Mandelbaum v. State

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

Mandelbaum v. State

361 A.2d 560, 142 N.J. Super. 323, 1976 N.J. Super. LEXIS 801

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedJune 29, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 361 A.2d 560 (Mandelbaum v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mandelbaum v. State, 361 A.2d 560, 142 N.J. Super. 323, 1976 N.J. Super. LEXIS 801 (N.J. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff, a resident of Bergen County, appeals the rejection of his application for employment as a county detective in Union County because of his nonresidency in Union County. His challenge is to the constitutionality of the residency requirements as established by the controlling statute, namely, N. J. S. A. 11:22-7.

We perceive no constitutional infirmity or impropriety in the provisions or effect of N. J. S. A. 11:22-7. McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Service Comm’n, - U. S. -, 96 S. Ct. 1154, 47 L. Ed. 2d 366 (1976); Abrahams v. Civil Service Comm’n, 65 N. J. 61 (1974). See Troy Hills Village v. Parsippany-Troy Hills Tp. Council, 68 N. J. 604 (1975); David v. Vesta Co., 45 N. J. 301 (1965); N. J. Restaurant Ass’n v. Holderman, 24 N. J. 295 (1957). See also, Dunne v. Fireman’s Fund Am. Ins. Co., 69 N. J. 244 (1976).

It very well may be that the subsequent enactments adopted by the Legislature in 1972 excepting from the residency requirements of the Civil Service Act applicants for appointment to a municipal fire department (N. J. S. A. 40A:14-9.2) and applicants for appointment to a municipal police department (N. J. S. A. 40A:14-122.2) themselves offend the equal protection proscription of the Constitution [325]*325— although we express no opinion thereon. However this may be, the constitutional invalidity of either or both of these excepting statutes would not affect the constitutionality of N. J. S. A. 11:22-7.

So far as concerns N. J. S. A. 40A:9-1, its provisions in no way concern the class or classes of persons covered by N. J. S. A. 11:22-7. In any event and as earlier indicated, even assuming the constitutional invalidity of N. J. S. A. 40A:9-1 because the excepted offices (most, if not all, of which are appointed for fixed terms) do not form or constitute a reasonable and proper class, that invalidity would in no way affect the constitutionality of N. J. S. A. 11:22-7.

To the extent that it espouses a contrary view, the case of Trainor v. Newark, 137 N. J. Super. 570 (Ch. Div. 1975), is hereby overruled.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff, a resident of Bergen County, appeals the rejection of his application for employment as a county detective in Union County because of his nonresidency in Union County. His challenge is to the constitutionality of the residency requirements as established by the controlling statute, namely, N. J. S. A. 11:22-7.

We perceive no constitutional infirmity or impropriety in the provisions or effect of N. J. S. A. 11:22-7. McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Service Comm’n, - U. S. -, 96 S. Ct. 1154, 47 L. Ed. 2d 366 (1976); Abrahams v. Civil Service Comm’n, 65 N. J. 61 (1974). See Troy Hills Village v. Parsippany-Troy Hills Tp. Council, 68 N. J. 604 (1975); David v. Vesta Co., 45 N. J. 301 (1965); N. J. Restaurant Ass’n v. Holderman, 24 N. J. 295 (1957). See also, Dunne v. Fireman’s Fund Am. Ins. Co., 69 N. J. 244 (1976).

It very well may be that the subsequent enactments adopted by the Legislature in 1972 excepting from the residency requirements of the Civil Service Act applicants for appointment to a municipal fire department (N. J. S. A. 40A:14-9.2) and applicants for appointment to a municipal police department (N. J. S. A. 40A:14-122.2) themselves offend the equal protection proscription of the Constitution [325]*325— although we express no opinion thereon. However this may be, the constitutional invalidity of either or both of these excepting statutes would not affect the constitutionality of N. J. S. A. 11:22-7.

So far as concerns N. J. S. A. 40A:9-1, its provisions in no way concern the class or classes of persons covered by N. J. S. A. 11:22-7. In any event and as earlier indicated, even assuming the constitutional invalidity of N. J. S. A. 40A:9-1 because the excepted offices (most, if not all, of which are appointed for fixed terms) do not form or constitute a reasonable and proper class, that invalidity would in no way affect the constitutionality of N. J. S. A. 11:22-7.

To the extent that it espouses a contrary view, the case of Trainor v. Newark, 137 N. J. Super. 570 (Ch. Div. 1975), is hereby overruled.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

361 A.2d 560, 142 N.J. Super. 323, 1976 N.J. Super. LEXIS 801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mandelbaum-v-state-njsuperctappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack