STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANTOINE DENNISÂ (06-11-2533, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-5191-14T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 14, 2017Background
- Joseph Isaacson, a Hardyston police officer since 2008, stopped a vehicle in Franklin Borough (outside Hardyston), then falsely reported the stop as occurring in Hardyston, issued Hardyston summonses, and filed false reports; he also collected bail for an outstanding warrant.
- HPD investigated; Isaacson initially lied in the internal affairs interview but later admitted he knew he was in Franklin and failed to notify the out-of-jurisdiction police as required.
- A neutral hearing officer sustained multiple charges (including lying and knowingly falsifying public documents) and recommended termination; the Township adopted and fired Isaacson.
- An arbitrator later rescinded termination, imposed a ten-day suspension, and ordered reinstatement; the Superior Court initially affirmed and awarded attorney’s fees, but this court reversed arbitration and fee rulings on prior appeal and remanded.
- On de novo review, the trial court again vacated termination, imposed a ten-day suspension, and awarded fees; the Township appealed. The Appellate Division reversed both the reinstatement/modification order and the attorney’s-fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Township) | Defendant's Argument (Isaacson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was excessive given mitigating factors | Termination appropriate because Isaacson lied repeatedly and willfully falsified public documents — conduct undermines public trust | Mitigation: lack of training on out-of-jurisdiction stops and progressive discipline should apply | Reversed trial court: termination supported — dishonesty and falsification are grave, unmitigable breaches of police duties |
| Whether lack of training justified mitigation of penalty | Training not a valid mitigation — Isaacson had experience and prior knowledge of SOP and had followed it before | Claimed no training and testified he was unaware of written SOPs | Court found credible evidence Isaacson knew/should have known SOP; training did not mitigate |
| Standard of review on de novo Superior Court proceedings | Trial court may independently assess facts but should not lightly substitute its judgment for disciplinary authority | Isaacson argued hearing officer was neutral; trial court found hearing officer neutral and affirmed findings | Appellate court will not disturb trial court findings absent arbitrary/capricious result; but here legal conclusion to reduce penalty was reversed as unsupported |
| Entitlement to attorney’s fees under N.J.S.A. 40A:14-155 | Not entitled because officer was not acquitted of all charges | Isaacson argued for fees after reinstatement | Fee award reversed: statute requires acquittal of all charges; issue precluded by prior appeal on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruroede v. Borough of Hasbrouck Heights, 214 N.J. 338 (trial court de novo review and employee rights to hearing)
- In re Phillips, 117 N.J. 567 (trial court factfinding on de novo review; appellate scope)
- Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (plenary review of legal conclusions)
- Twp. of Moorestown v. Armstrong, 89 N.J. Super. 560 (police held to higher integrity standard)
- In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474 (progressive discipline vs. termination for serious misconduct)
- West New York v. Bock, 38 N.J. 500 (recognition of progressive discipline principle)
- Washington Commons, LLC v. City of Jersey City, 416 N.J. Super. 555 (preclusion of re-litigation of issues decided on the merits)
- Twp. of Waterford v. Babli, 158 N.J. Super. 569 (attorney’s-fee entitlement requires acquittal of all charges)