Caronia v. Civil Service Com'n of N.J., No. A--44

CourtSuperior Court of New Jersey
Writing for the CourtEASTWOOD
Citation71 A.2d 135,6 N.J.Super. 275
Docket NumberNo. A--44
Decision Date03 February 1950
PartiesCARONIA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF NEW JERSEY et al.

Page 275

6 N.J.Super. 275
71 A.2d 135
CARONIA

v.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF NEW JERSEY et al.
No. A--44.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Argued Jan. 23, 1950.
Decided Feb. 3, 1950.

Page 277

[71 A.2d 136] Abraham L. Friedman, Newark, argued the cause for the plaintiff-appellant (Samuel L. Rothbard, Newark, of counsel; Rothbard, Harris & Oxfeld, Newark, attorneys).

John W. Griggs, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for the defendant-respondent Civil Service Commission of New Jersey (Theodore D. Parsons, Attorney General, attorney).

Edmond J. Dwyer, Orange, attorney for defendant-respondent City of Orange, argued the cause.

Before Judges McGEEHAN, COLIE and EASTWOOD.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

EASTWOOD, J.A.D.

The Civil Service Commission of New Jersey determined that the status of plaintiff, James Caronia, as a chanceman in the Police Department of the City of Orange, did not entitle him to preferential assignment to the duty performed by special officers in directing traffic at school intersections. Plaintiff appeals from that determination.

Page 278

Caronia has been a chanceman of the City of Orange since 1924. As such, he is a member of the regular police department of that municipality. See Caronia v. Caldwell, 123 N.J.L. 266, 8 A.2d 700, 701 (E. & A.1939), wherein it was held that '* * * the chancemen are not temporary employees, but are regular members of the department appointed for part time service. They serve such days as they are required, and get paid only when [71 A.2d 137] they work, but they are regular members of the department entitled to tenure and to keep their positions unless discharged after hearing on charges, to the same extent as the Chief or any other member. * * *' As such chanceman, it is conceded that Caronia did regular police duty for the City of Orange for extended periods of time during the years 1944--1948 inclusive, but that no duty was assigned to him for the period from January 1, 1949 to May 23, 1949, during which latter period of time three special officers, appointed under authority of R.S. 40:47--19, N.J.S.A., performed special duty at school intersections, assembling school children and escorting them across the street. These special officers performed what is characterized as 'split shift' duty, that is, they escorted the school children across the street at the beginning of the morning session, then at noon time and at the conclusion of the afternoon session, in connection with which they did not wear a uniform nor were they permitted to use any clubs, revolvers or any other accessories usually carried by a regular police officer. The insignia of their authority was a shield worn on their caps and a police badge 'on their left breast.' Subsequent to May 23, 1949, Caronia has been assigned to and has performed regular police duty and was so engaged at the time of the hearing before the Civil Service Commission. His contention is limited to the period of January 1, 1949 to May 23, 1949, asserting that he was deprived of performing police duty and that his rights as a chanceman were violated when that duty was assigned to the special officers engaged for that purpose.

The City of Orange contends (1) that Caronia was offered school duty but refused to accept it; (2) that the duty performed by the special officers was not regular police duty and,

Page 279

therefore, Caronia was not entitled as a matter of priority to that assignment; and (3) that the City of Orange was authorized under R.S. 40:47--19, N.J.S.A., to appoint and employ the three special officers for the school duty assignments.

There appears to be little disagreement about the factual...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Goldberg v. Housing Authority of City of Newark, No. A--3
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • December 3, 1962
    ...and direction of the chief of police.' See McAndrew v. Mularchuk, 33 N.J. 172, 162 A.2d 820 (1960); Caronia v. Civil Service Commission, 6 N.J.Super. 275, 280, 71 A.2d 135 (App.Div. 1950). And, from the wording of the statute, it would appear Page 583 that a policeman so assigned would not ......
  • City of Jersey City v. Jersey City Police Officers Benev. Ass'n
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • July 9, 1998
    ...officer is a special Page 573 kind of public employee"), certif. denied, 47 N.J. 80, 219 A.2d 417 (1966); Caronia v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 6 N.J.Super. 275, 279, 71 A.2d 135 (App.Div.1950) (noting that "regulation of the police force by assignment of its members to particular duties, accordin......
  • Irvington Policemen's Benev. Ass'n, Local No. 29 v. Town of Irvington
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • October 16, 1979
    ...N.J.Super. 560, 566, 215 A.2d 775, 778 (App.Div.1965), certif. den. 47 N.J. 80, 219 A.2d 417 (1966). In Caronia v. Civil Service Comm'n, 6 N.J.Super. 275, 71 A.2d 135 (App.Div.1950), it was . . . The regulation of the police force by assignment of its members to particular duties, according......
  • Borough of Belmar Policemen's Benev. Ass'n of Local No. 50 v. Borough of Belmar
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • May 10, 1982
    ...in addition to the regular police force, to preserve order." Id. at 561, 14 A. 581. In Caronia v. Civil Service Comm'n. of N.J., 6 N.J.Super. 275, 71 A.2d 135 (App.Div.1950), special police were used on a non-emergency basis. They gathered the children together at the crossing and escorted ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Goldberg v. Housing Authority of City of Newark, No. A--3
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • December 3, 1962
    ...and direction of the chief of police.' See McAndrew v. Mularchuk, 33 N.J. 172, 162 A.2d 820 (1960); Caronia v. Civil Service Commission, 6 N.J.Super. 275, 280, 71 A.2d 135 (App.Div. 1950). And, from the wording of the statute, it would appear Page 583 that a policeman so assigned would not ......
  • City of Jersey City v. Jersey City Police Officers Benev. Ass'n
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • July 9, 1998
    ...officer is a special Page 573 kind of public employee"), certif. denied, 47 N.J. 80, 219 A.2d 417 (1966); Caronia v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 6 N.J.Super. 275, 279, 71 A.2d 135 (App.Div.1950) (noting that "regulation of the police force by assignment of its members to particular duties, accordin......
  • Irvington Policemen's Benev. Ass'n, Local No. 29 v. Town of Irvington
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • October 16, 1979
    ...N.J.Super. 560, 566, 215 A.2d 775, 778 (App.Div.1965), certif. den. 47 N.J. 80, 219 A.2d 417 (1966). In Caronia v. Civil Service Comm'n, 6 N.J.Super. 275, 71 A.2d 135 (App.Div.1950), it was . . . The regulation of the police force by assignment of its members to particular duties, according......
  • Borough of Belmar Policemen's Benev. Ass'n of Local No. 50 v. Borough of Belmar
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • May 10, 1982
    ...in addition to the regular police force, to preserve order." Id. at 561, 14 A. 581. In Caronia v. Civil Service Comm'n. of N.J., 6 N.J.Super. 275, 71 A.2d 135 (App.Div.1950), special police were used on a non-emergency basis. They gathered the children together at the crossing and escorted ......
  • 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