March 8, Please accept this letter brief in lieu of a more formal. brief in support of the New Jersey Division of State Police s

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "March 8, Please accept this letter brief in lieu of a more formal. brief in support of the New Jersey Division of State Police s"

Transcription

1 CHRIS CHRISTIE Governor KIM GUADAGNO Lt. Governor State of New Jersey OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS P.O. BOX 080 TRENTON, NJ PAULA T. DOW Attorney General CHARLES GRINNELL Acting Director March 8, 2010 VIA HAND DELIVERY Joseph H. Orlando, Clerk Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division R.J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 Market Street; P.O. Box 006 Trenton, N.J Re: I/M/O Seven State Troopers Docket No. A T2 Letter Brief on Behalf of the New Jersey Division of State Police in Support of Its Motion for Reconsideration of the Court s February 25, 2010 Decision. Dear Mr. Orlando: Please accept this letter brief in lieu of a more formal brief in support of the New Jersey Division of State Police s motion for reconsideration of the court s February 25, 2010 decision.

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF FACTS ARGUMENT POINT I POINT II THE COURT SHOULD RECONSIDER ITS DECISION TO CLOSE THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE IT IMPROPERLY SUBSTITUTED ITS JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE AGENCY HEAD THE COURT SHOULD RECONSIDER ITS DECISION BECAUSE IT, IN LARGE PART, BASED ITS CONCLUSION ON THE MISTAKEN APPREHENSION THAT THE SUPERINTENDENT CONCEDES THAT PRIVATE CONSENSUAL SEXUAL BEHAVIOR CAN NOT BE THE SUBJECT OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS CONCLUSION PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND STATEMENT OF FACTS 1 The Division relies on the Procedural History and Counterstatement of Facts presented in its merits brief and incorporates them by reference. The Division offers the following as a supplement. After the disciplinary appeals were transmitted to the OAL, one of the troopers filed a motion to close the proceedings. On November 5, 2009, after carefully balancing the competing 1 Because the Procedural History and Statement of Facts are closely interwoven, they are being combined to avoid repetition and for the convenience of the court. 2

3 interests, ALJ Masin denied the request, concluding that the public s interest in open proceedings and the integrity of the State Police outweighed the purely private interests of the troopers to avoid embarrassment. (Aa22-23). 2 The ALJ s decision was taken up on interlocutory appeal to the Superintendent of State Police. In affirming ALJ Masin s Order, the Superintendent concluded there was no good cause to close the hearing or seal the record, observing that the stated need to protect parties or witnesses from undue embarrassment or deprivation or privacy did not outweigh the need for the proceedings being conducted as public hearings. (Aa32). On February 25, 2010, this court reversed the Superintendent s decision adopting the ALJ s determination to maintain the openness of the proceedings. (Slip op. at p. 13). The court balanced the very same factors, set forth in N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.1(b), weighed by the ALJ and Superintendent. But the court reached the opposite conclusion, finding that the troopers privacy interests should prevail over the public s interest in an open proceeding. Slip op. at p. 13. In so doing, the court based its decision, in part, on the discovery exchanged by the parties in anticipation of hearing. Without the benefit of testimony or the ability to judge the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses, the 2 Aa refers to appellant s appendix submitted in support of the motion for leave to appeal. 3

4 court commented that it is clear why this matter was never presented to a grand jury, and [t]he discovery raises very substantial doubt that any fact-finder will find that some or all of the activities were without the consent of the woman. Slip op. at p. 12. It also based its decision on the mistaken premise that the Superintendent conceded that there is no basis for discipline, if the behavior among the men and the complaining witness was consensual. Slip. op. at pp. 6, 10. This motion for reconsideration follows. ARGUMENT POINT I THE COURT SHOULD RECONSIDER ITS DECISION TO CLOSE THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE IT IMPROPERLY SUBSTITUTED ITS JUDGMENT FOR THAT OF THE AGENCY HEAD. Rule 2:11-6(a) provides that [w]ithin ten days after entry of judgment or order... a party may apply for reconsideration of a decision of this court. Reconsideration is a matter within the sound discretion of the court, to be exercised in the interest of justice. Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 384 (App. Div. 1996)(quoting D Atria v. D Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401 (Ch. Div. 1990)). Reconsideration should be granted where 1) the court has expressed its decision based upon a palpably incorrect or irrational basis, or 2) it is obvious that the court either did not consider, or failed to appreciate the 4

5 significance of probative, competent evidence.... Cummings, supra, 295 N.J. Super. at 384 (quoting D Atria, supra, 242 N.J. Super. at 401). In ordering that the disciplinary hearing be closed, this court, overlooking well-settled principles governing its review of agency decision-making, declined to defer to the ALJ s and agency s conclusions in balancing the competing interests relative to whether the proceedings should be open. Instead, the court chose to substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ and Superintendent in applying N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.1(b). The court went even further afield by considering discovery materials, outside of any properly established evidentiary record, and drawing conclusions from these materials as to the credibility of witnesses, including the complainant, whose testimony has not been presented to the trier of fact. It is well settled that this court s review of agency decisions is circumscribed. An appellate court must give substantial deference to the agency head s determination and reverse only if it is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 482 (2007) (quoting Campbell v. Dep t of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562 (1963)). When an administrative agency acts within the scope of its legislatively delegated authority, its actions are presumptively valid. In re Carroll, 339 N.J. Super. 429, 437 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 170 N.J. 85 5

6 (2001). It is not the function of a reviewing court to substitute its independent judgment on the facts for that of an administrative agency. Carter, supra, 191 N.J. at 483. Yet, that is precisely what the court did here. The ALJ and the Superintendent carefully balanced the public s interest in an open proceeding against the troopers purely private interests and concluded that the former was paramount. Nevertheless, the court weighed the same factors and reached a different result, in the process stepping into the role of fact-finder to assess credibility, contrary to the principles enunciated in countless decisions governing appellate review of agency decision-making. Moreover, while this court acknowledged the strong public, indeed constitutional, policies favoring open proceedings, slip. op. at p. 5, it did not accord these policies, given their overriding importance, the appropriate weight, as the ALJ and Superintendent did. Without question, there is a profound public interest open proceedings before the courts and administrative tribunals of this State. See Division of Youth and Family Services v. J.B., 120 N.J. 112, 118 (1990). That civil trials and proceedings will be open to the public is an expectation grounded in history, the First Amendment and embodied in our Court Rules, R. 1:2-1. Division of Youth and Family Services v. J.B., supra, 120 6

7 N.J. at 118. Only a compelling State interest will permit a court to seal what would otherwise be a public proceeding. Id. at 127. In this case, the court seems to have deviated from these principles, instead employing a standard favoring the closing of administrative proceedings. Thus, it found that the existence of embarrassing facts which might cause difficulty in a party s personal life to be so compelling as to trump the public s interest in an open hearing. Such standard could apply to a myriad of proceedings in which the public has an acute interest, such as cases involving professional licensees like physicians, psychiatrists, nurses, etc. or those involving the tenure of teachers. If all such proceedings could be closed on the basis articulated by the court here, then the public policy favoring open proceedings would be vitiated. Here, the transparency of these disciplinary proceedings is essential to maintain the public s trust and confidence in the State Police and its ability to discipline its members in an open fact finding process. The court further compounded these errors by considering and relying upon discovery which has not been presented to the fact finder or even been deemed admissible evidence through the adversarial process. In this regard, the court intruded into the exclusive province of the ALJ to conduct the hearing, including ruling on the admissibility of evidence, make factual findings, determine credibility and recommend a decision to the agency head. 7

8 N.J.S.A. 52:14F-5(n); see also Clowes v. Terminix Int l, Inc., 109 N.J. 575, 587 (1988) (generally appellate courts will not disturb ALJ s credibility determination, made after due consideration of the witnesses testimony and demeanor during the hearing). Here, the court essentially conducted its own credibility assessment of witnesses without the benefit of their testimony or the opportunity to observe their demeanor. And, despite the lack of such process, the court surprisingly concluded that, there is substantial doubt that any fact-finder will find that some or all of the activities were without the consent of the woman, and that much of the information provided by the alleged victim about the location and the circumstances of the events was roundly discredited. Slip op. at p. 12. The court s comments suggest that it has pre-judged the matter without the benefit of the requisite fact-finding. Indeed, the need for unbiased decision-making is of overriding concern in the fact-finding process, so much so that the Appellate Division has found that if a judge prematurely excludes evidence, one can infer that the judge has wrongly made premature conclusions on credibility without all the evidence. See In re Guardianship of R.G. and F., 155 N.J. Super. 186, 195 (App. Div. 1977) (remanding and ordering reassignment of the case to a different judge because the judge who heard the matter below ha[d] already engaged in weighing the evidence and ha[d] rendered a conclusion on the 8

9 credibility of [a party s] witnesses. ). As such, once [t]he trial judge has given his opinion upon a matter in question in the action, within the meaning of R. 1:12-1(d), and although this mistake was certainly inadvertent and with good intentions, he should be disqualified from hearing the matter as a factfinder on remand. Ibid. Although the court here has not excluded any evidence, its comments on and analysis of facts not yet found will surely have a unsettling effect upon the administrative law judge and the ultimate arbiter, the agency head. The court even has even gone so far as to conclude, [h]aving reviewed the discovery, it is clear why this matter was never presented to a grand jury, slip op. at p. 12, suggesting that failure to bring this case to a grand jury should somehow be dispositive of the Superintendent s decision to pursue disciplinary charges. There are many reasons a prosecutor may elect not to present a case to a grand jury. Respectfully, this court appears to assume a reason that is not in evidence, the subject of testimony or contained in the discovery. Moreover, the prosecutor s decision should have no bearing on an agency disciplinary matter before the Office of Administrative Law. See Sabia v. City of Elizabeth, 132 N.J. Super. 6, 12 (App. Div. 1974). Because the court substituted its judgment for the agency head and ALJ in determining that the hearing should be closed and further considered the credibility of the witnesses including 9

10 complainant based on paper discovery and not testimony and evidence adduced at the hearing, it should reconsider its decision and order that the proceedings be open. POINT II THE COURT SHOULD RECONSIDER ITS DECISION BECAUSE IT, IN LARGE PART, BASED ITS CONCLUSION ON THE MISTAKEN APPREHENSION THAT THE SUPERINTENDENT CONCEDES THAT PRIVATE CONSENSUAL SEXUAL BEHAVIOR CAN NOT BE THE SUBJECT OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS. The court should also reconsider its decision because it is premised on the misunderstanding that the Superintendent conceded that he cannot discipline troopers for off-duty private consensual sexual behavior. To the extent that the respondent left such impression during oral argument before the court on January 13, 2010, it is erroneous. Rather, the Superintendent s brief addressed this issue and never wavered as to his authority to review and discipline private consensual sexual behavior. The constitutional right to privacy does not protect sexual activity of a police officer, even if consensual, that harms the functioning of a law enforcement agency. See Shuman v. City of Philadelphia, 470 F. Supp. 449, 460 (E.D. Pa. 1979)(to the extent that an officer s private conduct impacts the proper functioning of a police department, the department can regulate and investigate such conduct); see also Seegmiller v. Laverkin City, 528 F.3d 762, (10 Cir. 2008); Fleisher v. City of Signal Hill, 829 F.2d 10

11 1491, 1499 (9th Cir. 1987); Fugate v. Phoenix Civil Serv. Bd., 791 F.2d 736, 742 (9th Cir. 1986); Kukla v. Vill. of Antioch, 647 F. Supp. 799, (N.D. Ill. 1986). A police force can base discipline upon an officer s sexual activities if those activities demonstrate poor judgment or otherwise impugn the officer s ability to perform effectively as a law enforcement official. See Fleisher, supra, 829 F.2d at ; Fugate, supra, 791 F.2d at 742. The ability of law enforcement agencies to regulate, in appropriate circumstances, even the consensual sexual conduct of its officers derives from the important government interest in maintaining the proper operations of police departments. See, e.g., Seegmiller, supra, 528 F.3d at 772; Kukla, supra, 647 F. Supp. at 809; see also Meenan v. Harrison, 264 Fed. Appx. 146, 151 (3d Cir. 2008), and cases cited therein. As Judge Cooper recognized in her decision relating to this case, lack of consent to sexual activity is not an element of any of the disciplinary charges. (Ra46). 3 Our Supreme Court has acknowledged the State s strong interest in effective discipline of members of the State Police. [T]he superintendent has the ultimate responsibility for maintaining discipline among state police officers. The weight of that responsibility becomes apparent on considering that state 3 Ra refers to respondent s appendix submitted in opposition to leave to appeal. 11

12 troopers are authorized to carry firearms, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5 to - 6(3), to use deadly force under justifiable circumstances, N.J.S.A. 2C:3-7, and to enforce law and order throughout the state. Given those responsibilities, the need of the superintendent to maintain discipline among the troopers is obvious. In re Carberry, 114 N.J. 574, 578 (1989). This case is distinguishable from cases like Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) and Griswold v. Conn., 381 U.S. 479 (1965), which involve situations in which the government seeks to regulate private, consensual sexual conduct. This case deals with the discipline of several public employees resulting from a complaint by a private citizen, involved in the sexual conduct. The conduct of the troopers here properly subjects them to discipline, even if it involved sexual conduct that may have been consensual. As Judge Cooper observed the Student s intoxicated state, her unfamiliarity with the Plaintiff Troopers, and the sheer numerical disparity between the Student and the Plaintiff Troopers all, could have made refusal of consent difficult. (Ra51). These circumstances raise the genuine likelihood, or at least the appearance, that the troopers exploited a young woman who was in a vulnerable position. The primary responsibility of a State Trooper is to protect members of the public, particularly those who may be vulnerable to exploitation. 12

13 In a strikingly similar case, a court concluded that a police officer s off-duty sexual conduct could subject him to discipline. In Atwood v. Town of Ellington, 427 F. Supp. 2d 136 (D. Conn. 2006), Michael Nieliwocki, a constable for the Town of Ellington, had responded to a domestic quarrel between two sisters, both of whom were intoxicated. Because the sisters had to be separated, Constable Nielwocki placed one of them, Heather Atwood, in a room at a local Holiday Inn. After completing his shift, Constable Nieliwocki returned to the motel, entered Ms. Atwood s hotel room and had sexual relations with her. 427 F. Supp. at Subsequent investigations of the event failed to find that the Constable engaged in non-consensual sex with Ms. Atwood. 427 F. Supp. at 146. Ms. Atwood brought a civil action against the Town and claimed, among other things, that the Town had an obligation to properly train its police officers in how to deal with intoxicated persons. The court rejected this contention and stated that Constable Nielwocki s conduct was so obviously inappropriate that such instruction was not necessary. [T]his case presents a situation where Nieliwocki was called on to make an adult common sense judgment as to whether his desired activity constituted appropriate conduct with a woman who was clearly intoxicated (much less by an officer), a judgment about which everyone else who was involved or who investigated afterwards was in agreement. There was only one correct answer to the question whether Nieliwocki should have gone into Atwood s hotel room and had sex with her that night. 13

14 [437 F. Supp. at 146 (citation omitted)]. The conduct of the troopers in this case similarly manifests a profound lack of judgment. They failed to exhibit the probity expected of members of a elite police force whose mission is to protect the public. Their conduct, based upon their own statements of events, calls into serious question their capacity to make the types of difficult decisions that troopers must confront in executing their important public duties. Thus, the troopers conduct, violates the State Police regulation that prohibits the troopers from behaving in any capacity to the detriment of the good order and discipline of the Division. See Article VI, Section 2.c. Such conduct also constitutes behavior in an unofficial or private capacity to the personal discredit of the member. See Article VI, Section 2.b. At the same time, the conduct discredits the entire organization of the State Police. Even if the student consented to sexual relations with several troopers in one night, the circumstances, at the very least, create the appearance that the troopers took advantage of and exploited a young woman in a precarious position. Such conduct is contrary to the fundamental responsibility of state troopers to protect the public and has created a public impression that the State Police is incapable of properly fulfilling its responsibilities. 14

15 A trooper is charged with a higher code of conduct by virtue of the authority the citizens of this State have placed in the position. See State v. State Troopers Fraternal Ass n, 134 N.J. 393, (1993)(Court was mindful of the special status of the Division of State Police and the special standards of discipline that apply to all its members. ) Because of the higher code of conduct expected of police officers, the Superintendent is concerned with the actions of troopers in various contexts. See Township of Moorestown v. Armstrong, 89 N.J. Super. 560, 566 (App. Div. 1965), certif. denied, 47 N.J. 80 (1966). Consequently, a trooper cannot complain that he or she is being held to an unfairly high standard of conduct. Rather, it is one of the obligations (undertaken) upon a voluntary entry into the public service. See In re Philips, 117 N.J. 567, (1990), citing In Re Emmons, 63 N.J. Super. 136, 142 (App. Div. 1960). Even consensual sexual conduct may constitute conduct unbecoming a public employee under certain circumstances. Conduct unbecoming is an elastic phrase that includes conduct which adversely affects the morale or efficiency of the public entity or which has a tendency to destroy public respect for [public] employees and confidence in the operation of [public] services. It is settled in this State that a police officer s misconduct need not have occurred while he was on duty. Suspension or even removal may be justified where such misconduct occurred while he was off- 15

16 duty. Ward v. Keenan, 3 N.J. 298, 311 (1949); In re Cohen, 56 N.J. Super. 502, 507 App. Div. 1959); Herbert v. Atlantic City, 87 N.J.L. 98, 101 (Sup. Ct. 1915). Were the matter otherwise, the desired goal of upholding the morale and discipline of the force, as well as maintaining public respect for its officers, would be undermined. Nor need a finding of misconduct be predicated upon the violation of any particular rule or regulation, but may be based merely upon the violation of the implicit standard of good behavior which devolves upon one who stands in the public eye as an upholder of that which is morally and legally correct. [In re Emmons, supra, 63 N.J. Super. at 140, citing City of Asbury Park v. Department of Civil Service, 17 N.J. 419, 429 (1955).] In City of Asbury Park v. Dept. of Civil Service, supra, 17 N.J. at , our Supreme Court provided helpful guidance regarding law enforcement conduct related issues, generally stating that the conduct of an officer which indicates an attitude of mind and approach to the obligations of his office fundamentally at variance with his sworn duty would be a violation of the required standard of behavior inherent in the office. In State v. State Trooper Fraternal Ass n, supra, 134 N.J. at 416, the Court acknowledged that State Police regulations strongly suggest that the responsibility for determining whether a trooper has committed a violation of the Rules and Regulations, and the discipline to be imposed therefore, are plainly matters of inherent managerial prerogative to be discharged by the Superintendent and his 16

17 designated staff. The Court further noted that, unlike the comparably routine issues of discipline that might arise in connection with employees in other departments of state government, the discipline of state troopers implicates not only the proper conduct of those engaged in the most significant aspects of law enforcement, involving the public safety and apprehension of dangerous criminals, but also the overall effectiveness, performance standards, and morale of the State Police. Ibid. New Jersey State Troopers occupy a unique status in society. It is beyond dispute that police officers represent law and order to the community and must present an image of personal integrity and dependability in order to have the respect of the public. Township of Moorestown v. Armstrong, supra, 89 N.J. Super. at 566. As such, police officers are held to a higher standard of conduct than that expected of a private citizen. In re Emmons, supra, 63 N.J. Super. at 142. A police department thus has an obligation to resolve complaints of misconduct through the administration of discipline to guarantee the morale and discipline of its members as well as ensure the continued respect of the community it serves. In re Emmons, supra at 140. Here, the court was under a mistaken impression that the Superintendent believes there is no basis for discipline, if the behavior among the men and the complaining witness was consensual. Slip op. at p. 6. It is, and always has been, the Superintendent s 17

18 position that under certain limited circumstances, which are present here, troopers may be disciplined for their off-duty consensual sexual conduct. The Superintendent s position is consistent with decisions from this and other jurisdictions. Because the court s misapprehension of the Superintendent s position was part of the calculus for its determination that the proceedings should be closed, this court should reconsider its decision. 18

19 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Division s motion for reconsideration of this court s February 25, 2010 decision should be granted. Respectfully submitted, PAULA T. DOW ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY By: Victor DiFrancesco, Jr. Deputy Attorney General cc: All Counsel of Record CERTIFICATION Pursuant to R. 2:11-6(a), I hereby certify that this motion for reconsideration is submitted in good faith and not for purposes of delay. Victor DiFrancesco, Jr. Deputy Attorney General Dated: March 8,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION. On Motion for Leave to Appeal and Stay.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION. On Motion for Leave to Appeal and Stay. IN THE MATTER OF SEVEN STATE TROOPERS. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. Argued: January 13, 2010 - Decided:

More information

Before Judges Hoffman and Whipple. On appeal from Civil Service Commission, Docket No

Before Judges Hoffman and Whipple. On appeal from Civil Service Commission, Docket No NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. ROLAND GEBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD, Defendant-Respondent.

More information

Argued October 16, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Messano and Vernoia.

Argued October 16, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Messano and Vernoia. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding

More information

FINAL DECISION. April 26, 2016 Government Records Council Meeting

FINAL DECISION. April 26, 2016 Government Records Council Meeting FINAL DECISION April 26, 2016 Government Records Council Meeting Harry B. Scheeler, Jr. Complainant v. NJ Department of Education Custodian of Record Complaint No. 2015-423 At the April 26, 2016 public

More information

As Director of the Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services, I have

As Director of the Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services, I have CHRIS CHRISTIE Governor KIM GUADAGNO- Lt. Governor DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AND HEALTH SERVICES P.O. Box 712 Trenton, NJ 08625-0712 ELIZABETH CONNOLLY Acting Commissioner

More information

N.J.A.C. 6A:4, APPEALS TABLE OF CONTENTS

N.J.A.C. 6A:4, APPEALS TABLE OF CONTENTS N.J.A.C. 6A:4, APPEALS TABLE OF CONTENTS SUBCHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 6A:4-1.1 Purpose and scope 6A:4-1.2 Definitions 6A:4-1.3 Appeal of decision SUBCHAPTER 2. PROCEDURES FOR APPEAL 6A:4-2.1 Who may

More information

notice to the Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General of the State of New Jersey (Joseph A.

notice to the Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General of the State of New Jersey (Joseph A. BY THE COURT TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY --------------------------------------------------------x MY WAY B&G, INC. & MASSIMINO RAPUANO DOCKET NO 016627-2013 Plaintiff, v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION CIVIL

More information

In the Matter of Charles Stillitano, DOP Docket No (Merit System Board, decided June 8, 2005)

In the Matter of Charles Stillitano, DOP Docket No (Merit System Board, decided June 8, 2005) In the Matter of Charles Stillitano, DOP Docket No. 2005-2011 (Merit System Board, decided June 8, 2005) Charles Stillitano, represented by Timothy R. Smith, Esq., petitions the Merit System Board (Board)

More information

FINAL DECISION. November 15, 2016 Government Records Council Meeting

FINAL DECISION. November 15, 2016 Government Records Council Meeting FINAL DECISION November 15, 2016 Meeting Harry B. Scheeler, Jr. Complainant v. Burlington Township (Burlington) Custodian of Record Complaint No. 2015-93 At the November 15, 2016 public meeting, the (

More information

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 October 2012

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 October 2012 NO. COA11-1501 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 16 October 2012 MONTY S. POARCH, Petitioner, v. Wake County No. 08 CVS 3861 N.C. DEPARTMENT OF CRIME CONTROL & PUBLIC SAFETY, N.C. HIGHWAY PATROL,

More information

IN THE MATTER OF : NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION THE CERTIFICATES OF : STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS : DOCKET NO: /98-169

IN THE MATTER OF : NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION THE CERTIFICATES OF : STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS : DOCKET NO: /98-169 IN THE MATTER OF : NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION THE CERTIFICATES OF : STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS THERESA A. LUCARELLI ORDER OF REVOCATION ON REMAND : DOCKET NO: 469-04/98-169 At its meeting of April

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, DAMEON L. WINSLOW, Defendant-Respondent.

More information

V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE : DECISION BOROUGH OF METUCHEN, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, : SYNOPSIS

V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE : DECISION BOROUGH OF METUCHEN, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, : SYNOPSIS 183-18 H.C., on behalf of minor child, B.Y., : PETITIONER, : V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE : DECISION BOROUGH OF METUCHEN, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, : RESPONDENT. : SYNOPSIS Petitioner

More information

Argued September 12, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Yannotti, Carroll, and Mawla.

Argued September 12, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Yannotti, Carroll, and Mawla. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding

More information

FINAL DECISION. September 29, 2015 Government Records Council Meeting

FINAL DECISION. September 29, 2015 Government Records Council Meeting FINAL DECISION September 29, 2015 Government Records Council Meeting Thomas Caggiano Complainant v. NJ Office of the Governor Custodian of Record Complaint No. 2014-408 At the September 29, 2015 public

More information

ROBERT WARE, ) ) ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION Complainant, ) ) FINDINGS, DETERMINATION ) AND ORDER v. ) ) COUNTY OF MERCER, ) ) Respondent.

ROBERT WARE, ) ) ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION Complainant, ) ) FINDINGS, DETERMINATION ) AND ORDER v. ) ) COUNTY OF MERCER, ) ) Respondent. STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW & PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION ON CIVIL RIGHTS OAL DOCKET NO. CRT 6754-01 DCR DOCKET NO. EL311HK-40837-E DATE: October 20, 2003 ROBERT WARE, ) ) ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION Complainant,

More information

Argued September 14, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Alvarez, Currier, and Geiger.

Argued September 14, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Alvarez, Currier, and Geiger. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding

More information

Before Judges Hoffman and Gilson.

Before Judges Hoffman and Gilson. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding

More information

At its meeting of September 16, 2016, the State Board of Examiners (Board) reviewed

At its meeting of September 16, 2016, the State Board of Examiners (Board) reviewed 1 IN THE MATTER OF : NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION THE CERTIFICATE OF : STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS LUKE V. BAKULA : ORDER OF SUSPENSION : DOCKET NO: 1516-133 At its meeting of September 16, 2016, the

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. THE PITNEY BOWES BANK, INC., v. Plaintiff-Respondent, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION

More information

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. CO SYNOPSIS

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. CO SYNOPSIS P.E.R.C. NO. 2013-15 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of PASSAIC COUNTY PROSECUTOR S OFFICE, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-2008-231 MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE

More information

FINAL DECISION. November 14, 2017 Government Records Council Meeting

FINAL DECISION. November 14, 2017 Government Records Council Meeting FINAL DECISION November 14, 2017 Government Records Council Meeting Shaquan Thompson Complainant v. NJ Department of Corrections Custodian of Record Complaint No. 2016-300 At the November 14, 2017 public

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, v. Plaintiff-Respondent, NEIKIA K. AUSTIN, a/k/a KIA,

More information

Defendants-Respondents. - Before Judges Hoffman and Currier.

Defendants-Respondents. - Before Judges Hoffman and Currier. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet this opinion is binding

More information

Argued September 18, 2018 Decided. Before Judges Yannotti, Rothstadt and Gilson.

Argued September 18, 2018 Decided. Before Judges Yannotti, Rothstadt and Gilson. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. ALLYN C. SEEL, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, LORENZO LANGFORD, MAYOR, and THE CITY

More information

MARALYN S. JAMES, Petitioner, METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY NASHVILLE PUBLIC LIBRARY, Respondent. BRIEF IN OPPOSITION

MARALYN S. JAMES, Petitioner, METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY NASHVILLE PUBLIC LIBRARY, Respondent. BRIEF IN OPPOSITION MARALYN S. JAMES, Petitioner, METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY NASHVILLE PUBLIC LIBRARY, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

More information

Eric Deering an Order to Show Cause. The Order was predicated upon findings in a

Eric Deering an Order to Show Cause. The Order was predicated upon findings in a IN THE MATTER OF : NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION THE CERTIFICATES OF : STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS ERIC DEERING : ORDER OF REVOCATION : DOCKET NO: 0405-187 At its meeting of January 17, 2002, the State

More information

Before Judges Fasciale and Gooden Brown.

Before Judges Fasciale and Gooden Brown. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding

More information

# (OAL Decision: V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

# (OAL Decision:   V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION #308-09 (OAL Decision: http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oal/html/initial/edu09142-08_1.html) HEATHER HUDSON, : PETITIONER, : V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE : DECISION TOWNSHIP OF

More information

INTRODUCTION. This matter is before the Director of the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (Division)

INTRODUCTION. This matter is before the Director of the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (Division) STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW & PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION ON CIVIL RIGHTS OAL DOCKET NO. CRT 4869-01 DCR DOCKET NO. EL11JG-46328-E DECIDED: MARCH 1, 2004 VIOLA PRESSLEY, ) ) Complainant, ) ADMINISTRATIVE

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION

More information

Richard L. Goldstein, Esq., for the respondent (Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, PC, attorneys). INTRODUCTION

Richard L. Goldstein, Esq., for the respondent (Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, PC, attorneys). INTRODUCTION STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW & PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION ON CIVIL RIGHTS OAL DOCKET NO.: CRT 830-01 DCR DOCKET NO.: ED08NK-45415 DECIDED: JULY 11, 2002 KAMLESH H. DAVE ) ) Complainant, ) ) v. ) )

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Daniel Borden, : Appellant : : v. : : No. 77 C.D. 2014 Bangor Area School District : Argued: September 8, 2014 BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge

More information

V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE : DECISION BOROUGH OF BEACH HAVEN, OCEAN COUNTY, : SYNOPSIS

V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE : DECISION BOROUGH OF BEACH HAVEN, OCEAN COUNTY, : SYNOPSIS 30-00 LYNN P. SHERMAN ET AL., : PETITIONERS, : V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE : DECISION BOROUGH OF BEACH HAVEN, OCEAN COUNTY, : RESPONDENT. : : SYNOPSIS Petitioning parents appealed

More information

Before Judges Espinosa, Suter and Guadagno. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L

Before Judges Espinosa, Suter and Guadagno. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding

More information

Case: Document: Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Case: Document: Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Case: 12-1624 Document: 003110962911 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ZISA & HITSCHERICH 77 HUDSON STREET HACKENSACK, NJ 07601 (201) 342-1103 Attorneys

More information

APPENDIX F. NEW JERSEY JUDICIARY APPELLATE PRACTICE FORMS 1. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT

APPENDIX F. NEW JERSEY JUDICIARY APPELLATE PRACTICE FORMS 1. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT F - PRACTICE FORMS APPENDIX F. NEW JERSEY JUDICIARY APPELLATE PRACTICE FORMS 1. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT FORM F1 2. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

More information

SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE TOWNSHIP OF : DECISION SYNOPSIS

SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE TOWNSHIP OF : DECISION SYNOPSIS 53-17 IN THE MATTER OF THE SUSPENSION OF : THE CERTIFICATES OF MAGGIE STAWECKI, : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE TOWNSHIP OF : DECISION EAST GREENWICH, GLOUCESTER COUNTY. : SYNOPSIS In

More information

Submitted December 21, 2016 Decided. Before Judges Simonelli and Gooden Brown. On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.

Submitted December 21, 2016 Decided. Before Judges Simonelli and Gooden Brown. On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding

More information

BEFORE THE SCHOOL PAUL J. BIRCH

BEFORE THE SCHOOL PAUL J. BIRCH IN THE MATTER OF : BEFORE THE SCHOOL PAUL J. BIRCH : ETHICS COMMISSION PROSPECT PARK BOARD OF : EDUCATION : Docket No. C04-10 PASSAIC COUNTY : DECISION : PROCEDURAL HISTORY This matter arises from a complaint

More information

State of New Jersey OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

State of New Jersey OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW State of New Jersey OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW FINAL DECISION SUMMARY DECISION OAL DKT. NO. EDS 10497-18 AND EDS 11689-18 AGENCY DKT. NO. 2018-28351 AND 2019-28625 (CONSOLIDATED) C.B. ON BEHALF OF C.B.,

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY GREGORY N. VILLABONA, M.D. : : Respondent Below - : Appellant, : : v. : : BOARD OF MEDICAL PRACTICE : OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, : :

More information

IN THE MATTER OF : NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION THE CERTIFICATES OF : STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS : DOCKET NO: /98-169

IN THE MATTER OF : NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION THE CERTIFICATES OF : STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS : DOCKET NO: /98-169 IN THE MATTER OF : NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION THE CERTIFICATES OF : STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS THERESA A. LUCARELLI : ORDER OF REVOCATION : DOCKET NO: 469-04/98-169 At its meeting of April 2, 1998,

More information

Argued November 28, Decided. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Sussex County, Docket No. L

Argued November 28, Decided. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Sussex County, Docket No. L NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 8, 2004 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 8, 2004 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 8, 2004 Session JAMES EDWARD DUNN v. KNOX COUNTY SHERIFF S DEPARTMENT MERIT SYSTEM COUNCIL, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Knox County

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CENTRAL MINUTE ORDER

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CENTRAL MINUTE ORDER SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CENTRAL MINUTE ORDER DATE: 07/10/2015 TIME: 01:30:00 PM DEPT: C-66 JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Joel M. Pressman CLERK: Lori Urie REPORTER/ERM: Gerri Haupt

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. ELLEN HEINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PATERSON, Defendant-Respondent.

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. CAMPUS ASSOCIATES L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION v.

More information

Submitted February 25, 2019 Decided March 7, Before Judges Sabatino and Haas.

Submitted February 25, 2019 Decided March 7, Before Judges Sabatino and Haas. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding

More information

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. CO SYNOPSIS

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. CO SYNOPSIS P.E.R.C. NO. 2018-4 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of CITY OF MILLVILLE, Respondent, -and- Docket No. CO-2016-251 NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE ASSOCIATION,

More information

N.J.A.C. 6A:3, CONTROVERSIES AND DISPUTES TABLE OF CONTENTS

N.J.A.C. 6A:3, CONTROVERSIES AND DISPUTES TABLE OF CONTENTS N.J.A.C. 6A:3, CONTROVERSIES AND DISPUTES TABLE OF CONTENTS SUBCHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 6A:3-1.1 Purpose and scope 6A:3-1.2 Definitions 6A:3-1.3 Filing and service of petition of appeal 6A:3-1.4 Format

More information

: : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : B-25 In the Matter of Neil Raciti, Middlesex County CSC Docket No. 2018-3711 STATE OF NEW JERSEY DECISION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Request for Interim Relief ISSUED AUGUST 17, 2018 (SLK) Neil Raciti,

More information

#202-05R (

#202-05R ( #202-05R (http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oal/html/initial/edu00738-05_1.html) BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH : OF MILFORD, HUNTERDON COUNTY, : PETITIONER, : V. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION : NEW JERSEY

More information

Decided by the Commissioner of Education, October 3, Decision on motion by the Commissioner of Education, November 20, 2002

Decided by the Commissioner of Education, October 3, Decision on motion by the Commissioner of Education, November 20, 2002 EDU #9451-01 C # 356-02L SB # 43-02 VICTOR EISENBERG, : PETITIONER-APPELLANT, : V. : STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE : DECISION BOROUGH OF FORT LEE, BERGEN COUNTY, JOHN C. RICHARDSON,

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION. James M. Burke, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Township of Franklin, et al., Defendants-Respondents

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION. James M. Burke, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Township of Franklin, et al., Defendants-Respondents SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION James M. Burke, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Township of Franklin, et al., Defendants-Respondents A-4257-91-T5 261 N.J. Super. 592 619 A.2d 643 1993 N.J.

More information

SYLLABUS. Allstars Auto Group, Inc. v. New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (A-72/73/74/75/76/77/78/79-16) (078991)

SYLLABUS. Allstars Auto Group, Inc. v. New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (A-72/73/74/75/76/77/78/79-16) (078991) SYLLABUS This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Court.

More information

Argued February 14, 2017 Decided July 24, Before Judges Espinosa and Suter. On appeal from the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners.

Argued February 14, 2017 Decided July 24, Before Judges Espinosa and Suter. On appeal from the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Case: 11-2288 Document: 006111258259 Filed: 03/28/2012 Page: 1 11-2288 United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit GERALDINE A. FUHR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAZEL PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.

More information

Agenda Date: 6/29/16 Agenda Item: 7A CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE. DIANE ROEFARO, Petitioner ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) SUEZ WATER NEW JERSEY, INC.

Agenda Date: 6/29/16 Agenda Item: 7A CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE. DIANE ROEFARO, Petitioner ORDER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) SUEZ WATER NEW JERSEY, INC. Agenda Date: 6/29/16 Agenda Item: 7A STATE OF NEW JERSEY Board of Public Utilities 44 South Clinton Avenue, 3 rd Floor, Suite 314 Post Office Box 350 Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0350 www.nj.gov/bpu/ CUSTOMER

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,322 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. DIANA SABATINO, Appellee,

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,322 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. DIANA SABATINO, Appellee, NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,322 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS DIANA SABATINO, Appellee, v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY BOARD OF REVIEW, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal

More information

FINAL DECISION. April 25, 2012 Government Records Council Meeting

FINAL DECISION. April 25, 2012 Government Records Council Meeting FINAL DECISION April 25, 2012 Government Records Council Meeting Vincenza Leonelli-Spina Complainant v. Passaic County Prosecutor s Office Custodian of Record Complaint No. 2011-45 At the April 25, 2012

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. L.R. ON BEHALF OF J.R., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, CHERRY HILL BOARD OF EDUCATION

More information

Before Judges Espinosa and Suter. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L

Before Judges Espinosa and Suter. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding

More information

168-18A (SEC Decision:

168-18A (SEC Decision: 168-18A (SEC Decision: http://www.state.nj.us/education/legal/ethics/2017/c10-16c11-16.pdf) SEC DOCKET NOS. C10-16 and C11-16 (CONSOLIDATED) OAL DKT. NOS. EEC 13553-16 and EEC 12222-16 AGENCY DOCKET NO.

More information

22-17ASEC (SEC Decision: V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

22-17ASEC (SEC Decision:   V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION 22-17ASEC (SEC Decision: http://www.state.nj.us/education/legal/ethics/2013/c58-14.pdf) AGENCY DOCKET NO. 4-10/15A SEC DOCKET NO. C58-14 MATTHEW CHENG, : COMPLAINANT, : V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION STEVEN

More information

# (SBE Decision OF CERTIFICATION AFTER : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

# (SBE Decision   OF CERTIFICATION AFTER : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION #359-05 (SBE Decision http://www.nj.gov/njded/legal/sboe/2005/aug/sb20-05.pdf) IN THE MATTER OF THE DENIAL : OF CERTIFICATION AFTER : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION REVOCATION OF OTTO KRUPP. : DECISION : SYNOPSIS

More information

State of New Jersey. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY PO Box 080 TRENTON, NJ

State of New Jersey. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY PO Box 080 TRENTON, NJ CHRIS CHRISTIE Governor KIM GUADAGNO Lieutenant Governor State of New Jersey OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY PO Box 080 TRENTON, NJ 08625-0080 PAULA T. Dow Attorney General

More information

RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this

More information

PEACE OFFICER PRIVILEGES IN CIVIL LITIGATION: An Introduction to the Pitchess Procedure

PEACE OFFICER PRIVILEGES IN CIVIL LITIGATION: An Introduction to the Pitchess Procedure PEACE OFFICER PRIVILEGES IN CIVIL LITIGATION: An Introduction to the Pitchess Procedure Presented by Tony M. Sain, Esq. tms@manningllp.com MANNING & KASS, ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP Five Questions Five

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 15-1054 In the Supreme Court of the United States CURTIS SCOTT, PETITIONER v. ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

More information

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 01-CT Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (D )

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 01-CT Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (D ) Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections

More information

Before Judges O'Connor and Whipple.

Before Judges O'Connor and Whipple. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding

More information

State of New Jersey OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

State of New Jersey OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW State of New Jersey OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW FINAL DECISION AGENCY DKT. NO. 2015 22110 WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioner, v. M.H. AND P.H. ON BEHALF OF A.H., Respondents. Sanmathi

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION EILEEN BROWN and CHRISTOPHER BROWN, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TOWNSHIP OF PARSIPPANY-TROY

More information

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS P.E.R.C. NO. 2018-8 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of PLEASANTVILLE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2017-039 PLEASANTVILLE EDUCATION

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. MARK'S ADVANCED TOWING, INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, CITY OF BAYONNE and ROBERT

More information

Re: State v. Laciana Tinsley, Docket # A T6. Pursuant to Rule 2:6-2(b), kindly accept this letter-brief

Re: State v. Laciana Tinsley, Docket # A T6. Pursuant to Rule 2:6-2(b), kindly accept this letter-brief P.O. Box 32159 Newark, NJ 07102 Tel: 973-642-2086 Fax: 973-642-6523 info@aclu-nj.org www.aclu-nj.org ALEXANDER SHALOM Senior Staff Attorney 973-854-1714 ashalom@aclu-nj.org April 6, 2017 Joseph Orlando,

More information

In the Superior Court of Pennsylvania

In the Superior Court of Pennsylvania In the Superior Court of Pennsylvania No. 166 MDA 2008 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ADAM WAYNE CHAMPAGNE, Appellant. REPLY BRIEF FOR APPELLANT On Appeal from the Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas

More information

CITY OF WORCESTER vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION & another. 1. No. 12-P Suffolk. December 6, February 26, 2015.

CITY OF WORCESTER vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION & another. 1. No. 12-P Suffolk. December 6, February 26, 2015. NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PATRICK J. KENNEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 3, 2012 v No. 304900 Wayne Circuit Court WARDEN RAYMOND BOOKER, LC No. 11-003828-AH Defendant-Appellant. Before:

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO CT SCT WILLIAM MICHAEL JORDAN STATE OF MISSISSIPPI SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO CT SCT WILLIAM MICHAEL JORDAN STATE OF MISSISSIPPI SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT E-Filed Document Jul 29 2016 14:31:24 2014-CT-00615-SCT Pages: 8 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2014-CT-00615-SCT WILLIAM MICHAEL JORDAN APPELLANT VS. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE SUPPLEMENTAL

More information

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 96-CO Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. (Hon. Evelyn E. Queen, Trial Judge)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 96-CO Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. (Hon. Evelyn E. Queen, Trial Judge) Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections

More information

STATE OF NEW JERSEY PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. December 20, RE: Counsel s Office Developments since November 20, 2018

STATE OF NEW JERSEY PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. December 20, RE: Counsel s Office Developments since November 20, 2018 ADMINISTRATION/LEGAL (609) 292-9830 CONCILIATION/ARBITRATION (609 292-9898 UNFAIR PRACTICE/REPRESENTATION (609) 292-6780 STATE OF NEW JERSEY PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION PO Box 429 TRENTON, NEW

More information

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. SN SYNOPSIS P.E.R.C. NO. 2015-8 STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION In the Matter of RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY, Petitioner, -and- Docket No. SN-2014-033 FOP LODGE

More information

Submitted January 30, 2018 Decided. Before Judges Hoffman and Mayer.

Submitted January 30, 2018 Decided. Before Judges Hoffman and Mayer. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding

More information

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. CO SYNOPSIS

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION. Docket No. CO SYNOPSIS P.E.R.C. NO. 2017-51 NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE AUTHORITY, Respondent, Docket No. CO-2015 077 IFPTE LOCAL 196 CHAPTER 1, Charging Party. The Public Employment Relations Commission grants summary judgment in favor

More information

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 06-7157 September Term, 2007 FILED ON: MARCH 31, 2008 Dawn V. Martin, Appellant v. Howard University, et al., Appellees Appeal from

More information

LOFARO & REISER, L.L.P. COUNSELLORS AT LAW 55 HUDSON STREET HACKENSACK, NEW JERSEY (201) FACSIMILE: (201)

LOFARO & REISER, L.L.P. COUNSELLORS AT LAW 55 HUDSON STREET HACKENSACK, NEW JERSEY (201) FACSIMILE: (201) LOFARO & REISER, L.L.P. COUNSELLORS AT LAW 55 HUDSON STREET HACKENSACK, NEW JERSEY 07601 (201) 498-0400 FACSIMILE: (201) 498-0016 E-MAIL: info@new-jerseylawyers.com WEB SITES: www.njlawconnect.com www.njbankruptcylawyers.ontheinter.net

More information

49-04 (Link to OAL Decision: V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION

49-04 (Link to OAL Decision:   V. : COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION 49-04 (Link to OAL Decision http//lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/oal/html/initial/edu01852-03_1.html) VICTORIA CARRELLE, PETITIONER, V. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD,

More information

Case 1:17-cv IMK Document 82 Filed 08/15/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 787 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

Case 1:17-cv IMK Document 82 Filed 08/15/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 787 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA Case 1:17-cv-00052-IMK Document 82 Filed 08/15/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 787 SCOTT T. BALLOCK, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:17-CV-52

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. PAULA GIORDANO, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, HILLSDALE PUBLIC LIBRARY, TOWNSHIP

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CITY OF MADISON HEIGHTS, Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 14, 2010 v No. 293042 Oakland Circuit Court RICHARD M. CRAZE, LC No. 2008-090254-AS

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI TERRIN D. DRAPEAU, CASE NO. CV-10-4806 vs. Petitioner, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON APPEAL

More information

(SERVICE LIST ATTACHED)

(SERVICE LIST ATTACHED) Agenda Date: 8/23/17 Agenda Item: VIIA STATE OF NEW JERSEY Board of Public Utilities 44 South Clinton Avenue, 3rd Floor, Suite 314 Post Office Box 350 Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0350 www.nl.gov/bpu/ CUSTOMER

More information

At its meeting of June 10, 2004, the State Board of Examiners reviewed a

At its meeting of June 10, 2004, the State Board of Examiners reviewed a IN THE MATTER OF : NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION THE CERTIFICATES OF : STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS RUTH MEGARGEE : ORDER OF SUSPENSION : DOCKET NO: 0304-277 At its meeting of June 10, 2004, the State

More information

Note: New caption for Rule 1:38 adopted July 16, 2009 to be effective September 1, 2009.

Note: New caption for Rule 1:38 adopted July 16, 2009 to be effective September 1, 2009. RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY PART I. RULES OF GENERAL APPLICATION CHAPTER IV. ADMINISTRATION RULE 1:38. PUBLIC ACCESS TO COURT RECORDS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS Rule 1:38. Public

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROBERT LUZHAK, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION

More information