Mandelbaum v. State, Dept. of Civil Service
| Decision Date | 29 June 1976 |
| Citation | 142 N.J.Super. 323,361 A.2d 560 |
| Parties | Marvin H. MANDELBAUM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of New Jersey, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Bloom, Drobner & Javerbaum, Springfield, for plaintiff-appellant (Kenneth S. Javerbaum, Springfield, of counsel).
William F. Hyland, Atty. Gen., for defendant-respondent (Stephen Skillman, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel; Erminie L. Conley, Deputy Atty. Gen., on the brief).
Before Judges ALLCORN, KOLE and ARD.
Plaintiff, a resident of Bergen County, appeals the rejection of his application for employment as a county detective in Union County because of his nonresidency in Union County. His challenge is to the constitutionality of the residency requirements as established by the controlling statute, namely, N.J.S.A. 11:22--7.
We perceive no constitutional infirmity or impropriety in the provisions or effect of N.J.S.A. 11:22--7. McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Service Comm'n, 424 U.S. 645, 96 S.Ct. 1154, 47 L.Ed.2d 366 (1976); Abrahams v. Civil Service Comm'n, 65 N.J. 61, 319 A.2d 483 (1974). See Troy Hills Village v. Parsippany-Troy Hills Tp., 68 N.J. 604, 350 A.2d 34 (1975); David v. Vesta Co., 45 N.J. 301, 212 A.2d 345 (1965); N.J. Restaurant Ass'n v. Holderman, 24 N.J. 295, 131 A.2d 773 (1957). See also, Dunne v. Fireman's Fund Am. Ins. Co., 69 N.J. 244, 353 A.2d 508 (1976).
It very well may be that the subsequent enactments adopted by the Legislature in 1972 excepting from the residency requirements of the Civil Service Act applicants for appointment to a municipal fire department (N.J.S.A. 40A:14--9.2) and applicants for appointment to a municipal police department (N.J.S.A. 40A:14--122.2) themselves offend the equal protection proscription of the Constitution- --although we express no opinion thereon. howeVer this may be, the constitutional invalidity of either or both of these excepting statutes would not affect the constitutionality of N.J.S.A. 11:22--7.
So far as concerns N.J.S.A. 40A:9--1, its provisions in no way concern the class or classes of persons covered by N.J.S.A. 11:22--7. In any event and as earlier indicated, even assuming the constitutional invalidity of N.J.S.A. 40A:9--1 because the excepted offices (most, if not all, of which are appointed for fixed terms) do not form or constitute a reasonable and proper class, that invalidity would in no way affect the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marina Bornemann v. Bornemann
... ... (SC 15821) ... THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT ... Argued February 20, 1998 ... July ... the fulfillment of a required number of years of service for the employer -- the holder of a stock option possesses ... after date of separation because, under California Civil Code § 5118, post-separation earnings are separate ... ...
-
Lines v. City of Topeka
...65 N.J. 61, 319 A.2d 483 (1974); Trainor v. City of Newark, 145 N.J.Super. 466, 368 A.2d 381 (1976); Mandelbaum v. State Dept. of Civil Service, 142 N.J.Super. 323, 361 A.2d 560 (1976).) The equal protection clause does not prohibit differentiation between two classes of persons if there is......
-
Trainor v. City of Newark
...46 N.J.Super. 14, 27--28, 133 A.2d 672 (App.Div.1957), aff'd 25 N.J. 357, 136 A.2d 625 (1957). Cf. Mandelbaum v. Civil Service Dep't, 142 N.J.Super. 323, 361 A.2d 560 (App.Div.1976). 'Officers', as distinguished from other employees, have traditionally been recognized as a separate statutor......
-
Humphreys v. Passaic County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders
...employees generally. See Skolski v. Woodcock, 149 N.J.Super. 340, 344, 373 A.2d 1008 (App.Div.1977); Mandelbaum v. Civil Service Dep't, 142 N.J.Super. 323, 361 A.2d 560 (App.Div.1976), app. dism. 74 N.J. 257, 377 A.2d 653 (1977), and the cases cited respectively The trial judge found that t......