01-2- 8074 N.J. State Troopers Fraternal Ass’n v. N.J. Dep’t of Law & Public Safety, App. Div. (per curiam) (14 pp.) New Jersey State Troopers Fraternal Association and New Jersey State Troopers Non-Commissioned Officers Association, which represent all New Jersey State troopers holding trooper, detective or sergeant titles and which were parties to collective negotiation agreements, appealed from a decision by respondents, NJL&PS and the Office of the Attorney General, which denied promotions for four state troopers. The superintendent had submitted a request seeking permission to promote them but their names were not included in the promotions announced by the AG. Appellants argued that the AG acted outside the scope of his authority under N.J.S.A. 53:1-5.2 as he could only refuse to approve the superintendent’s recommendation if the change could not be effected within the appropriations for the state police; the AG’s decision was arbitrary and capricious because he failed to provide any explanation for refusing to approve the promotions; and that in refusing the promotions, the AG essentially established new promotional criteria without complying with the rule-making requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The panel concluded that those issues were not ripe for review and that deferring consideration of the issues would not be a hardship to the parties, finding that the troopers never made formal requests for written statements of reasons for the decision, never sought disclosure of the alleged new promotional criteria, and never asserted a right to a hearing before the agency on the AG’s decision. The panel also noted that the troopers could ask the current AG to reconsider the earlier decisions and that if he refused to do so, appellants could ask the AG for a statement of the reasons for his decision. If he took the position that he had no obligation to provide reasons for rejecting the superintendent’s recommendations, or afford the troopers any administrative remedy to challenge his decisions, he should provide a statement of the legal basis for that decision.
07-2-8075 Atlas v. Bolton, App. Div. (per curiam) (6 pp.) In this appeal, defendant Richard Bolton argued the trial judge erred in granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Sahin Atlas because the judge, at approximately the same time, also granted a sixty-day discovery extension. However, defendant failed to timely file a notice of appeal. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that on Nov. 7, 2010, defendant executed a note for the repayment of $300,000 on or before Nov. 22, 2013, unless defendant’s Monmouth Beach home was sold in the interim; in that event defendant agreed to repay the loan at the closing. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment and defendant filed opposition as well as a cross-motion for a 60-day extension of the discovery period. In his opposition, defendant certified the note was a product of physical coercion and intimidation. On March 10, 2014, the trial judge entered an order extending discovery by 60 days. On April 15, 2014, the judge granted plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. The judge also denied defendant’s motions for reconsideration. The sole question was whether the judge abused his discretion by refusing to revisit the earlier orders based on the redundant arguments urged in defendant’s second reconsideration motion. The appellate panel found no abuse of discretion. Insofar as defendant sought review of the April 15, 2014 order granting summary judgment or the June 6, 2014 order denying reconsideration, his appeal was dismissed as untimely. To the extent defendant sought review of the Sept. 5, 2014 order denying his second reconsideration motion, the panel affirmed.
