IN THE MATTER OF CHRISTIE MONSERRATE, ETC. (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2090-16T3
IN THE MATTER OF
CHRISTIE MONSERRATE,
SHERIFF'S OFFICER (S9999R),
COUNTY OF HUDSON.
_____________________________
Submitted October 29, 2018 – Decided November 7, 2018
Before Judges Haas and Sumners.
On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service
Commission, Docket No. 2016-3516.
Christie Monserrate, appellant pro se.
Chasan Lamparello Mallon & Cappuzzo, PC, attorneys
for respondent County of Hudson (Cindy N. Vogelman,
of counsel and on the brief; Qing H. Guo, 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
Appellant Christie Monserrate appeals from the November 30, 2016 final
decision of the Civil Service Commission (Commission) upholding the removal
of appellant's name from a list of candidates eligible for appointment to the
position of Sheriff's Officer with the County of Hudson (the County). We
affirm.
The County previously employed appellant as a Corrections Officer
between September 2001 and February 2011. During that period, the County
disciplined appellant on six separate occasions for various breaches of the
County's rules and procedures. The County imposed a major, twenty-day
suspension for one of these infractions and a major, forty-five-day suspension
for another. In the latter incident, appellant failed to complete reports and, as a
result, three inmates were incorrectly released from custody.
In October 2010, the County charged appellant with, among other things,
insubordination, conduct unbecoming an employee, and neglect of duty after an
investigation revealed she had been carrying on a prohibited personal
relationship with an inmate at the jail. Appellant had received numerous calls
from the inmate on her cell phone while at the jail, and she also gave $490 to
the inmate's mother so the inmate could pay a fine. The County sought to
remove appellant from employment, but agreed to permit her to resign
voluntarily in good standing in February 2011.
A-2090-16T3
2
In November 2013, appellant took an open competitive examination for
the Sheriff's Officer position with the County. She received a passing score and
appeared on the certification for this position as the 148th eligible candidate on
a list containing 200 names.
The Commission has promulgated regulations that permit names to be
removed from an eligible list for a variety of reasons that may disqualify the
candidate for appointment. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7; N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1. Specifically,
N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1(a)(7) states that a candidate may be removed from an eligible
list if he or she "[h]as a prior employment history which relates adversely to the
title[.]"
The job specification for a Sheriff's Officer includes duties such as
maintaining order and security in the courtroom, serving court processes,
assisting in making criminal identifications, and apprehending fugitives. A
Sheriff's Officer may also be assigned to perform other law enforcement duties
outside the courtroom. Because of appellant's extremely poor prior employment
history in the criminal justice field, the County asked the Commission to remove
appellant's name from the list.
Through her attorney, appellant contested this proposed action, and the
matter was referred to the Commission's Division of Appeals and Regulatory
A-2090-16T3
3
Affairs, which upheld the removal of appellant's name from the eligible list. The
Division advised appellant of her right to appeal its determination to the
Commission and, through her attorney, appellant took advantage of this
opportunity for review.
On November 30, 2016, the Commission rendered a comprehensive
written decision approving the County's request to remove appellant from the
eligible list. The Commission found that
appellant's prior disciplinary history, together with her
admissions to concealing a personal relationship with
an inmate from her former employer, providing money
to that inmate's mother to pay a fine for him, and
routinely taking calls on a personal cell phone within
the confines of the correctional facility from that same
individual, reflects poorly on the appellant's ability to
perform [the] law enforcement duties [described
above]. Accordingly, . . . appellant's adverse
employment history provides a sufficient basis to
remove . . . appellant's name from the subject eligible
list.
This appeal followed.
On appeal, appellant argues that the Commission erred in removing her
name from the eligible list due to her poor employment history. She also asserts
that she did not have notice and an opportunity to be heard concerning the
Commission's action. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we
find insufficient merit in appellant's contentions to warrant discussion in a
A-2090-16T3
4
written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D) and (E). We therefore affirm substantially
for the reasons stated by the Commission in its comprehensive final decision.
We add the following brief comments.
Appellate review of an administrative agency decision is limited. In re
Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 27 (2007). A "strong presumption of reasonableness
attaches" to the Commission's decision. In re Carroll, 339 N.J. Super. 429, 437
(App. Div. 2001) (quoting In re Vey, 272 N.J. Super. 199, 2015 (App. Div.
1993), aff'd, 135 N.J. 306 (1994)). Therefore, we generally defer to final agency
actions, only "reversing those actions if they are 'arbitrary, capricious or
unreasonable or [if the action] is not supported by substantial credible evidence
in the record as a whole.'" N.J. Soc'y for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v.
N.J. Dep't of Agric., 196 N.J. 366, 384-85 (2008) (alteration in original) (quoting
Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980)). It is not our place
to second-guess or substitute our judgment for that of the agency and, therefore,
we do not "engage in an independent assessment of the evidence as if [we] were
the court of first instance." In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999) (quoting State
v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999)).
Applying these principles, we discern no basis for disturbing the
Commission's decision to remove appellant from the eligible list. Appellant was
A-2090-16T3
5
represented by an attorney throughout the proceedings before the Commission.
She received written notice of the proposed removal of her name from the
eligible list, and a full opportunity to contest this action. The record amply
supports the Commission's conclusion that appellant's unsatisfactory
employment record in her prior position as a Corrections Officer "reflect[ed]
poorly on [her] ability to perform the[] law enforcement duties" of a Sheriff's
Officer under N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1(a)(7). This decision was not arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable, is supported by substantial credible evidence, and
is entitled to our deference.
Affirmed.
A-2090-16T3
6