Gaskill v. MAYOR & COMM'RS OF BOR. OF AVALON

373 A.2d 1019, 149 N.J. Super. 364
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division·Decided April 25, 1977·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

149 N.J. Super. 364 (1977)
373 A.2d 1019

STEPHEN GASKILL AND RAYMOND ANDERSON, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS OF THE BOROUGH OF AVALON, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued April 4, 1977.
Decided April 25, 1977.

*365 Before Judges CARTON, KOLE and LARNER.

Mr. Martin List argued the cause for plaintiffs-appellants (Messrs. Schneider, Cohen & Solomon, attorneys).

Mr. David Wallace argued the cause for defendants-respondents (Mr. Gerald L. Dorf, attorney; Mr. Stanley Schwartz, on the brief).

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment below substantially for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Staller reported at 143 N.J. Super. 391 (Law Div. 1976).

In view of plaintiffs' appellate argument we deem it appropriate to supplement that opinion by an additional facet of decision which supports the conclusion below. Plaintiffs place primary emphasis upon the statutory provision (N.J.S.A. 40A:14-129) that "preference shall be given according to seniority in service," and urge that this preference directive was not properly implemented by the appointing authority.

In our opinion this statutory preference to those who enjoy seniority in service is applicable where two or more candidates have approximately equal qualifications. It is but an additional factor to be considered on the merits of the evaluation of the individuals for promotion and not a mechanical rule which guarantees promotion to the senior employee.

On the record herein, the police chief found that Shaw was better qualified for the task involved in the position *366 of detective sergeant than Gaskill or Anderson. The trial judge concluded that this determination was reasonably justified by the evidence, and we agree. Under such circumstances, the status of seniority in itself cannot serve as a legal basis for a finding of arbitrariness, which is the proper standard of review of the discretionary action of the appointing authority.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gaskill v. MAYOR & COMM'RS OF BOR. OF AVALON, 373 A.2d 1019, 149 N.J. Super. 364 (N.J. Ct. App. 1977).

373 A.2d 1019 (Gaskill v. MAYOR & COMM'RS OF BOR. OF AVALON) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Borough of Glassboro v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 108
960 A.2d 735 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2008)
Borough of Glassboro v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 108
930 A.2d 484 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2007)
Burke v. Township of Franklin
619 A.2d 643 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1993)
Juliano v. Ocean Gate Bor.
520 A.2d 418 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1986)