01-2-8713 In the Matter of Mingo, App. Div. (per curiam) (7 pp.) Appellant became a permanent employee in the position of custodian with the Newark School District in 1995. In 2003, he attained the permanent title of construction management specialist 1. During the 2012-2013 school year, the NSD implemented a layoff plan, and appellant was notified that he would be laid off. He was also advised that he had a demotional seniority displacement right to the title of custodian. He accepted the demotional displacement right to his previously held title and was appointed to the title in June 2013. He appealed to the Civil Service Commission, contending that based upon his length of service with the NSD and qualifications, he had seniority rights over four employees in the facilities department, none of whom held the title of CMS1. The commission held that there was no error in the determination of his layoff rights. The panel affirmed. It found that appellant was entitled to a lateral title right to the titles held by the four employees in the facilities department only if the commission determined that they were comparable to his affected title, and there was no evidence that the commission had made such a determination.
07-2-8714 Mazel LLC v. Twp. of Toms River, App. Div. (per curiam) (4 pp.) Plaintiffs Mazel L.L.C. and Dorca Inc. filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs containing eight counts seeking to compel defendants to abide by a Toms River planning board resolution and the township’s applicable zoning ordinances. Defendants, the township, Dover Woods Health Care Center and Erez Healthcare Realty Co. L.L.C., filed answers, and Dover Woods filed a counterclaim for malicious prosecution. The trial judge granted defendants’ motion and dismissed counts one through seven in plaintiff’s complaint. The malicious prosecution counterclaim was not addressed. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Plaintiffs appealed both orders. The panel found that because the orders did not address the malicious prosecution counterclaim or count eight in plaintiffs’ complaint, the appeal was interlocutory. Further, Dover Woods’ withdrawal of the counterclaim without prejudice did not create a final order. Because the parties failed to seek leave to appeal from an interlocutory order, and the record was devoid of extraordinary circumstances warranting a review on the merits, the panel dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.
