Procaccino v. State, Dept. of Treasury, Bd. of Trustees, Public Emp. Retirement System
| Decision Date | 27 July 1981 |
| Citation | 432 A.2d 1346,87 N.J. 265 |
| Parties | Daniel J. PROCACCINO, Appellant, v. STATE of New Jersey, DEPARTMENT OF the TREASURY, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PUBLICEMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Ira C. Miller, Trenton, for appellant Daniel J. Procaccino (Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman, Trenton, attorneys).
Bertram P. Goltz, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., for Board of Trustees, Public Employees' Retirement
System (James R. Zazzali, Atty. Gen., attorney; Erminie L. Conley, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel; Bertram P. Goltz, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., and William P. Malloy, Trenton, on the brief).
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Plaintiff, Procaccino began working with the New Jersey Department of Transportation in 1948. When he retired from his position as title examiner on April 1, 1978, he was 54 years old and had performed his job satisfactorily for more than 32 years.
Beginning in 1954 he was also employed during his off-hours as a constable for the Mercer County District Court. As a result of an investigation into his activities as a constable, he was suspended and later discharged from that job.
In January 1978 he was indicted for improperly appropriating funds entrusted to him while in county employ. The alleged misconduct occurred between September 29, 1975 and July 30, 1976.
In March 1979, plaintiff plead guilty to misconduct in office. On June 1, 1979, he was sentenced to an 18 month jail term, but the sentence was suspended subject to probation for one year and restitution of the funds taken. We were informed at oral argument that the restitution had been made and the probationary period served.
In conjunction with his retirement from the Department of Transportation, plaintiff sought his pension from the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), effective April 1, 1978. The Board of Trustees discontinued processing his application because of the pending indictment. Following the plea of guilty, the Board held that the "conviction constituted dishonorable service as a matter of law" and that therefore plaintiff was not eligible for a pension. Plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed. The court noted that conviction of a crime defeats the honorable service requirement if the offense involves (1) administration of the public employment or (2) moral turpitude even if not job-related. It affirmed the Board's determination that, though the conduct was unrelated to his employment in the Department of Transportation, the offense was one of moral turpitude. The Appellate Division acknowledged the "harsh result," commenting that "perhaps (a) more equitable result would be reached under ... several recent decisions of other jurisdictions ... which take issue with a forfeiture imposed when, as here, a public employee who is otherwise eligible to receive a service pension is disqualified because of his unlawful conduct." We granted plaintiff's petition for certification. 85 N.J. 471, 427 A.2d 567 (1981).
Plaintiff seeks a pension under N.J.S.A. 43:15A-41b, asserting he may retire early having established 25 years of "creditable service" before reaching age 60. The principles which we have adopted this day in Masse v. State of N.J., Dep't of Treasury, 87 N.J. 265, 432 A.2d 1339 (1981), are equally applicable here. The alleged offense was unrelated to his employment by the State in the Department of Transportation; his job as a constable did not taint his work as a title examiner; he was not removed from his job in the Department of Transportation for misconduct or delinquency; and he had performed creditable service for over 25 years before the misconduct as a constable occurred.
Reversed and remanded to the Public Employees' Retirement System to process plaintiff's application for a pension.
Plaintiff worked for the New Jersey Department of Transportation (DOT) from 1945 to 1978. For twenty-four of those thirty-three years he also worked part-time as a constable in the Mercer County District Court. In 1977 he was discharged from the latter post and shortly thereafter was indicted for improperly appropriating funds entrusted to him while in county employ, more particularly in that he did willfully, knowingly and unlawfully engage in misconduct in the said public office, that is, the said DANIEL J. PROCACCINO did breach and violate the aforesaid duties by collecting the sum of $4,261.17 pursuant to legal process in trust on behalf of the actual party or parties in interest but failing to either turn those monies over to the Mercer County District Court or to the actual party or parties in interest, contrary to the provisions of N.J.S. 2A:85-1, and against the peace of this State, the Government and dignity of the same.
Stripped of its artful legalese, that means he stole money with which he was entrusted while in the public employ.
Plaintiff pleaded guilty to the count of the indictment quoted above. The Board of Trustees of the Public Employees' Retirement System denied plaintiff a pension, holding him ineligible because of dishonorable service. The Appellate Division affirmed. This Court reverses because plaintiff's offense was unrelated to his DOT employment, he was not removed from his DOT job for any misconduct or delinquency, and he had performed creditable service for over twenty-five years before the misconduct as a constable occurred. I dissent from that holding because it departs sharply from well-established law in the area more properly left to the Legislature and in this case represents quirky policy.
The policy requiring forfeiture of pension rights on account of dishonorable service has been part of our law for almost half a century. This significant fact was pointed out, with obvious approval, by a majority of this Court in Makwinski v. State, 76 N.J. 87, 385 A.2d 1227 (1978), decided only three terms ago. The Court there observed that our long-standing law has been that "even though a person serves honorably for the minimum number of years set forth in the (pension) statute no vested property right to a pension accrues", id. at 90, 385 A.2d 1227; and that the "requirement of honorable service has been held to continue during the entire period of active service." Id. (citing Plunkett v. Pension Comm'rs of Hobroken, 113 N.J.L. 230, 173 A. 923 (Sup.Ct.1934), aff'd, 114 N.J.L. 273, 176 A. 341 (E & A. 1935); Hozer v. State, 95 N.J.Super. 196, 230 A.2d 508 (App.Div.), certif. den., 50 N.J. 285, 234 A.2d 395 (1967)). 1
One concurring opinion in Makwinski emphasized the "paramount importance of public employees acting honestly in accordance with the public trust placed in them", 76 N.J. at 93, 385 A.2d 1227, and declared full support for the rule that "dishonorable service requires total forfeiture of pension rights, even one which has 'vested' after 25 years of honorable service." Id.
Lest there be any doubt that Makwinski adhered to the last-declared principle, it should be noted that the Court, including some members of today's majority, rejected Judge Conford's specific invitation to overrule the line of cases that has "interpolated into the statute a provision for total forfeiture of any pension if, even after the specific period of honorable service, the employee remains in service instead of applying for retirement and thereafter commits a dishonorable act." 76 N.J. at 94-95, 385 A.2d 1227 (Conford, P.J.A.D. t/a, concurring) (emphasis in original).
The results in the long line of pension forfeiture cases adverted to in Makwinski have not turned on whether or not the dishonorable conduct was job-related. The test has been simply whether the offense "touches the administration of the public employee's office or position, or involves moral turpitude," even if not job-related. Makwinski, supra, 76 N.J. at 90, 385 A.2d 1227; Gauli v. Trustees Police and Firemen's Ret. Sys., 143 N.J.Super. 480, 482, 363 A.2d 911 (App.Div.1976). In our earliest pension forfeiture case, Plunkett v. Pension Comm'rs of Hoboken, supra, a fireman was disqualified for pension benefits because he embezzled funds from a private organization, the Hoboken Firemen's Relief Association, 113 N.J.L. at 231, 173 A. 923. Although such conduct was a violation of departmental rules and regulations, the ground of disenfranchisement was not that the embezzlement was job-connected but rather that it "involve(d) moral turpitude, and palpably justifie(d) the denial of a pension to one so offending." Id. at 233, 173 A. 923. In Ballurio v. Castellini, 29 N.J.Super. 383, 102 A.2d 662 (App.Div.1954), a foreman in a municipal street department was denied a public pension based on his participation in the crime of abortion an offense involving moral turpitude and having no connection whatsoever with his job. Id. at 386, 102 A.2d 662. Cf. Mount v. Trustees of Pub. Empl. Retirement Sys., 133 N.J.Super. 72, 81, 335 A.2d 559 (App.Div.1975) (); Gauli v. Trustees Police and Firemen's Ret. Sys., supra, 143 N.J.Super. at 482-84, 363 A.2d 911 ().
Relying on its reasoning in the companion case of Masse v. Trustees, Public Employees' Retirement Sys., 87 N.J. 252, 432 A.2d 1339 (1981), the Court now departs from this settled, consistently-reiterated law to lay down a new rule: when the criminal offense upon which pension disenfranchisement is based is unconnected with and unrelated to the employment that garnered the pension benefits the employee's public service will no longer be viewed as dishonorable. Masse, supra, 87 N.J. at 258-259, 432 A.2d 1339. It seeks to justify this judicial...
To continue reading
Request your trial