Ruroede v. Borough of Hasbrouck Heights
214 N.J. 338
| N.J. | 2013Background
- Ruroede, a police lieutenant on temporary sick leave, was suspended and terminated after an internal investigation arising from an off-duty altercation outside Blarney Station.
- The Borough conducted a municipal disciplinary hearing with live testimony from internal witnesses and admitted documentary evidence, including the internal investigation report and psychological evaluations.
- Ruroede admitted to some aspects of the altercation and presented his own account; he later lacked counsel on the final hearing day and proceeded pro se.
- A hearing officer found serious misconduct, including dishonesty and improper conduct, and recommended termination; the Borough terminated him.
- Ruroede sought de novo review in the Law Division; the Law Division vacated the termination and remanded for a new hearing, placing him on inactive status with back pay.
- Appellate Division affirmed the Law Division’s remedy; the Borough petitioned for certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Law Division erred in vacating and remanding rather than affirming or modifying | Ruroede contends de novo review can supplement record; remand proper under 40A:14-150 | Borough argues Law Division lacked authority to remand; must affirm, modify, or reverse, not remand | Law Division erred by remanding; termination affirmed |
| Whether there was sufficient competent evidence to sustain charges | Ruroede claims record lacked live testimony and relied on hearsay | Borough showed competent evidence including Ruroede’s statements and internal reports | There was sufficient competent evidence to sustain charges and termination |
| Whether the de novo review violated due process or allowed improper remedies | Ruroede asserts due process deficiencies and improper reinstatement with back pay | Borough maintains no due process violation; de novo review appropriate; back pay/remand improper | No due process violation; termination affirmed; remand inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. Township of …, 117 N.J. 569 (N.J. 1990) (de novo review permits independent fact-finding by the court)
- Nicoletta v. North Jersey Dist. Water Supply Comm., 77 N.J. 145 (N.J. 1978) (due process rights in administrative disciplinary proceedings; confrontation rights)
- Dolan v. City of East Orange, 287 N.J. Super. 136 (App. Div. 1996) (confrontation rights not always required in disciplinary hearings)
- Weston v. State, 60 N.J. 36 (N.J. 1972) (hearsay evidence and residuum rule in administrative decisions)
- Mayflower Sec. Co., Inc. v. Bureau of Sec., 64 N.J. 85 (N.J. 1973) (residuum of competent evidence standard for ultimate facts)
- Romanowski v. Brick Twp., 185 N.J. Super. 197, 185 N.J. Super. 197 (Law Div. 1982) (principles of de novo review and evidence assessment on appeal)