IN THE MATTER OF I.C., ETC. (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION) ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0594-15T4
IN THE MATTER OF I.C.,
Police Officer (S9999M), Newark.
______________________________________
Submitted September 18, 2018 – Decided October 4, 2018
Before Judges Ostrer and Currier.
On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service
Commission, Docket No. 2014-3238.
Fusco & Macaluso Partners, LLC, attorneys for
appellant I.C. (Anthony J. Fusco, Jr., on the brief).
Florio Kenny Raval LLP, attorneys for respondent City
of Newark (Nita G. Raval, of counsel and on the brief;
Mitchell A. Fagen, on the brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent Civil Service Commission (Pamela N.
Ullman, Deputy Attorney General, on the statement in
lieu of brief).
PER CURIAM
I.C. appeals from the Civil Service Commission's September 3, 2015,
order finding him psychologically unfit to perform effectively the duties of a
police officer, as found by the City of Newark, as the appointing authority, and
the Medical Review Panel to which I.C. had initially appealed.
We will disturb the Commission's decision only if we conclude it was
arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or unsupported by substantial credible
evidence. In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011); Campbell v. Dep't of Civil
Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562 (1963). We do not substitute our judgment for the
agency's. In re Polk, 90 N.J. 550, 578 (1982).
Reprising his argument before the Commission, I.C. essentially contends
on appeal that the record evidence does not support the Commission's findings.
We disagree.
In accord with In re Vey, 124 N.J. 534, 539-40 (1991), the agency
provided psychological and psychiatric reports upon which it relied,
demonstrating that I.C. exhibited behavior that rendered him unfit, and setting
forth the reasons for removing him from the list of eligible candidates. The
Commission reviewed this evidence in detail, as well as the findings and
recommendation of the Medical Review Panel. Suffice it to say that the
Commission's decision was adequately supported by I.C.'s subpar performance
on various standardized psychological tests that are predictive of fitness for
police service; his lack of candor in his interviews with both an evaluating
A-0594-15T4
2
psychologist and the Medical Review Panel; his past absence without leave from
the military resulting in his "other than honorable discharge"; and his license
suspension for driving without insurance. The Commission acknowledged I.C.'s
argument that these latter two incidents were remote in time. However, the
Commission was nonetheless within its discretion to assign them weight. I.C.'s
arguments do not merit any further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(3).
Affirmed.
A-0594-15T4
3