07-2-8657 Feld v. City of Orange Township, App. Div. (per curiam) (19 pp.) In this challenge to several ordinances adopted by defendant with respect to the sale of property to private entities for redevelopment, the court reverses the dismissal of plaintiffs’ third amended complaint and remands because the judge did not issue an oral or written decision setting forth findings of fact and legal conclusions explaining why a sua sponte dismissal pursuant to Rule 4:6-4(b) was appropriate and because the panel cannot conclude that it was since, although the complaint includes some impertinent and scandalous material, the entire complaint is not scandalous or impertinent. The trial judge also erred in fashioning the award of fees and costs since the sanction was not assessed in accordance with Rule 4:6-4(b).
