ANDREW KING VS. BOROUGH OF SOUTH RIVER(C-000139-15, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3998-15T4
ANDREW KING,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BOROUGH OF SOUTH RIVER,
Defendant-Respondent.
_______________________________
Submitted July 5, 2017 – Decided October 23, 2017
Before Judges Nugent and Accurso.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Middlesex County, Docket
No. C-000139-15.
Sciarra & Catrambone, LLC, attorneys for
appellant (Charles J. Sciarra, of counsel; Mr.
Sciarra and Christopher A. Gray, on the
briefs.)
Apruzzese, McDermott, Mastro & Murphy, PC,
attorneys for respondent (Mark J. Blunda, of
counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff, Andrew King, appeals from the April 22, 2016 order
for judgment upholding his termination from employment as a Borough
of South River police officer. The Borough had terminated
plaintiff after he tested positive for cocaine in a randomly
administered drug test. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the
Borough failed to prove the reliability of the New Jersey State
Toxicology Laboratory report on which it based its disciplinary
charges. Plaintiff also contends the judge who conducted the
hearing on his disciplinary charges improperly shifted the burden
of proof to him. The record belies these contentions.
Accordingly, we affirm the order of judgment.
During the first week in May 2014, the Borough of South River
Police Department randomly selected eight "police personnel,"
including plaintiff, for random drug testing. In accordance with
established policy and procedure, plaintiff filled out a drug
testing medication information form and provided a urine sample.
He represented on the form that he had taken no prescription or
non-prescription medication, cough medicines, cold tablets,
aspirin, diet medication, or nutritional supplements within the
preceding fourteen days. Plaintiff's sample was sent to the New
Jersey State Toxicology Laboratory in Newark, where testing
revealed the presence of Benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine.
Plaintiff was notified of the positive results, suspended
without pay, and charged with a violation of the Department's
policy on drug testing as well as numerous other infractions.
2 A-3998-15T4
Following a departmental hearing, a hearing officer recommended
plaintiff be terminated from his position. The Borough's governing
body adopted the hearing officer's recommendation and terminated
plaintiff's employment on August 10, 2015. Plaintiff timely filed
a complaint in Superior Court, alleging the Borough terminated him
without just cause, and seeking de novo review of the Borough's
decision.
Following a de novo hearing, Judge Frank M. Ciuffani issued
a written decision in which he determined plaintiff knowingly
ingested cocaine. Judge Ciuffani upheld plaintiff's termination
from employment as mandated by applicable drug testing policies.
On appeal, plaintiff argues two points: the New Jersey State
Toxicology Laboratory report is arbitrary; and the trial court
improperly shifted the burden of proof to him. We reject these
arguments and affirm the order for judgment, substantially for the
reasons expressed by Judge Ciuffani in his written decision. We
add the following brief comments.
Plaintiff supports his arguments mostly with unsupported
assertions and statements of the court that plaintiff takes out
of context. For example, in support of his first argument that
the lab report of plaintiff's urine sample was arbitrary, plaintiff
asserts, "[t]he laboratory in the matter failed to follow
established guidelines for the handling of drug testing." His
3 A-3998-15T4
citation to the record is a reference to the New Jersey Law
Enforcement Drug Testing Manual. Plaintiff cites to no evidence
that supports his claim the guidelines were not followed.
Moreover, the trial court rejected plaintiff's challenge to
the lab results. The State presented as a witness the Acting
Director of the New Jersey State Toxicology Laboratory, who gave
a detailed explanation of the protocols and procedures for testing
random samples, as well as the threshold or "cutoff" level for
cocaine. The Acting Director authenticated documents concerning
the tests performed on plaintiff's sample, explained that he
reviewed all the data concerning plaintiff's sample, and testified
he signed off on the final reports.
The court found the State Laboratory Director's testimony
concerning the sampling and testing procedures and protocols
"trustworthy and reliable." This finding was amply supported by
sufficient credible evidence in the record, so we will not disturb
it. Willingboro Mall, LTD. v. 240/242 Franklin Ave., LLC, 215
N.J. 242, 253 (2013).
Plaintiff's contention the trial court shifted the burden of
proof is also devoid of merit. In its written opinion, the trial
court stated explicitly that "[d]isciplinary charges against
police officers must be proven by the employer by a preponderance
of credible evidence." Plaintiff overlooks that statement and
4 A-3998-15T4
instead emphasizes the court's finding that plaintiff "failed to
prove that he knowingly ingested cocaine."
Plaintiff's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant
further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
5 A-3998-15T4