01-2-9042 In the Matters of Hernandez, App. Div. (per curiam) (3 pp.) Appellants, sisters who were employed by the Camden County Board of Social Services, appealed the decision of the Civil Service Commission affirming their termination from employment on charges of incompetency, inefficiency or failure to perform duties, conduct unbecoming a public employee, neglect of duty and misuse of public property. The panel affirmed, substantially for the reasons stated by the ALJ, who found that appellants had spent many hours during working hours making personal international telephone calls, thus neglecting their duties and causing their employer to incur thousands of dollars in telephone charges, and that the conduct was sufficiently egregious that progressive discipline was not required and termination was appropriate.
07-2-9059 Piemontese v. Accomplished Chimney Inc., App. Div. (per curiam) (9 pp.) Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against defendant alleging breach of contract and fraud with regard to certain construction work defendant had performed at plaintiff’s home. The court issued a notice informing the parties that the case was scheduled for trial on Sept. 15, 2014. In August, plaintiff went to the courthouse and submitted a request for an adjournment, which was denied. On the day of trial, she failed to appear. The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On plaintiff’s appeal, the panel found that the denial of plaintiff’s adjournment request was not a mistaken exercise of discretion since, in her application, she asserted that she was “very sick” and receiving physical therapy and other treatment but she did not provide a written statement from a physician stating that she was too ill to appear for trial. Moreover, as the trial judge noted, several weeks before the trial date, plaintiff had been well enough to go to the courthouse to request an adjournment. The panel also found that the court did not err by dismissing the complaint with prejudice. It noted that the trial court provided plaintiff with notice of the trial date and that plaintiff was informed that her application for adjournment had been denied. Even if, as plaintiff claimed, she had not received a decision on her adjournment request, she was obligated to appear in court on the scheduled trial date. The panel found that her noncompliance with the scheduled trial date was purposeful, and lesser sanctions would not have been appropriate.
