In the Matter of Shreekk Crawford, Etc.

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: October 17, 2024
• Docket: A-3316-22
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3316-22

IN THE MATTER OF SHREEKK CRAWFORD, ESSEX COUNTY, DEPART- MENT OF CORRECTIONS.

Submitted October 7, 2024 – Decided October 17, 2024

Before Judges Sabatino and Jacobs.

On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service Commission, Docket No. 2023-1566.

Caruso Smith Picini, attorneys for appellant (Timothy R. Smith, of counsel; Zinovia H. Stone, on the briefs).

Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi, PC, attorneys for respondent County of Essex (Courtney Gaccione, of counsel and on the brief).

Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent Civil Service Commission (Brian D. Ragunan, Deputy Attorney General, on the statement in lieu of brief).

PER CURIAM The narrow issue in this appeal concerns the timeliness of an

administrative appeal to the Civil Service Commission ("CSC") of the discipline

of Shreekk Crawford, an Essex County corrections officer. For the reasons that

follow, we affirm the CSC's final agency decision concluding that Crawford's

administrative appeal was not timely filed.

The relevant background can be concisely recited. In March 2022 the

County served upon Crawford a Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action

("PNDA") charging him with insubordination and other improper conduct. A

hearing officer upheld several of the charges but reduced the proposed discipline

from a sixty-day suspension to a twenty-day suspension. The county’s Final

Notice of Disciplinary Action ("FNDA") reflects that disposition was issued by

the County on November 4, 2022. After the County initially mailed the FNDA

to an incorrect address, it is undisputed that Crawford received the FNDA on

November 28, 2022.

Under the applicable statute, an administrative appeal of an FNDA must

be filed with the CSC no later than twenty days from receipt of the appointing

authority's final written determination:

Any appeal from adverse actions specified in N.J.S.[A.] 11A:2-13 and subsection a.(4) of N.J.S.[A.] 11A:2-6 shall be made in writing to the [CSC] no later than 20

A-3316-22 2 days from receipt of the final written determination of the appointing authority. If the appointing authority fails to provide a written determination, an appeal may be made directly to the [CSC] within reasonable time.

[N.J.S.A. 11A:2-15 (emphasis added).]

Here, because the FNDA was received by Crawford on November 28,

2022, his deadline for filing an administrative appeal with the CSC was

December 19, 2022, taking into account weekends and holidays. N.J.S.A.

11A:2-15; see also N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.8 (a parallel regulation codifying the

twenty-day deadline).

Crawford retained a law firm to represent him in this disciplinary matter

and file an administrative appeal on his behalf. According to certifications from

an attorney at that firm and an employee who worked in the firm's mail room,

the firm contends it mailed out an appeal to the CSC on December 16, 2022, by

certified and regular mail. However, the CSC did not receive those supposed

mailings. The certifications do not attach or cross-reference any postal tracking

numbers substantiating that the appeal was indeed mailed on that date.

In a letter postmarked December 29, 2022, the firm sent out what it

describes as a second mailing to the CSC, along with a check for the filing fee.

The CSC deemed that submission untimely and accordingly rejected the appeal.

Crawford moved for reconsideration, which the CSC denied.

A-3316-22 3 On appeal, Crawford argues the CSC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in

deeming his administrative appeal untimely. He contends the agency should

have accepted his appeal and relaxed the deadline under the circumstances.

Our scope of review of the agency's decision is narrow. Parsells v. Bd. of

Educ. of Borough of Somerville, Somerset County, 254 N.J. 152, 162 (2023); In

re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 27 (2007). The "final determination of an

administrative agency . . . is entitled to substantial deference." In re Eastwick

College LPN–to RN Bridge Program, 225 N.J. 533, 541 (2016); see also In re

Carroll, 339 N.J. Super. 429, 437 (App. Div. 2001) (finding a "strong

presumption of reasonableness attaches to the actions of the administrative

agencies" (citation omitted)).

"[A]n appellate court ordinarily should not disturb an administrative

agency's determinations or findings unless there is a clear showing that (1) the

agency did not follow the law; (2) the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or

unreasonable; or (3) the decision was not supported by substantial evidence." In

re Virtua-West Jersey Hosp. Voorhees for a Certificate of Need, 194 N.J. 413,

422 (2008). "The burden of demonstrating that the agency's action was

arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable rests upon the [party] challenging the

A-3316-22 4 administrative action." In re Arenas, 385 N.J. Super. 440, 443–44 (App. Div.

2006).

We agree with the CSC and the County that Crawford has failed to meet

his burden to demonstrate that the agency's enforcement of its filing deadline

was arbitrary and capricious. The record lacks corroborating evidence, such as

postal tracking documentation, that the appeal was in fact timely mailed on

December 16, 2022.

Crawford cites to a CSC regulation, N.J.A.C. 4A: 1-1.2(c), which states

the CSC "may" relax deadlines for "good cause." The term "may" within that

regulation signifies that whether to approve such relaxation lies within the CSC's

discretion. "Although there may be exceptions," courts "customarily deem the

term 'may' within a [codified provision] to connote something that is not

obligatory." State v. Gomes, 253 N.J. 6, 29 (2023).

As we have noted, Crawford never supplied a postal tracking number or

other postal documentation to substantiate that a certified mailing was actually

made in a timely manner on December 16, 2022. The CSC did not abuse its

discretion in deeming the appeal untimely without such documentation. The

agency had the prerogative to conclude there was no "valid excuse for the delay"

and no "substantial and meritorious question" of compliance had been presented.

A-3316-22 5 In re Appeal of Syby, 66 N.J. Super. 460, 463 (App. Div. 1961). The agency

undoubtedly receives a voluminous number of appeals every year, and it has a

valid public interest in discouraging late filings that are not justified by

appropriate documentation of good cause.

Affirmed.

A-3316-22 6