Toth v. New Jersey Civil Service Commission

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

Toth v. New Jersey Civil Service Commission

217 A.2d 882, 90 N.J. Super. 389, 1966 N.J. Super. LEXIS 412

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedMarch 7, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 217 A.2d 882 (Toth v. New Jersey Civil Service Commission) 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

Toth v. New Jersey Civil Service Commission, 217 A.2d 882, 90 N.J. Super. 389, 1966 N.J. Super. LEXIS 412 (N.J. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In view of the concession by appellant at the argument that he would be unable, if afforded a hearing, to offer any facts by way of extenuation of his conceded guilt of driving while intoxicated and driving (twice) while on the revoked list, no good purpose would be served by remanding this matter to the Civil Service Commission for a hearing. Appellant’s only showing at such a hearing, he says, would be that he has become rehabilitated since he committed the offences in question. That fact, however, would not affect the operation in these circumstances of R. S. ll:23-2(d) which disqualifies for appointment to a [391]*391civil service position one who has been guilty of “infamous or notoriously disgraceful conduct.” See Vanderwart v. Dept. of Civil Service, 19 N. J. 341 (1955). Absent any extenuating circumstances, we hold that driving a motor vehicle while on the revoked list or while intoxicated constitutes conduct within the statutory proscription.

We do not agree with appellant’s argument that the statute is inapplicable unless the “disgraceful conduct” is of a nature such as to indicate unfitness to perform the duties of the particular public position involved. No such limitation is set forth in or to be implied from the statutory language. Nor do we read the Vanderwart case, supra, to hold that such a relationship must necessarily appear in order for the statute to apply.

We find it unnecessary to decide whether appellant’s “undesirable discharge” from the Army bears upon the issues herein.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

In view of the concession by appellant at the argument that he would be unable, if afforded a hearing, to offer any facts by way of extenuation of his conceded guilt of driving while intoxicated and driving (twice) while on the revoked list, no good purpose would be served by remanding this matter to the Civil Service Commission for a hearing. Appellant’s only showing at such a hearing, he says, would be that he has become rehabilitated since he committed the offences in question. That fact, however, would not affect the operation in these circumstances of R. S. ll:23-2(d) which disqualifies for appointment to a [391]*391civil service position one who has been guilty of “infamous or notoriously disgraceful conduct.” See Vanderwart v. Dept. of Civil Service, 19 N. J. 341 (1955). Absent any extenuating circumstances, we hold that driving a motor vehicle while on the revoked list or while intoxicated constitutes conduct within the statutory proscription.

We do not agree with appellant’s argument that the statute is inapplicable unless the “disgraceful conduct” is of a nature such as to indicate unfitness to perform the duties of the particular public position involved. No such limitation is set forth in or to be implied from the statutory language. Nor do we read the Vanderwart case, supra, to hold that such a relationship must necessarily appear in order for the statute to apply.

We find it unnecessary to decide whether appellant’s “undesirable discharge” from the Army bears upon the issues herein.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 A.2d 882, 90 N.J. Super. 389, 1966 N.J. Super. LEXIS 412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toth-v-new-jersey-civil-service-commission-njsuperctappdiv-1966.