NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-4037-23
IN THE MATTER OF VINCENT ANTENUCCI, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE, DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY. _____________________________
Argued November 19, 2025 – Decided March 4, 2026
Before Judges Mayer and Jacobs.
On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service Commission, Docket No. 2024-2589.
Michael A. Bukosky argued the cause for appellant Vincent Antenucci (Michael A. Bukowsky & Associates, attorneys; Michael A. Bukosky, of counsel and on the briefs).
Gordon C. Estes, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for the respondent Civil Service Commission (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney; Sookie Bae-Park, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Gordon C. Estes, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Vincent Antenucci appeals from a July 24, 2024 final decision of the Civil
Service Commission (Commission) denying his request for waiver of a
repayment of salary overpayment under N.J.A.C. 4A:3-4.21. We affirm.
I.
We briefly recount the relevant facts. Antenucci was employed by New
Jersey State Police (NJSP) as a State Trooper. In August 2012, he was promoted
to the title of "Trooper 2," entitling him to a salary increase of approximately
$4,000 per year. Due to a purported administrative error, NJSP placed
Antenucci at a higher salary level than he was entitled. As a result, his salary
increased to $87,913.02 instead of $81,840.18.
Over the years, Antenucci received three more promotions, compounding
the salary error. In May 2019, NJSP informed Antenucci of a salary
overpayment, totaling $29,000, and advised he would have to return the money.
Antenucci applied to the Commission for a repayment waiver
under N.J.A.C. 4A:3-4.21. He contended the overpayment stemmed from an
administrative error by NJSP, he was unaware of the overpayment because he
was expecting a salary increase at the time, and requiring repayment would
impose financial hardship on his family. On December 23, 2019, the
Commission rejected Antenucci's request for a waiver.
A-4037-23 2 To be entitled to a waiver under the regulation, Antenucci needed to
demonstrate: (1) the overpayment was such that the employee could reasonably
have been unaware of the error; (2) the overpayment resulted from a specific
administrative error and was not due to mere delay in processing a change in
pay status; and (3) the terms of the repayment schedule resulted in an economic
hardship to the employee. See N.J.A.C. 4A:3-4.21.
The Commission found "the record clearly shows that an administrative
error resulted in the salary overpayment," thereby satisfying the second
requirement under N.J.A.C. 4A:3-4.21. It concluded, however, that Antenucci
failed to satisfy the remaining criteria for a waiver. The Commission determined
the nearly $10,000 salary increase ⸺ far exceeding the anticipated $4,000 raise
⸺ was sufficient to accord Antenucci constructive notice of a payroll error. It
also rejected his claim of economic hardship, noting that "the appointing
authority ha[d] not set any repayment schedule."
Antenucci appealed the Commission's decision. Separately, the State
Trooper's Non-Commissioned Officers Association (Association) filed a
grievance on Antenucci's behalf with the Public Employment Relations
Commission (PERC) against NJSP. The grievance sought "proof of
A-4037-23 3 overpayment" and a finding that "any payment plan [must] be collectively
negotiated."
In an unpublished opinion, we affirmed the Commission's denial of
Antenucci's first waiver application. See In re Antenucci, No. A-2165-19 (App.
Div. Oct. 27, 2021). However, we explained that our affirmance of the
Commission's December 23, 2019 decision was based solely on the record
before the agency at that time, and nothing barred Antenucci from filing a new
waiver application after the PERC arbitrator issued a decision on the
Association's grievance claims.
On May 21, 2024, the PERC arbitrator issued a written decision finding,
among other things, that the Association failed to meet its burden to prove that
Antenucci was not mistakenly overpaid. The arbitrator further found the NJSP
violated its collective bargaining agreement "by failing to negotiate over the
repayment plan for the overpaid salary" and directed the parties to "negotiate a
reasonable and, if necessary, lenient repayment schedule as ordered by the
[Commission] and affirmed by the Appellate Division."
Following the arbitrator's decision, Antenucci did not negotiate a
repayment plan. Instead, he applied again to the Commission for a repayment
waiver, asserting "the documentary and evidentiary trail" regarding alleged
A-4037-23 4 overpayments was insufficient to establish an actual overpayment. He again
contended that repayment of the overpaid amount in full would cause him
economic hardship.
In July 2024, the Commission denied Antenucci's second waiver
application, stating it lacked "the ability to set aside the decision and award of a
PERC-appointed arbitrator" regarding the existence of overpayment. It further
concluded Antenucci could not prove how repayment would cause him
economic hardship given that the parties had not yet set a repayment schedule.
Antenucci timely appealed.
II.
A final agency decision is entitled to "substantial deference." In re
Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 28 (2007). We maintain a limited role in reviewing the
decisions of an administrative agency and will reverse only if it is "arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable, or [] not supported by substantial credible evidence
in the record as a whole." In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011) (alteration
in original) (quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980)).
"Thus, if substantial credible evidence supports an agency's conclusion, a court
may not substitute its own judgment for the agency's even though the court might
have reached a different result." Greenwood v. State Police Training Ctr., 127
A-4037-23 5 N.J. 500, 513 (1992).
A presumption of reasonableness attaches to the actions of administrative
agencies. City of Newark v. Nat. Res. Council, Dep't of Env't Prot., 82 N.J. 530,
539-40 (1980). We defer to an agency's expertise where substantial evidence
supports the agency's determination. Stallworth, 208 N.J. at 194.
N.J.S.A. 11A:3-7 authorizes the Commission to administer the State
employee compensation plan. "When an employee has erroneously received a
salary overpayment, the commission may waive repayment based on a review
of the case." N.J.S.A. 11A:3-7(c). N.J.A.C. 4A:3-4.21(a) sets forth the standard
governing waiver. For the Commission to "waive, in whole or in part, the
repayment of an erroneous salary overpayment," the applicant must show:
1. The circumstances and amount of the overpayment were such that an employee could reasonably have been unaware of the error;
2.
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-4037-23
IN THE MATTER OF VINCENT ANTENUCCI, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE, DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY. _____________________________
Argued November 19, 2025 – Decided March 4, 2026
Before Judges Mayer and Jacobs.
On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service Commission, Docket No. 2024-2589.
Michael A. Bukosky argued the cause for appellant Vincent Antenucci (Michael A. Bukowsky & Associates, attorneys; Michael A. Bukosky, of counsel and on the briefs).
Gordon C. Estes, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for the respondent Civil Service Commission (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney; Sookie Bae-Park, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Gordon C. Estes, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Vincent Antenucci appeals from a July 24, 2024 final decision of the Civil
Service Commission (Commission) denying his request for waiver of a
repayment of salary overpayment under N.J.A.C. 4A:3-4.21. We affirm.
I.
We briefly recount the relevant facts. Antenucci was employed by New
Jersey State Police (NJSP) as a State Trooper. In August 2012, he was promoted
to the title of "Trooper 2," entitling him to a salary increase of approximately
$4,000 per year. Due to a purported administrative error, NJSP placed
Antenucci at a higher salary level than he was entitled. As a result, his salary
increased to $87,913.02 instead of $81,840.18.
Over the years, Antenucci received three more promotions, compounding
the salary error. In May 2019, NJSP informed Antenucci of a salary
overpayment, totaling $29,000, and advised he would have to return the money.
Antenucci applied to the Commission for a repayment waiver
under N.J.A.C. 4A:3-4.21. He contended the overpayment stemmed from an
administrative error by NJSP, he was unaware of the overpayment because he
was expecting a salary increase at the time, and requiring repayment would
impose financial hardship on his family. On December 23, 2019, the
Commission rejected Antenucci's request for a waiver.
A-4037-23 2 To be entitled to a waiver under the regulation, Antenucci needed to
demonstrate: (1) the overpayment was such that the employee could reasonably
have been unaware of the error; (2) the overpayment resulted from a specific
administrative error and was not due to mere delay in processing a change in
pay status; and (3) the terms of the repayment schedule resulted in an economic
hardship to the employee. See N.J.A.C. 4A:3-4.21.
The Commission found "the record clearly shows that an administrative
error resulted in the salary overpayment," thereby satisfying the second
requirement under N.J.A.C. 4A:3-4.21. It concluded, however, that Antenucci
failed to satisfy the remaining criteria for a waiver. The Commission determined
the nearly $10,000 salary increase ⸺ far exceeding the anticipated $4,000 raise
⸺ was sufficient to accord Antenucci constructive notice of a payroll error. It
also rejected his claim of economic hardship, noting that "the appointing
authority ha[d] not set any repayment schedule."
Antenucci appealed the Commission's decision. Separately, the State
Trooper's Non-Commissioned Officers Association (Association) filed a
grievance on Antenucci's behalf with the Public Employment Relations
Commission (PERC) against NJSP. The grievance sought "proof of
A-4037-23 3 overpayment" and a finding that "any payment plan [must] be collectively
negotiated."
In an unpublished opinion, we affirmed the Commission's denial of
Antenucci's first waiver application. See In re Antenucci, No. A-2165-19 (App.
Div. Oct. 27, 2021). However, we explained that our affirmance of the
Commission's December 23, 2019 decision was based solely on the record
before the agency at that time, and nothing barred Antenucci from filing a new
waiver application after the PERC arbitrator issued a decision on the
Association's grievance claims.
On May 21, 2024, the PERC arbitrator issued a written decision finding,
among other things, that the Association failed to meet its burden to prove that
Antenucci was not mistakenly overpaid. The arbitrator further found the NJSP
violated its collective bargaining agreement "by failing to negotiate over the
repayment plan for the overpaid salary" and directed the parties to "negotiate a
reasonable and, if necessary, lenient repayment schedule as ordered by the
[Commission] and affirmed by the Appellate Division."
Following the arbitrator's decision, Antenucci did not negotiate a
repayment plan. Instead, he applied again to the Commission for a repayment
waiver, asserting "the documentary and evidentiary trail" regarding alleged
A-4037-23 4 overpayments was insufficient to establish an actual overpayment. He again
contended that repayment of the overpaid amount in full would cause him
economic hardship.
In July 2024, the Commission denied Antenucci's second waiver
application, stating it lacked "the ability to set aside the decision and award of a
PERC-appointed arbitrator" regarding the existence of overpayment. It further
concluded Antenucci could not prove how repayment would cause him
economic hardship given that the parties had not yet set a repayment schedule.
Antenucci timely appealed.
II.
A final agency decision is entitled to "substantial deference." In re
Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 28 (2007). We maintain a limited role in reviewing the
decisions of an administrative agency and will reverse only if it is "arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable, or [] not supported by substantial credible evidence
in the record as a whole." In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011) (alteration
in original) (quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980)).
"Thus, if substantial credible evidence supports an agency's conclusion, a court
may not substitute its own judgment for the agency's even though the court might
have reached a different result." Greenwood v. State Police Training Ctr., 127
A-4037-23 5 N.J. 500, 513 (1992).
A presumption of reasonableness attaches to the actions of administrative
agencies. City of Newark v. Nat. Res. Council, Dep't of Env't Prot., 82 N.J. 530,
539-40 (1980). We defer to an agency's expertise where substantial evidence
supports the agency's determination. Stallworth, 208 N.J. at 194.
N.J.S.A. 11A:3-7 authorizes the Commission to administer the State
employee compensation plan. "When an employee has erroneously received a
salary overpayment, the commission may waive repayment based on a review
of the case." N.J.S.A. 11A:3-7(c). N.J.A.C. 4A:3-4.21(a) sets forth the standard
governing waiver. For the Commission to "waive, in whole or in part, the
repayment of an erroneous salary overpayment," the applicant must show:
1. The circumstances and amount of the overpayment were such that an employee could reasonably have been unaware of the error;
2. The overpayment resulted from a specific administrative error, and was not due to mere delay in processing a change in pay status; [and]
3. The terms of the repayment schedule would result in economic hardship to the employee.
[N.J.A.C. 4A:3-4.21(a).]
Antenucci acknowledges this statutory framework governs a dispute
surrounding alleged overpayment. However, he notes the regulation does not
A-4037-23 6 address a situation in which the accuracy of the alleged overpayment itself is in
dispute. The Commission acknowledges the regulation does not create a right
to dispute whether an overpayment occurred. Rather, such a dispute is governed
by NJSP's negotiated agreement with the Association. Pursuant to that
agreement, Antenucci filed a grievance. That grievance was adjudicated, with
the arbitrator finding the Association had not met its burden to prove Antenucci
was not mistakenly overpaid. We agree with the Commission's position.
Under N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-23 and -24, a party seeking to vacate, modify, or
correct an arbitration award must file a summary action in the New Jersey
Superior Court within 120 days of receiving notice of the award. Here, the
arbitrator issued his decision on May 21, 2024, giving Antenucci until
September 18, 2024, to file such an action. He failed to do so. Accordingly, the
Commission was bound to accept the arbitrator's determination that an erroneous
overpayment occurred and that NJSP was entitled to recoup it.
Moreover, we are satisfied the Commission did not act arbitrarily or
capriciously in denying Antenucci's second waiver application. First, Antenucci
failed to establish that he lacked notice of the overpayment. As noted in our
prior opinion and in the Commission's decision, Antenucci received a raise of
nearly $10,000, far exceeding the approximately $4,000 increase expected from
A-4037-23 7 his promotion. That substantial discrepancy should have alerted him to the
possibility of an overpayment.
Because no repayment schedule has been set, Antenucci cannot
demonstrate repayment would impose an economic hardship. Having failed to
satisfy the first and third elements of N.J.A.C. 4A:3-4.21, he did not meet his
burden of showing entitlement to a waiver of the salary overpayment. The
Commission therefore did not err in denying relief.
Any remaining arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a
written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-4037-23 8