Matthews v. Deane

503 A.2d 376, 206 N.J. Super. 608
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedJanuary 13, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 503 A.2d 376 (Matthews v. Deane) 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
Matthews v. Deane, 503 A.2d 376, 206 N.J. Super. 608 (N.J. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

206 N.J. Super. 608 (1986)
503 A.2d 376

MICHAEL J. MATTHEWS, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC CITY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
ADELAIDE DEANE, THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC CITY, AND JAMES W. MASLAND, III, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Submitted November 27, 1985.
Decided January 13, 1986.

*609 Before Judges FRITZ, BRODY and GAYNOR.

Tort, Jacobs, Todd & Bruso, attorneys for appellant (Edwin J. Jacobs, Jr., on the brief).

Eisenstat, Gabage & Berman, attorneys for respondent James W. Masland, III (Gerald M. Eisenstat and Suzanne Pasley, on the brief).

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal, plaintiff attacks the validity of a recall election that resulted in his being deposed as mayor of Atlantic City. Following the entry of judgment in the trial court, plaintiff pleaded guilty to federal racketeering charges. As a consequence, he is "forever disqualified" from the holding of public office in New Jersey. N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2. Accordingly, his appeal is moot with respect to all issues raised below from which this appeal is taken.

While it is clear that we may determine a moot appeal when the public interest in the issues presented is so great as to make their resolution desirable, Busik v. Levine, 63 N.J. 351, 364 (1973), app. dism. 414 U.S. 1106, 94 S.Ct. 831, 38 L.Ed.2d 733 (1973), we think the circumstances of the matter before us bespeak restraint. The very nature of the controversy here and the issues it presents suggest that we should not indulge in that which would constitute an advisory opinion with respect to the policy questions involved. We are satisfied we should leave them to be decided in the milieu of the factual situation which requires their decision. De Rose v. Byrne, 139 N.J. Super. 132 (App.Div. 1976).

In such case, our opinion should not be construed as either approval or disapproval of that which is said in the published trial court opinions in the matter: 196 N.J. Super. 428 (Ch.Div. *610 1984); 196 N.J. Super. 441 (Ch.Div. 1984); 201 N.J. Super. 583 (Ch.Div. 1984). De Rose v. Byrne, supra 139 N.J. Super. at 134.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Related

James A. Zaleski v. Michael L. Bono, Etc.
New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2025
State v. Medina
793 A.2d 68 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2002)
Alan J. Cornblatt, PA v. Barow
708 A.2d 401 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1998)
Cornblatt v. Barow
696 A.2d 65 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1997)
State v. Marshall
690 A.2d 1 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
503 A.2d 376, 206 N.J. Super. 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-deane-njsuperctappdiv-1986.