Sganga v. Teaneck Tp.
| Decision Date | 10 June 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 414.,414. |
| Citation | 130 N.J.L. 218,32 A.2d 505 |
| Parties | SGANGA v. TEANECK TP. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Charles Sganga against the Township of Teaneck, a municipal corporation of the State of New Jersey, to recover salary as a police officer allegedly due plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Judgment reversed.
Appeal from District Court, Bergen County, Third District.
May term, 1943, before CASE, DONGES, and PORTER, JJ.
Albert S. Gross, of Hackensack, for plaintiff-respondent.
Donald M. Waesche, of Jersey City, for defendant-appellant.
This appeal is from a judgment obtained by the plaintiff in the District Court for $500, representing salary as a police officer which he claims to be due from the defendant from the period of April 7, 1942, to August 25, 1942.
The facts seem to be undisputed. The plaintiff has been employed as a police officer by the defendant since 1928. The salary, as provided by ordinance, is $2,500 per year. The plaintiff suffers from defective vision; and from the period July 31, 1941, to April 7, 1942, this condition rendered him unable to perform other police duties, and he was consequently assigned to desk work in the police department. Because of that disability he applied to be retired on a pension, under N.J.S.A. 43:16-2, on the claim that he was permanently disabled due to his defective vision. The Pension Board denied his application on the ground that his disability might be corrected by an operation. He refused to submit to the operation. He obtained a writ of certiorari to review the action of the Pension Commission, which was dismissed by Mr. Justice Bodine, who held that since it appeared from the testimony that there was doubt as to the permanency of the disability and that by operation it might be cured, he was not entitled to a pension until that fact was determined. The defendant, concluding that he was physically unable to perform the duties of a police officer, by resolution granted him a year's leave of absence at half salary. The plaintiff has rendered no services to the defendant since March 31, 1942.
The instant suit is to recover salary which plaintiff claims to be due him from April 7 to August 25, 1942. A previous suit for salary claimed to be due, prior to these dates, was instituted and settled by the parties and a release executed by the plaintiff. The defendant alleges this release to be a bar in part to the instant suit. The release is ambiguous as to the period covered by it, but it need not be interpreted because we think that the judgment must be reversed on other grounds.
It is the contention of the plaintiff that he is ready and willing to perform his duties, and has been prevented from doing so by the action of the defendant in placing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
De Marco v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Bergen County, A--66
...632, 147 A. 908 (E. & A.1929); Hillel v. Borough of Edgewater, 106 N.J.L. 481, 150 A. 385 (E. & A.1930); Sganga v. Teaneck Township, 130 N.J.L. 218, 32 A.2d 505 (Sup.Ct.1943); Strohmeyer v. Borough of Little Ferry, 136 N.J.L. 485, 56 A.2d 885 (E. & A.1948); Pollak v. Borough of Wallington, ......
-
De Marco v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Bergen County, L--4984
...659, 141 A. 919 (E. & A.1928); Hillel v. Borough of Edgewater, 106 N.J.L. 481, 150 A. 385 (E. & A.1929); Sganga v. Teaneck Township, 130 N.J.L. 218, 32 A.2d 505 (Sup.Ct.1943). As previously stated, the plaintiff, as a county detective, holds a public office. In New Jersey a public office is......
-
Gobac v. Davis
...therefor. And this is so even though the officer was prevented from working through no fault of his own. Sganga v. Teaneck Township, 130 N.J.L. 218, 32 A.2d 505 (Sup.Ct.1943); De Marco v. Board etc. Bergen County (supra, 21 N.J. at page 142, 121 A.2d at page 399). His sole opportunity for r......
-
Winne v. Bergen County, 15959
...v. Gear, 27 N.J.L. 265 (Sup.Ct.1859); Hillel v. Borough of Edgewater, 106 N.J.L. 481, 150 A. 385 (Sup.Ct.1930) and Sganga v. Teaneck, 130 N.J.L. 218, 32 A.2d 505 (Sup.Ct.1943) is not clear under the decisions of this State. The principle followed by the majority of the other jurisdictions a......