Graham v. City of Asbury Park
| Citation | 37 N.J. 166,179 A.2d 520 |
| Decision Date | 02 April 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. A--90,A--90 |
| Parties | John GRAHAM and David Jones, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. CITY OF ASBURY PARK, a municipal corporation of the State of New Jersey, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
Appeal from Superior Court, Appellate Division.
Roger H. McGlynn, Newark, for plaintiffs-respondents (Charles Frankel, Asbury Park, attorney; John Russo, Toms River, on the brief).
Robert V. Carton, Asbury Park, for defendant-appellant (Ascenzio R. Albarelli, City Attorney for the City of Asbury Park, attorney for and of counsel with defendant-appellant).
The opinion of the court was delivered
We affirm for the reasons expressed by Judge Freund in Graham v. Asbury Park, 69 N.J.Super. 256, 174 A.2d 244 (App.Div.1961). Since the parties before us have not raised the issue of mitigation (compare D'Elia v. Jersey City, 57 N.J.Super. 466, 155 A.2d 13 (App.Div.1959) with Miele v. McGuire, 31 N.J. 339, 157 A.2d 306 (1960)) we find no present occasion for dealing with it. See Lowenstein v. Newark Bd. of Education, 35 N.J. 94, 124, 171 A.2d 265 (1961); McGrath v. Jersey City, 70 N.J.Super. 143, 147, 175 A.2d 278 (Law Div.1961). We do, however, repeat the suggestion made in De Marco v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Bergen County, 21 N.J. 136, 147, 121 A.2d 396 (1956), and more recently in Miele v. McGuire, supra, 31 N.J. at 351, 157 A.2d 306 that the Legislature give consideration to the adoption of a specific enactment dealing comprehensively with the subject and measure of the allowance of back pay to municipal, county and state officers and employees who are suspended pending trial or hearing on indictment or charges and are later acquitted or otherwise vindicated. Cf. Cal.Gov.Code, § 19584; N.Y. Civil Service Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 7, §§ 77, 75(3); Mullane v. McKenzie, 269 N.Y. 369, 199 N.E. 624, 103 A.L.R. 758 (Ct.App.1936), reargument denied, 270 N.Y. 563, 200 N.E. 319 (Ct.App.1936).
For affirmance: Justices JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, HALL, SCHETTINO and HANEMAN--6.
For reversal: None.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mastrobattista v. Essex County Park Commission
...with municipal police officers; but cf. N.J.S.A. 40:46--34; McGrath v. Jersey City, 38 N.J. 31, 183 A.2d 7 (1962); Graham v. Asbury Park, 37 N.J. 166, 179 A.2d 520 (1962). Current concepts of fair play in employment relationships suggest that persons in the public service who have been susp......
-
State v. DiStefano
...385, 165 A.2d 864 (Ct.Law.Div.1960), rev'd on other grounds, 69 N.J.Super. 256, 174 A.2d 244 (Ct.App.Div.1961), aff'd, 37 N.J. 166, 179 A.2d 520 (1962)). Additionally, I respond to the certified question in the negative because I believe that the legislative purpose and intent that prompted......
-
Willis v. Dyer
...31 N.J. 339, 348-352, 157 A.2d 306 (1960). Compare Graham v. Asbury Park, 69 N.J.Super. 256, 174 A.2d 244 (App.Div.1961), aff'd 37 N.J. 166, 179 A.2d 520 (1962). IV In view of our determination that plaintiff should have been suspended for three months without pay, rather than dismissed, th......
-
Manobianco v. City of Hoboken
...52 N.J.Super. 526, 146 A.2d 123 (App.Div.1958); Graham v. Asbury Park, 69 N.J.Super. 256, 174 A.2d 244 (App.Div.1961), affirmed, 37 N.J. 166, 179 A.2d 520 (1962); Rosetty v. Hamilton Tp. Comm., 82 N.J.Super. 340, 197 A.2d 600 (Law Div.1964), affirmed 96 N.J.Super. 66, 232 A.2d 455 Plaintiff......