Zamboni v. Stamler

6 Citing cases

  1. Zamboni v. Stamler

    847 F.2d 73 (3d Cir. 1988)   Cited 131 times
    Holding court must determine "whether [investigator's] functional role in the prosecutor's office was of such proximity to [his employer] that his speech destroyed a needed close working relationship"

    The Law Division, affirmed by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court, sustained Stamler's authority to make the promotions at issue. Zamboni v. Stamler, 194 N.J. Super. 598, 477 A.2d 449 (Law Div. 1984), aff'd, 199 N.J. Super. 378, 489 A.2d 1169 (App. Div. 1985). In an apparently unrelated action, in 1987 the New Jersey Department of Personnel, the executive office charged with enforcing the civil service laws under the revised civil service statute, see N.J. Stat.Ann. §§ 11A:2-8 to -13, after conducting a desk audit on Zamboni's position and discovering that he did not have any supervisory responsibilities, determined that the civil service rules did not permit him to be classified under the title of lieutenant.

  2. Coleman v. Kaye

    87 F.3d 1491 (3d Cir. 1996)   Cited 306 times
    Holding that plaintiff could recover damages in sex discrimination case under § 1983 for "personal anguish she suffered as a result of being passed over for promotion"

    Indeed, attempts by various parties to interfere with county prosecutors' employment prerogatives have been rejected consistently by New Jersey courts. See Cetrulo v. Byrne, 157 A.2d 297 (N.J. 1960) (county board of chosen freeholders' appointment of a legal assistant to prosecutor beyond the scope of its powers); Zamboni v. Stamler, 489 A.2d 1169 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1985) (rejecting Union County detectives' challenge to a reorganization plan that created superior officer positions within the unclassified civil service of the Prosecutor's investigative staff and enabled the Prosecutor to appoint detectives to serve temporarily in that capacity); cf. Bergen County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders v. Bergen County Prosecutor, 412 A.2d 130 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1980) (upholding decision of the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission that the county prosecutor, and not the board of chosen freeholders, is the employer of his subordinates in the county office for purposes of labor relations and collective bargaining). Moreover, New Jersey courts have held that the county prosecutor enjoys a significant degree of autonomy from the county he or she serves.

  3. Golden v. County of Union

    163 N.J. 420 (N.J. 2000)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that statute governing appointment of assistant county prosecutors trumps implied contract between assistant prosecutor and prosecutor

    Commensurate with that role and responsibility, the Legislature has provided prosecutors with wide authority to structure, maintain, and manage their offices.Cetrulo, supra, 31 N.J. at 328; Zamboni v. Stamler, 199 N.J. Super. 378, 386 n. 3 (App.Div. 1985). That authority would be seriously compromised if implied contractual requirements were engrafted into the process of hiring and discharging subordinates.

  4. Didonato v. Didonato

    DOCKET NO. A-3465-15T2 (App. Div. Nov. 6, 2017)

    See R. 2:2-3(a)(1). Because defendant never filed a motion to disqualify the family court judges assigned to this matter, there is no order for our review.See Zamboni v. Stamler, 199 N.J. Super. 378, 383 (App. Div. 1985) (holding an appellate court's jurisdiction not properly invoked to render an advisory opinion or to decide cases in the abstract, without a developed factual basis). Defendant also raises for the first time in his appeal that venue in this matter should be transferred.

  5. In re Park-Madison Site

    372 N.J. Super. 544 (App. Div. 2004)   Cited 14 times

    "We will not render advisory opinions or function in the abstract; nor will we decide a case based upon facts which are undeveloped or uncertain." Zamboni v. Stamler, 199 N.J.Super. 378, 383, 489 A.2d 1169 (App.Div. 1985); see also New Jersey Ass'n for Retarded Citizens v. New Jersey Dep't of Human Serv., 89 N.J. 234, 241, 445 A.2d 704 (1982); Crescent Pk. Tenants Ass'n v. Realty Equities Corp. of N.Y., 58 N.J. 98, 107, 275 A.2d 433, (1971); New Jersey Turnpike Auth. v. Parsons, 3 N.J. 235, 240, 69 A.2d 875, (1949); Jackson v. Dep't of Corrections, 335 N.J.Super. 227, 230-31, 762 A.2d 255 (App.Div. 2000). We, however, agree with CAFES-SCNJ's alternative argument that the issue is not moot because Plainfield would be required to provide a replacement parcel or compensation, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:36-21.

  6. State v. Gomez

    341 N.J. Super. 560 (App. Div. 2001)   Cited 26 times
    Holding while reversing and remanding, that "it is appropriate to have the case referred to a different trial judge who will be unfettered by [prior decision in the matter]"

    The prosecutor is the chief law enforcement officer of the county and as such has responsibility to investigate criminal conduct, charge violation of criminal statutes, present matters to the county grand jury and prosecute those accused of crimes. State v. Winne, 12 N.J. 152, 167-68 (1953); Zamboni v. Stamler, 199 N.J. Super. 378, 384-85 (App.Div. 198 5). But his responsibility runs deeper. As attorney for the State in criminal matters the prosecutor must also act to protect the innocent, to recognize the rights and claims of victims of crimes and, above all, to uphold justice.