Link v. Bd. of Trs.
| Decision Date | 05 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-5520-17T2 |
| Parties | SEAN LINK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, STATE POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Respondent-Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION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 only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
Before Judges Sumners and Moynihan.
On appeal from the Board of Trustees of the State Police Retirement System, SPRS No. 8-5697.
Limsky Mitolo, attorney for appellant (Marcia J. Mitolo, of counsel and on the briefs).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Robert Seymour Garrison, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, on the brief.)
Appellant Sean Link appeals from a July 24, 2018 final decision of the Board of Trustees (the Board) of the State Police Retirement System (SPRS) that rejected the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) recommendation for partial forfeiture of his pension credit and reaffirmed its initial decision that his pension credit was totally forfeited due to two incidents of misconduct that occurred in 2008 and 2009. The Board also found that Link did not leave his employment due to a disabling condition, but rather because of the disciplinary charges filed against him, thereby making him ineligible for accidental disability retirement benefits. We affirm.
The record before the Board revealed that Link was employed as a New Jersey State Trooper for approximately ten years and eleven months beginning on February 9, 2005, until he resigned pursuant to a Negotiated Voluntary Plea Agreement General Disciplinary Matter on April 18, 2016.
Link was charged with, and pled guilty to, five New Jersey State Police disciplinary charges for incidents occurring on April 7, 2008 and January 18, 2009. In the first incident, Link, while on patrol, followed a vehicle for approximately ten miles and used his New Jersey State Police Mobile Data Computer (MDC) to conduct a "Full Disclosure Inquiry" to obtain the female driver's personal information without initiating a proper motor vehicle stop.
About nine months later, Link, again on duty, requested and obtained the phone number of a woman, who was awaiting processing for a driving while intoxicated (DWI) charge, based on his representation that he could help her get the charge dismissed. For several months he inappropriately used his position as a Trooper to procure a romantic relationship with the woman by suggesting, among other things: she contact a judge "to pull some strings"; that proper procedures were not followed during the stop; and he could tell the arresting Trooper that she was a childhood friend and to "lay off" her case. At one point, he even appeared at her workplace unannounced and called her several times from a blocked number. When questioned about his conduct in August 2012, Link provided false and misleading statements and incorrectly claimed that he had submitted a Special Report about the woman's allegations against him.
Prior to his resignation, Link applied for accidental disability retirement benefits on December 30, 2014, in anticipation of retiring on May 1, 2015, based upon injuries he sustained from an on-duty motor vehicle accident on October 16, 2012.
On May 24, 2016, the Board considered Link's application for accidental disability retirement benefits.1 However, the receipt of the benefits was conditioned on rendering honorable service. See N.J.S.A. 43:1-3(a). In evaluating whether his misconduct warranted forfeiture of benefits, the Board balanced the eleven factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 43:1-3(c):
The Board determined that Link was not eligible for accidental disability retirement benefits because "his egregious misconduct . . . continued over numerous years[]" and "demonstrated a high degree of moral turpitude" showing "a pattern of violation of the public trust." As a result, it voted for a total forfeiture of his SPRS service credits, "leav[ing] him with no service credit with which to base an application for a disability retirement." Further, the Board found that Link did not leave employment due to disability, but rather termination. Link was allowed a "refund of his accumulated pension contributions [he made] during active service." He appealed the Board's decision and the case was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing.
The ALJ, after balancing the Uricoli factors, found that while Link's misconduct began on April 7, 2008, there was no allegation of improper conduct prior to that time on which to base total forfeiture, stating that total forfeiture of pension benefits is reserved for "the most egregious cases." Relying on T.J.M. v. Bd. of Trs., Police and Fireman's Ret. Sys., 218 N.J. Super. 274, 279 (App. Div. 1987), he determined that total forfeiture would result in an excessive forfeiture and recommended a partial forfeiture from the date of the first offense, April 7, 2008, to the date of Link's resignation, making him partially eligible for disability retirement benefits.
In its final agency decision, the Board rejected the ALJ's recommendation that partial forfeiture would be appropriate in this case. It rejected the ALJ's reliance on T.J.M., because unlike the police officer in that case, Link's misconduct was directly related to his employment as a State Trooper, and the ALJ provided no analysis to support his conclusion that the partial forfeiture should begin from April 7, 2008 - the date of the first misconduct incident. The Board found that adopting such a position would result in an excessive pension, as the first, second, third, and fifth Uricoli factors weighed strongly against Link. Therefore, it reaffirmed its initial decision to totally forfeit Link's service credit and hold him ineligible for accidental disability retirement benefits.
On appeal, Link argues the Board erred in reaffirming the total forfeiture of his SPRS service credits, maintaining that his misconduct was neither pervasive nor chronic, and his service credits should have been only partially forfeited because he committed no misconduct before April 7, 2008, and served honorably in the time between the first and second incidents. Further, he argues the Board misinterpreted the ALJ's reliance on T.J.M., because the ALJ relied on that case to determine whether any allegations of misconduct arose prior to the incident and not whether the misconduct took place while on duty or off duty. See 218 N.J. Super. at 276. He also maintains that he left employment due to a permanent disability.
We begin with the principles that guide our decision. Our scope of review of an administrative agency's final determination is limited. In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 27 (2007). A "strong presumption of reasonableness attaches" to the agency's decision. In re Carroll, 339 N.J. Super. 429, 437 (App. Div. 2001) (quoting In re Vey, 272 N.J. Super. 199, 205 (App. Div. 1993)). The burden is upon the appellant to demonstrate grounds for reversal. McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J. Super. 544, 563 (App. Div. 2002); see also Bowden v. Bayside State Prison, 268 N.J. Super. 301, 304 (App. Div. 1993) ().
Moreover, "an appellate court is 'in no way bound by the agency's interpretation of a statute or its determination of a strictly legal issue . . . .'" In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 483 (2007); see also Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995). With these considerations in mind, we will "not disturb an administrative agency's determinations or findings unless there is a clear showing that (1) the agency did not follow the law; (2) the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; or (3) the decision was not supported by substantial evidence." In re Application of Virtua-West Jersey Hosp. Voorhees for a Certificate of Need, 194 N.J. 413, 422 (2008); see also Bueno v. Bd. of Trs., 422 N.J. Super. 227, 233-34 (App. Div. 2011).
We have considered Link's arguments in light of the record and applicable legal principles and conclude there is ample credible evidence in the record to support the Board's evaluation of the Uricoli factors and its decision that a total forfeiture of his public service credit was warranted under the circumstances. See J.B. v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 229 N.J. 21, 43 (2017). As such, we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the Board's final agency decision, which is supported by credible evidence in the record. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). We add only the following comments.
The receipt of a public pension is "expressly conditioned upon the rendering of honorable service by a public officer or employee." N.J.S.A. 43:1-3(a). The Board may "order the forfeiture of all...
To continue reading
Request your trial