LISA BONANNO VS. COUNTY OF UNION NEW JERSEY (L-0928-19, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0214-19

Bonanno worked for Union County beginning in 1988; from 1990–2007 she held positions the County classified as "temporary" because they were funded under federal job‑training programs.
In 2017 Bonanno sought to purchase past service credit in the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS); the Division of Pensions allowed purchase only for July 1, 2007–June 30, 2008, finding earlier years ineligible due to the County's "temporary" classification.
Bonanno requested employment/payroll records from the County under OPRA; the County provided documents to her counsel.
In March 2019 Bonanno filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs in Superior Court seeking a ministerial determination that the 1994–2007 period be treated as creditable service for PERS.
The County moved to dismiss under R. 4:6-2(e), arguing Bonanno failed to exhaust administrative remedies (and raising a timeliness defense the court declined to discuss).
The Law Division dismissed the complaint with prejudice; the Appellate Division affirmed dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies but remanded to modify the dismissal to be without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Must Bonanno exhaust administrative remedies before filing an action in lieu of prerogative writs?	Bonanno proceeded in Superior Court asserting a ministerial duty and sought judicial relief without exhausting agency review.	County argued administrative review was available and mandatory under R. 4:69-5.	Court held exhaustion is required; matter belongs first to the administrative agency.
Is the Law Division the proper forum for resolution of the employment/pension classification dispute?	Bonanno sought a court order deeming the period creditable—i.e., judicial relief now.	County argued the dispute is for the pension/administrative agency to adjudicate and develop the record.	Court agreed the administrative forum is the appropriate first forum; Superior Court review is premature.
Was dismissal with prejudice appropriate for failure to exhaust?	Bonanno contended she should be allowed to proceed in court.	County did not challenge that dismissal should be without or with prejudice.	Court held dismissal for failure to exhaust is procedural and ordinarily should be without prejudice; remanded to change dismissal to without prejudice.

Dimitrakopoulos v. Borrus, Goldin, Foley, Vignuolo, Hyman and Stahl, P.C., 237 N.J. 91 (2019) (standard of review for Rule 4:6-2(e) motions is de novo)
Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739 (1989) (court examines legal sufficiency of complaint's allegations on a motion to dismiss)
Brunetti v. New Milford, 68 N.J. 576 (1975) (strong presumption favoring exhaustion of administrative remedies)
Atlantic City v. Laezza, 80 N.J. 255 (1979) (articulates goals and purposes of exhaustion doctrine)
Alan J. Cornblatt, P.A. v. Barow, 153 N.J. 218 (1998) (distinguishes dismissals on the merits from procedural dismissals and their effect on prejudice)
Garrow v. Elizabeth Gen. Hosp. & Dispensary, 79 N.J. 549 (1979) (identifies limited exceptions to the exhaustion requirement)