
    PETER BOYARIN AND BERNARD BOYARIN, T/A P & B HOLDING COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE AUTHORITY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. HYMAN WEIDENFELD AND BARBARA WEIDENFELD, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE AUTHORITY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
    Argued October 3, 1977
    Decided February 16, 1978.
    
      Mr. Steven Pfeffer argued the cause for appellants (Messrs. Matthews, Levin and Shea, attorneys).
    
      Mr. Bernard M. Reilly argued the cause for respondent (Mr. Herbert I. Olarsch, attorney).
   Per Curiam.

The Appellate Division, in unreported opinions, affirmed the decisions of the Law Division granting summary judgment in favor of respondent substantially for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Appellate Division in Creek Ranch, Inc. v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority, 156 N. J. Super. 1 (1976). Appellants filed notices of appeal as of right with this Court by virtue of dissents in the Appellate Division. Upon application of appellants, we granted them leave to rely on the arguments presented to this Court in the Creek Ranch matter.

This Court has filed its opinion in Creek Ranch, Inc. v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority, 75 N. J. 421 (1978) this day. The judgment in these two appeals is reversed for the reasons expressed in the Creek Ranch opinion, and the matters are remanded to the Law Division for further proceedings consistent with that opinion.

Hughes, C. J.,

dissenting: I would affirm the judgments of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons expressed in the majority opinion of that court in Creek Ranch, Inc. v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority, 156 N. J. Super. 1 ,(1976).

For reversal and remandment — Justices Pashman, Clifford, SCHREIBER and HANDLER: — 4.

For affirmance — Chief Justice Hughes — 1.  