NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-1557-24
IN THE MATTER OF F.T., POLICE OFFICER (M0029D), CLIFTON. __________________________
Submitted February 3, 2026 – Decided March 5, 2026
Before Judges Susswein and Chase.
On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service Commission, CSC Docket No. 2024-1986.
Theresa Richardson, attorney for appellant F.T.
Jennifer Davenport, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent New Jersey Civil Service Commission (Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Brian D. Ragunan, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Petitioner F.T. appeals from a January 15, 2025 final agency decision of
the Civil Service Commission ("Commission") dismissing his appeal. The
Commission removed F.T.'s name from the eligible list for City of Clifton Police Officers, citing psychological disqualification. Based on the specific facts and
circumstances of petitioner's appeal, we affirm.
I.
The facts are undisputed. In October 2023, the City of Clifton certified
F.T.'s name from the eligible list for the position of Police Officer. Clifton's
psychological evaluator performed a pre-employment screening and did not
recommend F.T. for appointment. Clifton notified F.T. of his psychological
disqualification and removal from the eligible list.
F.T. appealed by letter postmarked March 22, 2024. In its April
acknowledgment, the Commission incorrectly informed F.T. that under N.J.A.C.
4A:4-6.5(e), he had twenty days from the appeal's postmark to submit a report
and recommendation from a New Jersey licensed psychologist or psychiatrist .1
Thus, the deadline for the report was June 20. The letter stated that F.T. could
seek an extension for submission of the fitness report if he could prove good
cause. The Commission also explained that receipt of Clifton's report did not
toll the regulatory deadline.
On June 11, F.T.'s attorney emailed the Commission to report that she had
not received Clifton's psychological report. After Commission intervention,
1 Under the regulation, he had ninety-days. A-1557-24 2 Clifton provided the report to F.T.'s attorney on June 12, and test results on June
14. Neither F.T. nor Clifton requested an extension for submitting reports.
F.T. submitted his expert's report, authored by Dr. Robert Kanen, on
August 5, 2024. The report was dated July 15, and postmarked July 30, 2024—
over forty-days past the June 20 deadline. Upon receipt, the Commission gave
F.T. an opportunity to establish good cause for the late submission. F.T.'s
attorney cited the late receipt of Clifton's report, difficulty scheduling an
evaluation, and her vacation as reasons for the delay.
The Commission issued a January 15, 2025 final decision dismissing
F.T.'s appeal. The Commission acknowledged that Clifton had the burden of
proof in psychological appeals pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b). It then noted
that although N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.5(d) required Clifton to submit the psychological
reports within twenty days or it may have its request for removal denied, denial
was not necessary because the report was eventually submitted. The
Commission then explained the ninety-day timeframe for submission of a
psychological report to rebut that a report obtained by the appointing authority
was "designed to facilitate the opportunity for the parties to establish a
contemporaneous record of an eligible's medical or psychological condition at
the time of appointment for the Commission to consider."
A-1557-24 3 Next, the Commission explained the time for filing a rebuttal
psychological report could be extended for good cause under N.J.A.C. 4A:4 -
6.5(f) and Governor Murphy's Executive Orders signed during the COVID -19
pandemic. The Commission also explained the need to strictly enforce the
timeframes governing the psychological review process. According to the
Commission, if "a candidate was improperly rejected for the position, the
remedy provided is a mandated appointment with a retroactive date of
appointment for seniority and salary step purposes."
The Commission found unpersuasive F.T.'s argument that because Clifton
had not submitted its report timely, it caused his report to be submitted late. The
Commission concluded that many applicants submit their independent reports
without their doctors reviewing the appointing authority's report. Thus, it
determined the late submission had no bearing on F.T.'s ability to timely provide
his report. It also stated that F.T.'s difficulty in scheduling a doctor's
appointment and his attorney's vacation were insufficient to have the time for
his report extended. Therefore, the Commission determined that F.T. failed to
establish good cause.
A-1557-24 4 II.
"Judicial review of agency determinations is limited." Allstars Auto.
Grp., Inc. v. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n, 234 N.J. 150, 157 (2018) (citing Russo
v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 206 N.J. 14, 27 (2011)). "[A]n
appellate court reviews agency decisions under an arbitrary and capricious
standard." Zimmerman v. Sussex Cnty. Educ. Servs. Comm'n, 237 N.J. 465,
475 (2019). "An agency's determination on the merits will be sustained unless
there is a clear showing that it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or that
it lacks fair support in the record." Saccone v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's
Ret. Sys., 219 N.J. 369, 380 (2014) (quoting Russo, 206 N.J. at 27) (internal
quotation marks omitted). The party challenging the administrative action bears
the burden of making that showing. Lavezzi v. State, 219 N.J. 163, 171 (2014).
On appeal, F.T. argues the Commission's decision was arbitrary and
capricious. F.T. also challenges the Commission's finding that there was no
good cause to extend his time to submit a psychological or psychiatric report
under N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.5(e). We are not persuaded.
First, F.T. argues that it was arbitrary and capricious for the Commission
to allow the request for removal to proceed when Clifton did not timely submit
the report finding him psychologically disqualified. Notably, no motion was
A-1557-24 5 ever filed by F.T. seeking to have the denial set aside. Contrary to F.T.'s
argument, the ninety-day period for petitioner to submit their expert's report
commences with the filing of their appeal, not the date the appointing authority
files its submission. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.5(e). The Commission properly
determined that N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.5(d) does not operate to "automatically deny a
request for removal," and Clifton ultimately provided the necessary
documentation supporting its decision. Moreover, the Commission was correct
in determining that nothing in the regulations foreclosed F.T. or any petitioner
from preparing or submitting a report before the appointing authority submits
its reports. In fact, the Commission on its own initiative gave the petitioner the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-1557-24
IN THE MATTER OF F.T., POLICE OFFICER (M0029D), CLIFTON. __________________________
Submitted February 3, 2026 – Decided March 5, 2026
Before Judges Susswein and Chase.
On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service Commission, CSC Docket No. 2024-1986.
Theresa Richardson, attorney for appellant F.T.
Jennifer Davenport, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent New Jersey Civil Service Commission (Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Brian D. Ragunan, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Petitioner F.T. appeals from a January 15, 2025 final agency decision of
the Civil Service Commission ("Commission") dismissing his appeal. The
Commission removed F.T.'s name from the eligible list for City of Clifton Police Officers, citing psychological disqualification. Based on the specific facts and
circumstances of petitioner's appeal, we affirm.
I.
The facts are undisputed. In October 2023, the City of Clifton certified
F.T.'s name from the eligible list for the position of Police Officer. Clifton's
psychological evaluator performed a pre-employment screening and did not
recommend F.T. for appointment. Clifton notified F.T. of his psychological
disqualification and removal from the eligible list.
F.T. appealed by letter postmarked March 22, 2024. In its April
acknowledgment, the Commission incorrectly informed F.T. that under N.J.A.C.
4A:4-6.5(e), he had twenty days from the appeal's postmark to submit a report
and recommendation from a New Jersey licensed psychologist or psychiatrist .1
Thus, the deadline for the report was June 20. The letter stated that F.T. could
seek an extension for submission of the fitness report if he could prove good
cause. The Commission also explained that receipt of Clifton's report did not
toll the regulatory deadline.
On June 11, F.T.'s attorney emailed the Commission to report that she had
not received Clifton's psychological report. After Commission intervention,
1 Under the regulation, he had ninety-days. A-1557-24 2 Clifton provided the report to F.T.'s attorney on June 12, and test results on June
14. Neither F.T. nor Clifton requested an extension for submitting reports.
F.T. submitted his expert's report, authored by Dr. Robert Kanen, on
August 5, 2024. The report was dated July 15, and postmarked July 30, 2024—
over forty-days past the June 20 deadline. Upon receipt, the Commission gave
F.T. an opportunity to establish good cause for the late submission. F.T.'s
attorney cited the late receipt of Clifton's report, difficulty scheduling an
evaluation, and her vacation as reasons for the delay.
The Commission issued a January 15, 2025 final decision dismissing
F.T.'s appeal. The Commission acknowledged that Clifton had the burden of
proof in psychological appeals pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b). It then noted
that although N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.5(d) required Clifton to submit the psychological
reports within twenty days or it may have its request for removal denied, denial
was not necessary because the report was eventually submitted. The
Commission then explained the ninety-day timeframe for submission of a
psychological report to rebut that a report obtained by the appointing authority
was "designed to facilitate the opportunity for the parties to establish a
contemporaneous record of an eligible's medical or psychological condition at
the time of appointment for the Commission to consider."
A-1557-24 3 Next, the Commission explained the time for filing a rebuttal
psychological report could be extended for good cause under N.J.A.C. 4A:4 -
6.5(f) and Governor Murphy's Executive Orders signed during the COVID -19
pandemic. The Commission also explained the need to strictly enforce the
timeframes governing the psychological review process. According to the
Commission, if "a candidate was improperly rejected for the position, the
remedy provided is a mandated appointment with a retroactive date of
appointment for seniority and salary step purposes."
The Commission found unpersuasive F.T.'s argument that because Clifton
had not submitted its report timely, it caused his report to be submitted late. The
Commission concluded that many applicants submit their independent reports
without their doctors reviewing the appointing authority's report. Thus, it
determined the late submission had no bearing on F.T.'s ability to timely provide
his report. It also stated that F.T.'s difficulty in scheduling a doctor's
appointment and his attorney's vacation were insufficient to have the time for
his report extended. Therefore, the Commission determined that F.T. failed to
establish good cause.
A-1557-24 4 II.
"Judicial review of agency determinations is limited." Allstars Auto.
Grp., Inc. v. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n, 234 N.J. 150, 157 (2018) (citing Russo
v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 206 N.J. 14, 27 (2011)). "[A]n
appellate court reviews agency decisions under an arbitrary and capricious
standard." Zimmerman v. Sussex Cnty. Educ. Servs. Comm'n, 237 N.J. 465,
475 (2019). "An agency's determination on the merits will be sustained unless
there is a clear showing that it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or that
it lacks fair support in the record." Saccone v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's
Ret. Sys., 219 N.J. 369, 380 (2014) (quoting Russo, 206 N.J. at 27) (internal
quotation marks omitted). The party challenging the administrative action bears
the burden of making that showing. Lavezzi v. State, 219 N.J. 163, 171 (2014).
On appeal, F.T. argues the Commission's decision was arbitrary and
capricious. F.T. also challenges the Commission's finding that there was no
good cause to extend his time to submit a psychological or psychiatric report
under N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.5(e). We are not persuaded.
First, F.T. argues that it was arbitrary and capricious for the Commission
to allow the request for removal to proceed when Clifton did not timely submit
the report finding him psychologically disqualified. Notably, no motion was
A-1557-24 5 ever filed by F.T. seeking to have the denial set aside. Contrary to F.T.'s
argument, the ninety-day period for petitioner to submit their expert's report
commences with the filing of their appeal, not the date the appointing authority
files its submission. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.5(e). The Commission properly
determined that N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.5(d) does not operate to "automatically deny a
request for removal," and Clifton ultimately provided the necessary
documentation supporting its decision. Moreover, the Commission was correct
in determining that nothing in the regulations foreclosed F.T. or any petitioner
from preparing or submitting a report before the appointing authority submits
its reports. In fact, the Commission on its own initiative gave the petitioner the
ability to argue for good cause when it received his rebuttable report forty -four
days after the ninety-day requirement.
F.T. was "fully aware" of the ninety-day filing date for the submission of
his report; and as such, he was obliged to meet the date unless good cause was
shown. "We have recognized the term, 'good cause,' evades a precise
definition." Estate of Semprevivo v. Lahham, 468 N.J. Super. 1, 14 (App. Div.
2021) (citing Ghandi v. Cespedes, 390 N.J. Super. 193, 196 (App. Div. 2007)).
To that end, we have described the concept as: "an amorphous term, that . . . is
difficult of precise delineation." Ghandi, 390 N.J. Super. at 196. "Its application
A-1557-24 6 requires the exercise of sound discretion in light of the facts and circumstances
of the particular case considered in the context of the purposes of the [] rule
being applied." Baskett v. Kwokleung Cheung, 422 N.J. Super. 377, 384 (App.
Div. 2011) (quoting Ghandi, 390 N.J. Super. at 196).
The Commission concluded that F.T. failed to establish good cause to
extend the filing deadline for his rebuttal report. The Commission reasoned that
the rules on filing timeframes for these types of appeals are designed to facilitate
the timely processing of these appeals and allow parties to establish a
contemporaneous record of the party's medical or psychological condition at the
time of appointment for the Commission to consider. This is important because
psychological reports for law enforcement titles are only valid for one year, in
accordance with the long-standing administrative practice. The Commission
posits that a delay in the process may prejudice current employees because if
successful, then the remedy would be a mandated appointment to the position
with retroactive seniority, which could displace the last employee that the
appointing authority hired for that position. Although we might not have
reached the same conclusion in the first instance, we have no basis upon which
to substitute our judgment for the Commission's.
A-1557-24 7 Having considered the record and governing principles, we conclude that
F.T. has failed to establish the Commission's final agency decision was arbitrary,
capricious, and unreasonable. The Commission's decision is supported by
sufficient credible evidence in the record.
Affirmed.
A-1557-24 8