Uricoli v. Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen's Retirement System
Decision Date | 05 August 1982 |
Citation | 449 A.2d 1267,91 N.J. 62 |
Parties | Eugene J. URICOLI, Appellant, v. The BOARD OF TRUSTEES, POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Respondent. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Malcolm H. Greenberg, Orange, for appellant (Greenberg & Frese, Orange, attorneys).
Sharon M. Joyce, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent (James R. Zazzali, Atty. Gen., attorney; Erminie L. Conley, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel).
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
Petitioner Eugene J. Uricoli was first employed as a patrolman by the Police Department of the City of Orange in November 1952. He worked his way up through the ranks and was appointed Police Chief in 1970. On April 9, 1976, after over 23 years of otherwise honorable service with the police force, Uricoli was found guilty of one count of malfeasance in office.
The conviction was for a single ticket-fixing incident that had occurred during October 1972. The allegation was that Uricoli had illegaly disposed of a careless driving ticket that had been issued to the son of a "near and dear friend." Uricoli's assertion that he received no compensation for fixing the ticket was not then, nor has it ever been, challenged by the State.
Uricoli was eventually sentenced to a one-year suspended jail term and to probation for two years unless and until he paid a fine of $1,000. The trial judge who heard Uricoli's case expressly stated that he decided to suspend the custodial portion of the sentence because In addition to the punishment meted out by the trial court, Uricoli was also dismissed from the Orange Police Department as a result of the conviction.
In June 1979, at which time Uricoli was 49 years old, he submitted an application to the Police and Firemen's Retirement System (PFRS) for an accidental disability retirement. He claimed entitlement to accidental disability benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:16A-7 because of various back injuries he had suffered between 1963 and 1972 while doing routine police work. The Board of Trustees of PFRS denied the application, ruling that Uricoli's conviction for malfeasance in office prevented him from meeting the prerequisite of honorable service for a pension.
Uricoli appealed the Board's ruling and a hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge, who recommended denial of the pension. The Board of Trustees adopted the ALJ's findings, conclusions, and recommendations and reaffirmed its decision to deny Uricoli a pension because of his conviction. The Appellate Division affirmed. We granted Uricoli's petition for certification. 87 N.J. 404, 434 A.2d 1082 (1981).
Uricoli contends that his claim to pension benefits is predicated upon the accidental disability provisions of N.J.S.A. 43:16-2 and 43:16A-7. He argues that because the provisions relating to retirement on account of accidental disability contain no express requirement of honorable service as a prerequisite to obtaining a pension, his failure to have served honorably should not defeat his entitlement to a pension based upon his employment-related disability.
This argument is without merit. This Court has clearly reaffirmed the rule that honorable service is an implicit requirement of every public pension statute, whether or not this conditional term appears in the particular statute. See Masse v. Public Employment Retirem. Sys., 87 N.J. 252, 255-56, 432 A.2d 1339 (1981); Makwinski v. State, 76 N.J. 87, 90, 385 A.2d 1227 (1978). Courts in this State have consistently imputed to the Legislature the intent that a public employee's right to pension benefits be conditioned upon honorable service. 1 The condition of honorable service is applicable without regard to whether retirement is based on disability, age or length of service.
The issue to be addressed in this case is whether only one incident involving an illegal disposition of a traffic ticket, for no personal gain and after 20 years of flawless service, is an infraction of sufficient magnitude to render the employee's career in the public service dishonorable so as to require the forfeiture of all pension benefits.
The interpretation and application of the forfeiture doctrine as a substantive component of the State's public pension systems has been evolutionary in character. For the most part, the impetus has been judicial. In this process the courts have sought to effectuate the underlying intention of the Legislature. Understandably, the judicial development of the forfeiture doctrine has reflected in some measure the courts' perceptions of legislative policy regarding pensions and related subjects.
Many cases addressing the expressed or implied requirement of honorable service strongly suggest that automatic forfeiture was required whenever the public employee had committed any sort of misconduct in office, regardless of its nature or the degree of culpability. See Plunkett v. Pension Commissioners of Hoboken, 113 N.J.L. 230, 233-34, 173 A. 923 (Sup.Ct.1934), aff'd o.b., 114 N.J.L. 273, 176 A. 341 (E. & A. 1935); Fromm v. Bd. of Directors of Police, etc., Retire. Syst., 81 N.J.Super. 138, 195 A.2d 32 (App.Div.1963). See Masse, 87 N.J. at 264, 432 A.2d 1339 ( ).
A brief review of the cases, however, demonstrates that the courts were cognizant of the varying, and somewhat conflicting, objectives inherent in the public pension system and the consequent need to weigh the quality of misconduct to determine whether forfeiture of pension benefits was appropriate. The gravity of the misconduct usually was a relevant consideration. Misconduct that resulted in a forfeiture frequently constituted a substantial breach of public employee duties. See, e.g., McFeely v. Board of Pension Com'rs, 1 N.J. 212, 62 A.2d 686 (1948) ( ); Plunkett, 113 N.J.L. 230, 173 A. 923 ( ); Hozer v. State, etc., Police & Firemen's Pension Fund, 95 N.J.Super. 196, 230 A.2d 508 (App.Div.1967), certif. den., 50 N.J. 285, 234 A.2d 395 (1967) ( ); Pfitzinger v. Bd. of Trustees, etc., Retirement System, 62 N.J.Super. 589, 163 A.2d 388 (Law Div.1960) ( ); Mount v. Trustees of Pub. Emp. Retirement Syst., 133 N.J.Super. 72, 335 A.2d 559 (App.Div.1975) ( ). See Pangburn v. Ocean City Police, etc., Commission, 136 N.J.L. 501, 502, 56 A.2d 914 (Sup.Ct.1948) ( ). But see Fromm, 81 N.J.Super. 138, 195 A.2d 32 ( ). The cases focused generally on two dimensions of employment conduct that can result in forfeiture, namely, the degree to which the misconduct "touches the administration of the public employee's office or position" and the degree of culpability or "moral turpitude" evident in the misconduct. Gauli v. Trustees Police & Firemen's Ret. Syst., 143 N.J.Super. 480, 482, 363 A.2d 911 (App.Div.1976).
The most recent decisions of this Court expressly embrace a more flexible approach in determining whether the character of misconduct of public employees will justify the deprivation of pension benefits. In Masse, for example, the Court concluded that unless the criminal misconduct was in fact directly related to the employment duties of the public employee, there should be no forfeiture of accumulated pension benefits. We found "nothing implicit in the nature of a public pension or a prerequisite of honorable service that mandates disqualifying service upon conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude unrelated to the public employment." 87 N.J. at 261-2, 432 A.2d 1339. This point was given added emphasis in the companion decision of Procaccino v. Public Employees' Retirem. Sys., 87 N.J. 265, 432 A.2d 1346 (1981). There the crime committed by the public employee was not directly related to his actual employment duties, although the quality of his misconduct--misappropriating public funds in an unrelated job--was highly relevant to his general qualifications or fitness to hold public office. Nevertheless, the absence of a direct and actual relationship between the misconduct and the performance of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
DeRobertis by DeRobertis v. Randazzo
... ... in its own current legislative actions." Uricoli v. Police & Firemen's Retirement System, 91 N.J ... ...
-
Moore v. Youth Correctional Institute at Annandale
... ... 1 The Merit System Board (Board) of the Department of Personnel ... den. 99 N.J. 216, 491 A.2d 710 (1984), a police chief's admission of lying to a State grand jury ... See Uricoli v. Police & Fire Retirem. Sys., 91 N.J. 62, ... Police & Firemen's Retirement System, 91 N.J. 62, 449 A.2d 1267 (1982): ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Abraham
... ... teacher in the Pittsburgh public school system. In 2008, one of his students alleged he offered ... Pennsylvania State Police, 576 Pa. 365, 839 A.2d 265 (2003), 4 and ... shall be entitled to receive any retirement or other benefit or payment of any kind except a ... in the State Employees Retirement Board. Although a public employee may appeal the ... Uricoli v. Board of Trustees, 91 N.J. 62, 449 A.2d 1267, ... ...
-
State v. Anderson
... ... filing a formal application with the Zoning Board. That power of alteration included the ... year, he was "granted an early service retirement pension of $60,173.67" per year. Later that year, ... led to the instant appeal, the Board of Trustees of the Employees' Retirement System of Jersey ... this Court's earlier decision in Uricoli v. Board of Trustees, Police & Firemen's ... ...