Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0361-13T1
07-15-2014
WILLIAM EANNUCCI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWNSHIP OF HANOVER, Defendant-Respondent.
Charles Z. Schalk argued the cause for appellant (Mauro, Savo, Camerino, Grant & Schalk, P.A., attorneys; Mr. Schalk, of counsel and on the briefs). Stephen E. Trimboli argued the cause for respondent (Trimboli & Prusinowski, L.L.C., attorneys; Mr. Trimboli, of counsel and on the brief; Michael McAndrew, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Espinosa and Kennedy.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, Docket No. L-0369-12.
Charles Z. Schalk argued the cause for appellant (Mauro, Savo, Camerino, Grant & Schalk, P.A., attorneys; Mr. Schalk, of counsel and on the briefs).
Stephen E. Trimboli argued the cause for respondent (Trimboli & Prusinowski, L.L.C., attorneys; Mr. Trimboli, of counsel and on the brief; Michael McAndrew, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Plaintiff William Eannucci has been employed by defendant Township of Hanover as a junior engineer since 1980. For the first thirty years, his employment was full-time. Plaintiff was eligible to retire in December 2010. If he had retired while he was a full-time employee, he would have been entitled to receive health insurance coverage after he retired. In 2010, defendant implemented a "reclassification" program as a cost-saving measure that resulted in a number of employees having their employment reduced to part-time status. Plaintiff chose to remain employed on a part-time status, even though he was advised he would lose health insurance coverage as an employee and as a retiree.
Plaintiff filed this complaint against defendant in February 2012, alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel, unjust enrichment, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. His claims rest upon an allegation that defendant has wrongfully asserted that, as a part-time employee, he is not entitled to health insurance coverage upon retirement. He contends that, since he was eligible to retire while he was employed as a full-time employee and receive retiree health benefits, defendant cannot deprive him of retiree health benefits despite the change in his employment status. He relies heavily upon Middletown Twp. PBA Local 124 v. Twp. of Middletown, 193 N.J. 1 (2007) as support for the relief he seeks.
Plaintiff has not retired and defendant has not actually denied an application for retiree health benefits. We were advised at oral argument that, although defendant has not restored any of the employees affected by the reclassification program to full-time employment to date, plaintiff would be eligible to receive retiree health benefits if he returned to full-time employment.
Plaintiff appeals from an order that granted summary judgment to defendant, dismissing his complaint, and denied his own motion for summary judgment. Judge Thomas V. Manahan addressed the facts and resolved the legal issues in his written statement of reasons and we need not add to his analysis. We therefore affirm, substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Manahan in his written decision.
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION