Amodio v. Civil Service Commission of Dept. of Civil Service

Decision Date23 October 1963
Docket NumberNo. A--514,A--514
Citation194 A.2d 512,81 N.J.Super. 22
PartiesMichael J. AMODIO, Appellant, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF the DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE, and Township of Woodbridge, a municipal corporation of the State of New Jersey, Respondents.
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Max A. Boxer, West New York, for appellant.

Stewart M. Hutt, Township Atty., for respondent Woodbridge Township.

Marilyn H. Loftus, Deputy Atty. Gen., appeared for respondent Civil Service Commission, which filed a statement in lieu of brief (Arthur J. Sills, Atty. Gen., attorney, William L. Boyan, Deputy Atty. Gen., of counsel).

Before Judges GOLDMANN, KILKENNY and COLLESTER.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

GOLDMANN, S.J.A.D.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Civil Service Commission upholding respondent Woodbridge Township's abolition of the position of purchasing agent, and dismissing the appeal of Amodio, whose services as purchasing agent had been terminated.

Amodio contends that (1) the facts do not support the findings and decision of the Commission; (2) the position of purchasing agent was not in fact abolished; (3) the township cannot use the claim of 'economy' as a device for circumventing his tenure rights under the Civil Service Act and the Veterans' Tenure Act, and (4) the township violated N.J.S.A. 11:26D--1, which requires 45 days' notice of layoff or separation from service on the ground of economy.

The township contends, and the Commission so found, that the position of purchasing agent was abolished and the duties assigned to the township's business administrator for reasons of economy and efficiency, and that the governing body had acted in good faith. Amodio claims that this action was politically motivated and 'economy' was used as an excuse to turn him out of office. The resolution of these conflicting positions turns on the facts which were fully exposed at the hearing and given detailed consideration by the Commission in its decision.

Woodbridge Township adopted the provisions of Revised Statutes, Title 11, Subtitle 3, Civil Service, in November 1947. On December 29, 1959 the outgoing Democratic administration adopted an ordinance establishing and organizing a purchasing board pursuant to R.S. 40:50--7, N.J.S.A., composed of the governing body and to be known as the purchasing department. Section 3 of the ordinance stated that the department was to be in charge of and administered by the township purchasing agent. The position was in the classified service; on June 10, 1960 Amodio took the civil service examination scheduled for the position and was thereafter certified. On October 18, 1960 the township governing body by resolution appointed Amodio purchasing agent as of October 1. He held that position until its abolition and his dismissal on the grounds of economy.

As a result of the November 1961 general election, the Democratic Party returned to power January 1, 1962. The new township committee consisted of nine Democrats and two Republicans. Mayor Zirpolo and Committeeman Jacks, who testified before the Commission in support of the ordinance abolishing the position of purchasing agent, were members of the majority. Amodio is a Democrat.

On January 16, 1962 there was introduced an ordinance to amend the ordinance creating the purchasing board. Its preamble recited that the governing body 'finds that the functions of the Purchasing Agent does (sic) not require a full time employee, especially in view of the fact that the initial organizational steps have been accomplished over the last two (2) years and this Governing Body deems it necessary for reasons of efficiency and economy to have the functions of the Purchasing Agent be performed by the Business Administrator of the Township of Woodbridge.' The ordinance provided that the duties and functions of the purchasing agent were to be assumed by the business administrator in addition to the other duties and functions assigned to him under an ordinance creating his office. The business administrator was not to receive any additional compensation for this increased responsibility. The position of the incumbent purchasing agent was automatically terminated as of the date the amendatory ordinance took effect. The amendatory ordinance was adopted on February 6 and published, as prescribed by law, on February 8, 1962.

On January 17, 1962 the assistant township attorney wrote Amodio by certified mail that an ordinance abolishing his position as purchasing agent had been introduced and passed on first hearing at the township committee meeting held January 16. The letter stated that in accordance with the provisions of N.J.S.A. 11:26D--1, Amodio was notified that his position would be abolished and his services dispensed with 'effective 45 days from today, to wit: March 3, 1962.' A copy of the letter was sent to the Civil Service Commission, as required by the cited statute. The letter was delivered at the Amodio home on January 19, 1962.

Despite the notice date of March 3, it was decided to pay Amodio through March 5, and this is evidenced by the employee's earnings record introduced in evidence, as well as a check drawn to his order. Amodio does not contend that he was not paid up to and including March 5, but argues, as he did before the Commission, that he had received less than 45 days' notice, only 43 days elapsing between the receipt of the assistant township attorney's letter on January 19 and the March 3 date. Accordingly, he insists, the requirement of N.J.S.A. 11:26D--1 had not been met, so that his dismissal from office was improper.

N.J.S.A. 11:26D--1 provides:

'No person holding office, position or employment in the classified service of the civil service under * * * any * * * municipality * * * shall be laid off or separated from such service because of economy or otherwise, and not because of any delinquency or misconduct on his part, nor shall his position or office be abolished until after he shall have first been given notice in writing, personally or by certified mail, of the date upon which he will be laid off or his services so dispensed with, and the reasons therefor. The said notice shall be served at least 45 days before the lay-off or abolition becomes effective, and a copy of the said notice shall also be served upon the Civil Service Commission in the same manner. Upon receiving such notice it shall be the duty of the Chief Examiner and Secretary to forthwith determine the said employee's re-employment or demotional rights of such employee and thereafter promptly notify both the employee and the appointing authority of such determination of re-employment and demotional rights.'

The Commission concluded that Amodio had received the necessary 45 days' notice, construing the service by certified mail provision in N.J.S.A. 11:26D--1 to mean 45 days from the date the letter was certified that deposited in the mails. In its opinion, the township authorities had not tried to circumvent the statute, the letter notice mailed to Amodio had been sent in the firm belief that the statute was being complied with, and in any event the township showed its good faith by adding two days, so as to extend the March 3 date to March 5.

The statute is silent as to when the 45-day notice period commences to run. In the absence of informative express language, the wording of the statute must be construed in the light of its purpose. Counsel for appellant concedes that the purpose of the statute was 'to take care of a very inequitable situation that had existed heretofore where the employee was not given ample time in order to prepare his own affairs and perhaps take steps to get other employment and give him a chance to find out what his demotional or re-employment rights were.' That this is so is indicated by the very language of the statute itself, for it provides that upon receiving a copy of the notice, the Chief Examiner and Secretary has the duty of forthwith determining what the employee's re-employment or demotional rights are, thereafter promptly notifying both the employee and the appointing authority of such determination.

Service of notice by mail, when authorized, is deemed complete when deposited in the post office, properly addressed and with the proper amount of postage. Cf. 42 Am.Jur., Process, § 60 p. 48 (1942), cited with approval in Borgia v. Board of Review, 21 N.J.Super. 462, 467, 91 A.2d 441 (App.Div.1952), stating the general rule where service of process by mail is authorized.

The question in Apex Roofing Supply Co. v. H. W. Elliot Co., 52 N.J.Super. 522, 145 A.2d 823 (Cty.D.Ct.1958), was whether timely notice had been given the owners of the filing of a mechanic's notice of intention. The statute, N.J.S. 2A:44--71, N.J.S.A., required that notice in writing be given the owner 'personally or by registered mail,' addressed to his last known address, within five days of the filing of the notice of intention. Unless such notice was given, the filing of the notice of intention was to have no force or effect. The court held that registered mail notice given the owners was sufficient although not received within five days after the filing of the notice of intention. And see Elliot-Farber Roofing & Siding Supply Co. v. Saitta, 79 N.J.Super. 568, 192 A.2d 318 (App.Div.1963).

In Pacific Discount Co. Inc. v. Jackson, 68 N.J.Super. 331, 172 A.2d 440 (App.Div.1961), reversed 37 N.J. 169, 179 A.2d 745 (1962), plaintiff sought to reverse a county district court judgment denying it recovery in a deficiency action brought against the conditional buyer of an automobile which had been repossessed and sold. The issue was whether proper written notice of the resale had been sent to defendants under R.S. 46:32--25, N.J.S.A., which called for such notice 'either personally or by registered mail,' directed to the last-known...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Gloucester County, Bd. of Chosen Freeholders v. Public Employment Relations Commission
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • 10 de outubro de 1969
    ...89 N.J.Super. 560, 565, 215 A.2d 775 (App.Div.1965), certif. den. 47 N.J. 80, 219 A.2d 417 (1966); Amodio v. Civil Service Com'n, 81 N.J.Super. 22, 30, 194 A.2d 512 (App.Div.1963). Accord, United States v. First City Nat. Bank of Houston, 386 U.S. 361, 366--367, 87 S.Ct. 1088, 18 L.Ed.2d 15......
  • Guzman v. City of Perth Amboy
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • 4 de dezembro de 1986
    ...entity, it could easily have so specified. See Dixon v. Gassert, 26 N.J. 1, 8-9, 138 A.2d 14 (1958); Amodio v. Civil Service Comm'n, 81 N.J.Super. 22, 28, 194 A.2d 512 (App.Div.1963); Kennan v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Essex Cty., 101 N.J.Super. 495, 507, 244 A.2d 705 (Law Div.1968), af......
  • Expo, Inc. v. City of Passaic
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • 6 de abril de 1977
    ...official is acting within limits of his authority. See Gissen v. Tackman, 401 F.Supp. 305 (D.N.J. 1975). Amodio v. Civil Service Comm'n, 81 N.J.Super. 22, 194 A.2d 512 (App. Div. 1963). The case law is abundantly clear that courts have continuously refused to look beyond a lawful purpose ev......
  • Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Kin Properties, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • 27 de setembro de 1994
    ...& Dealaman, Inc. v. Wm. F. Hegarty, Inc., 93 N.J.Super. 14, 20, 224 A.2d 510 (App.Div.1966); accord Amodio v. Civil Service Comm'n, 81 N.J.Super. 22, 27, 194 A.2d 512 (App.Div.1963); Szczesny v. Vasquez, 71 N.J.Super. 347, 354, 177 A.2d 47 (App.Div.1962). The presumption is rebuttable howev......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT