PRINCETON – Princeton University won another court victory for its $330 million arts and transit hub on Wednesday when a judge upheld the regional planning board's site-plan approval of the project.

Superior Court Judge Douglas Hurd rejected the plaintiffs' arguments in their entirety and dismissed the complaint, said Jonathan Epstein, an attorney representing the university.

"It's one of several huge victories that we've had in this ongoing legal battle with the objectors who are trying to thwart the university's project," he said.

Wednesday's decision follows a July victory when Hurd also upheld the zoning ordinance.

The project involved moving the Dinky train station 460 feet south to make room for arts, retail and public spaces. The new station and Wawa convenience store opened in November.

The entire project is expected to be complete by fall 2017.

The project sought site-plan approval over a series of planning board meetings in late 2012 and the board granted approval on Dec. 18, 2012.

Still, the project has a number of other legal hurdles to clear.

In all, opponents filed six petitions challenging the project or approvals, two of which have been resolved in favor of the university, Epstein said.

In one, the state Supreme Court affirmed an appellate court's ruling that a federal review was not necessary for the transfer of the Dinky train easement to Princeton University and said it would not review the case.

In the second, the federal Surface Transportation Board concluded that NJ Transit did not need its approval to remove a portion of the Dinky track.

Three other cases are pending in the Appellate Division: an appeal of Hurd's decision upholding the zoning and an appeal of Chancery Judge Paul Innes' ruling rejecting the group's argument that the relocation of the Dinky was prohibited under the university's 1984 contract with NJ Transit and an appeal of the N.J. Transit Board's decision to authorize the shortening of the Dinky line without a public hearing.

A motion to consolidate the latter two cases is now pending before the court.

An attorney for the plaintiffs could not immediately be reached for comment on whether Wednesday's ruling would be appealed.

Editor's Note: This post has been updated to correct the number of cases pending in the Appellate Division.

Cristina Rojas may be reached at crojas@njtimes.com. Follow her on Twitter @CristinaRojasTT. Find The Times of Trenton on Facebook.