (P-6) 	# 5 (P-7)
Location 	9 Andrew Ln.
Kinnelon, NJ
12 Mica Dr.
Kinnelon, NJ
23 S Glen Rd.
Kinnelon, NJ
16 Mica Dr.
Kinnelon, NJ
188 S Glen Rd.
Kinnelon, NJ
Sales Date 	6/15/2020 	4/2/2021 	4/15/2021 	11/23/2020 	4/15/2021
Sales Price 	$1,045,000 	$775,000 	$850,000 	$925,000 	$1,200,000
G.L.A. 	5473 sq. ft. 	3947 sq. ft. 	4082 sq. ft. 	4890 sq. ft. 	5400 sq. ft.
Price/G.L.A. 	$190.93/ sq. ft. 	$196.35/ sq. ft. 	$208.23/ sq. ft. 	$189.16/ sq. ft. 	$222.22/ sq. ft.
Rooms/Bed
/Bath
13 / 5 / 4 1/2 	10 / 5 / 3 1/2 	9/ 5/ 3 (full) & 2
(1/2 bath)
12 / 4 / 4 1/2 	12 / 5 / 5 1/2
Lot Size 	3.87 acres 	2.10 acres 	1.40 acres 	1.82 acres 	1.82 acres
Built 	2006 	1988 	1988 	1997 	2005
Basement 	unfinished 	630 sq. ft.
finished
Finished 	300 sq. ft.
finished
2500 sq. ft.
Finished
Garage 	3 cars 	3 cars 	320 sq. ft. 	3 cars 	781 sq. ft.
Plaintiff’s
Comparable
# 6 (P-11) 	# 7 (P-13) 	# 8 (P-14)
Location 	8 Mica Dr.
Kinnelon, NJ
55 S. Glen Rd.
Kinnelon, NJ
123 S. Glen Rd.
Kinnelon, NJ
Sales Date 	11/3/2022 	5/31/2022 	12/21/2021
Sales Price 	$899,000 	$850,000 	$885,000
G.L.A. 	4258 sq. ft. 	4853 sq. ft. 	3945 sq. ft.
Price/G.L.A. 	$211.13/ sq. ft. 	$175.15/ sq. ft. 	$224.33 / sq. ft.
Rooms/Bed
/Bath
10 / 4 / 2 1/2 	10 / 4 / 4 1/2 	10 / 4 / 3 1/2
Lot Size 	2.13 acres 	1.38 acres 	1.47 acres
Built 	1988 	1993 	2002
Basement 	Unfinished 	1940 sq. ft. 	unfinished
Garage 	3 car 	3 car 	3 car

Nizar Tellawy v. Kinnelon Borough
Docket No. 001081-2024
10
Plaintiff argued that comparable sale 2 was most like the subject property, whereas
comparable sales 1 and 5 are the largest homes in the community.9 	Plaintiff offered no
photographs of the interior of any comparable sales. Similarly, Plaintiff offered generic evidence
as to the quality and condition of the properties.10 Based on his comparable sales, Plaintiff argues
that the fair market value of his property should be ($222 per square foot x 4,199 sq. ft.) $932,178.
D. Presumption of Correctness and Involuntary Dismissal
At the conclusion of the Plaintiff’s case-in-chief, Kinnelon moved for involuntary
dismissal under R. 4:37-2(b). Kinnelon argued that Plaintiff’s evidence cannot establish value and
that his selection of comparable sales was flawed, since Plaintiff simply compared sales price to
assessment in order to determine comparability.
A 	municipality’s 	tax 	assessment 	is 	entitled 	to 	a 	presumption 	of 	correctness.
Pantasote Co. v. Passaic, 100 N.J. 408, 412 (1985). 	The taxpayer has the burden to present
sufficient competent evidence to overcome the presumption and to establish a debatable question
as to the validity of the assessment. 	Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Newark, 10 N.J. 99, 105 (1952).
Such evidence must be “definite, positive and certain in quality and quantity to overcome the
presumption.” Ibid. If the taxpayer cannot meet its initial burden, then the assessment must be
affirmed.
9 	Plaintiff also offered street-level photographs of the subject property (D-12) and three other
properties on his street: 5 Nicholas Drive (P-8); 9 Nicholas Drive (P-9) and 15 Nicholas
Drive (P-10). Plaintiff asserts that the photographs clearly demonstrate that the subject property
is inferior to the other properties on the block, but an exterior photograph alone provides
insufficient evidence as to valuation.
10 With the exception of Plaintiff’s comparable 6 which is described as “good,” the property record
cards described the condition of Plaintiff’s other comparables as “normal.” The property record
cards also identified certain amenities and associated square footage, including whether the
property has a fireplace, porch, deck, shed, whirlpool tub, concrete or vinyl pool.

Nizar Tellawy v. Kinnelon Borough
Docket No. 001081-2024
11
In determining whether the presumption has been overcome under R. 437-2(b), the court
must accept as true the proofs of the party challenging the assessment and accord that party all
legitimate favorable inferences from that evidence. MSGW Real Estate Fund, LLC v. Mountain
Lakes Borough, 18 N.J. Tax 364, 376 (Tax 1998); Marina Dist. Dev. Co., LLC v. City of Atlantic
City, 27 N.J. Tax 469, 516 (Tax 2013), aff’d, 28 N.J. Tax 568 (App. Div. 2015). In the case of a
motion for involuntary dismissal, the “trial court is not concerned with the worth, nature or extent
(beyond a scintilla) of the evidence, but only with its existence, viewed most favorably to the party
opposing the motion.” Dolson v. Anastasia, 55 N.J. 2, 5-6 (1969).
Only in those cases, where the taxpayer has overcome the presumption of correctness,
is the Tax Court charged with consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties and deciding
the matter based upon a preponderance of the evidence. Ford Motor Co. v. Edison, 127 N.J. 290,
312 (1992) (citing Pennwalt Corp. v. Twp. of Holmdel, 4 N.J. Tax 51, 55-56 (Tax 1982)). It is
during this second stage that the court must “appraise the testimony, make a determination of true
value and fix the assessment.” Rodwood Gardens, Inc. v. City of Summit, 188 N.J. Super. 34, 38-
39 (App. Div. 1982).
Plaintiff has presented eight comparable sales that occurred in Kinnelon between June 2020
and November 2022, with unadjusted prices between $775,000 to $1,200,000. 	The comparable
properties are all large single-family residences ranging from 3,945 to 5,473 sq. ft. of gross living
area. Plaintiff’s proposed valuation of $932,000, based on a price of $222 per square foot, appears
in range with the sales prices of Plaintiff’s comparables sales 3, 6, 7 and 8.
At trial, the court denied Kinnelon’s motion for involuntary dismissal. 	The court found
that Plaintiff had produced cogent evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness,

Nizar Tellawy v. Kinnelon Borough
Docket No. 001081-2024
12
when viewed under the favorable prism of R. 4:37-2(b). The court is now charged with weighing
the evidence and deciding the true value of the subject property.
E. 	Kinnelon’s Comparable Sales
Kinnelon’s appraiser presented 5 comparable sales that occurred in Kinnelon between
October 2021 and August 2022, with unadjusted prices between $982,500 and $1,325,000. The
comparables are all large single-family residences with 3,442 to 4,619 sq. ft. of gross living area.
The appraiser identified the comparables on the Garden State Multi Listing Service and
verified the data with the listing agent. He also did a visual inspection of the interior and exterior
of the subject property and the neighborhood and viewed each comparable sale at least from the
street. Kinnelon also offered testimony from its tax assessor.
Kinnelon’s
Comparable
# 1 	# 2 	# 3 	# 4 	# 5
Location 	1 San Filippo
Kinnelon, NJ
5 Nicholas Dr.
Kinnelon, NJ
71 South Glen
Kinnelon, NJ
9 Magdalena
Kinnelon, NJ
33 Pheasant Run
Kinnelon, NJ
Sales Date 	10/27/2021 	5/4/2022 	6/28/2022 	5/19/2022 	8/17/22
Sales Price 	$1,200,000 	$1,300,000 	$982,500 	$1,250,000 	$1,325,000
G.L.A. 	3,971 sq. ft. 	4,619 sq. ft. 	4,201 sq. ft. 	4,199 sq. ft. 	3,442 sq. ft.
Price/G.L.A. 	$302.19 /sq. ft. 	$281.45 /sq. ft. 	$233.87 /sq. ft. 	$297.69/ sq. ft. 	$384.95/ sq. ft.
Rooms/ Bed/ Bath 	12 / 4 / 3 ½ 	12 / 5/ 4 ½ 	12 / 5 / 2 ½ 	10 / 5 / 3 ½ 	9 / 4 / 3
Lot Size 	2.80 acres 	2.01 acres 	1.44 acres 	2.10 acres 	1.37 acres
Built 	17 years old 	16 years old 	26 years old 	26 years old 	34 years old
Basement 	Full finish
2 rooms
Full finish
3 rooms 1 bath
Full finish
1 bath
Full finish
3 rooms 1 bath
Full finish
4 rooms 1 bath
Garage 	3 cars 	3 cars 	2 cars 	2 cars 	2 cars
Adjustment Percentage
Adjusted sales price
12.1% gross
$1,098,500
10.5% gross
$1,163,500
15.8% gross
$1,000,000
14.9% gross
$1,241,000
22.3% gross
$1,343,250
Relevant here, the appraiser recognized that the quality of the construction and furnishings of the
subject property is of a lower quality than typical for the development. The appraisal report notes:

Nizar Tellawy v. Kinnelon Borough
Docket No. 001081-2024
13
The majority of the flooring throughout is tile with the appearance
of hardwood. 	The tile is not level and was installed with poor
workmanship. Most of the grout was chipping with large sections
missing. The kitchen cabinets are also of low quality. The heating
is via 1 HVAC unit. One additional ductless unit was added into the
den on the 1st floor. Several space heaters were in use.
The typical quality of construction for the majority of the homes
within this development are of higher quality.
The appraiser ultimately concluded that the quality of construction for the subject property
is inferior, whereas each of his comparable properties is described as good. To account for this
inferior quality, the appraiser adjusted downward the value of each of the comparable sales by 5%
of its sales price.11
The appraiser also made the following physical property adjustments to the comparables:
(i) $19,000 per acre for surplus land; (ii) $75 per sq. ft. of gross livable area; (iii) $10,000 for
3 fixture bath and $5,000 for 2 fixture bath; (iv) $5,000 per finished basement room; (v) $10,000
per 1 car garage; (vi) $7,500 per fireplace and (vii) $25,000 for inground pool.
Finally, the appraiser adjusted his comparables 3, 4 and 5 upward by 5% of the sales price
to account for the age of the improvements. The appraiser testified that his adjustments were taken
from the Marshall & Swift cost manual but conceded that his appraisal report did not reference the
cost manual. 	With adjustments, the adjusted sales price for the comparables ranged from
$1,000,000 to $1,343,250.
At trial, the appraiser opined that his comparable 2 is the most comparable property,
notwithstanding his belief comparable 2 is superior in quality and has a superior finished basement
11 	In the appraisal report, the appraiser acknowledged that there is a lack of sales of homes in
similar condition in the market area.

Nizar Tellawy v. Kinnelon Borough
Docket No. 001081-2024
14
when compared to the subject property.12 	With adjustments, including the 5% quality of
construction 	adjustment, 	the 	appraiser 	opined 	that 	comparable 	2 	was 	worth 	$1,163,500.
Ultimately, the appraiser concluded that the value of the subject property was $1,100,000 or
($261.97 per sq. ft.).
F. 	Valuation Analysis
The court must weigh and evaluate all the evidence and determine whether either party has
established, by the preponderance of the evidence, the true value of the subject property.
Evidence which is sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness, under the “rose-colored
glasses” standard of R. 4:37-2(b), is not necessarily sufficient to carry the burden of proof when
the evidence is subject to a critical analysis by the court. MSGW Real Estate Fund, 18 N.J. Tax
at 379.
Plaintiff’s evidence provides little assistance to the court in determining the true value of
the subject property. 	Plaintiff relies on unadjusted sales prices, aerial photographs and property
tax record cards for each of his comparable sales. However, as explained above, Plaintiff provided
limited, generic evidence as to the quality and condition of his comparable sales.
Admittedly, the Tax Court has long held that litigants are not required to produce an expert
witness or appraisal report. Siegfried v. Holmdel Twp., 20 N.J. Tax 8, 18 (Tax 2002). However,
without the assistance of an appraiser, the Plaintiff was unable to offer credible valuation
adjustments to the comparable properties to account for differences. Without credible valuation
adjustments, detailed testimony or helpful photographs, and furnishing only basic information on
12 Kinnelon’s comparable 2 is located directly across the street from the subject property.

Nizar Tellawy v. Kinnelon Borough
Docket No. 001081-2024
15
interior condition and amenities, Plaintiff’s evidence does not assist the court in determining the
true value of the subject property.
As detailed above, Kinnelon’s expert relied on five comparable sales. 	His comparable
sales 1 through 4 contain gross living areas ranging from 3,971 sq. ft. to 4,610 sq. ft. compared to
the subject property’s 4,199 sq. ft.13 Based on the similarities of the properties, the court finds
Kinnelon’s comparable 3 and 4 are the most credible and reliable evidence of the subject property’s
true market value. Comparable 3 was just two square feet larger than the subject property and sold
for $982,500 on June 28, 2022. 	Comparable 4 has the same gross livable area as the subject
property and sold for $1,250,000 on May 19, 2022. The court, however, has concerns with the
appraiser’s adjustments.
For example, the appraiser applied a $75/per sq. ft. adjustment for gross living area, even
though his comparables 1 through 4 sold between $233.87 and $297.69 per sq. ft. The court also
questions the appraiser’s 5% downward adjustment for quality of construction to the comparables
in light of the sub-standard construction identified in the subject property: poorly installed, unlevel
flooring with chipped grout; “low quality” kitchen cabinets and an ineffective heating system
as evidenced by the placement of several space heaters. 	The expert offered no market derived
support for his conclusions that a $75 per square foot gross living area adjustment or a 5%
downward adjustment would appropriately account for the subject property’s inferior construction
quality.
13 Kinnelon’s comparable 5 is located in another development, Pheasant Run, whereas Kinnelon’s
other four comparable properties are within the same development as the subject property.
In addition, Kinnelon’s comparable 5 has the smallest gross living area (3,442 sq. ft.), yet the
highest sales price per gross living area ($384.95/sq. ft.) and the highest gross adjustments to sales
price (22.3%). For these reasons, the court finds that Kinnelon’s comparable 5 is not a reliable
indicator of the subject property’s value, and therefore, attributes no weight to it.

Nizar Tellawy v. Kinnelon Borough
Docket No. 001081-2024
16
An “opinion of an expert depends upon the facts and reasoning which form the basis of the
opinion. Without explanation as to the basis, the opinion of the expert is entitled to little weight
in this regard.” Dworman v. Tinton Falls, 1 N.J. Tax 445, 458 (Tax 1980), aff’d, 180 N.J. Super.
366 (App. Div. 1981). In other words, an expert’s opinion is only as good as the data upon which
the expert relied.” Greenblatt v. Englewood City, 26 N.J. Tax 41, 54-55 (Tax 2010). In this case,
the appraiser failed to explain the “whys and wherefores” in arriving at the quantitative value for
the gross living area, quality of construction and age adjustments. Without an explanation of the
supporting methodology and assumptions used in arriving at these quantitative adjustments,
the expert’s opinion is of little assistance to the court in setting the market value for the subject
property.
The court recognizes that it has a duty to apply its own judgment in order arrive at the true
value of the subject property. 	Glenn Wall Assocs. v. Twp. of Wall, 99 N.J. 265, 280 (1985).
In considering Plaintiff’s comparable 6 and Kinnelon’s comparable 3 and comparable 4, the court
has a broad valuation range: $899,000, $982,500 and $1,250,000, respectively, based on
unadjusted sale prices. The subject property’s valuation is further complicated based on the need
to account for property differences, including but not limited to, the quality of construction of the
subject property and the age of the comparables: Plaintiff’s comparable 6 (effective age 28 years);
Kinnelon’s comparable 3 (26 years) and Kinnelon’s comparable 4 (26 years). 	As explained
previously, the trial record does not contain reliable evidence to enable the court to make any such
adjustments. See Twp. of Warren v. Suffness, 225 N.J. Super. 399, 413-14 (App. Div. 1988) (court
cannot make adjustments without sufficient evidence in the record); U.S. Life Realty Corp. v.
Jackson Twp., 9 N.J. Tax 66, 79 (Tax 1987) (court cannot “arbitrarily assign a value to the property
not supported in the record”).

Nizar Tellawy v. Kinnelon Borough
Docket No. 001081-2024
17
For these reasons, the court finds that it has insufficient data to determine the market value
of the subject property. “Where neither party carries the burden of proof of establishing the value,
the original assessment should stand.” New Jersey Foreign Trade Zone Venture, 242 N.J. Super.
at 175.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the court affirms the subject property’s added assessment
valuation. In an accompanying order, the court will modify the added assessment to reflect an 8-
month prorated added assessment, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.3.
/s/ Michael J. Duffy
Hon. Michael J. Duffy, J.T.C.