01-2-9960 In the Matter of Reillo, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (14 pp.) Angel Reillo appealed from the final agency decision of the Civil Service Commission, which adopted the findings and conclusions of the administrative law judge’s decision recommending his removal from his position as a police officer in the Camden County Police Department. The ALJ found that Reillo had been untruthful in an Internal Affairs investigation of whether he had falsely represented to his superior and peers that the man he found in a car in a park after dark, with a woman who was not his wife, had been a Camden city councilman. The panel affirmed. Noting that the ALJ had the opportunity to hear testimony and evaluate credibility, the panel concluded that the ALJ’s findings were supported by credible evidence in the record. It rejected Reillo’s claim that removal was excessive, noting that testimony in court was a frequent police duty and finding that his untruthfulness had put him under a permanent disability in performing that essential function of his job.
11-2-1016 Amscot Structural Prod. Corp. v. Crane-Hogan Structural Sys. Inc., N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (41 pp.) Pursuant to a contract between them, plaintiff, a New Jersey corporation, agreed to manufacture and supply to defendant, a New York corporation, bearings necessary for a bridge reconstruction project in New York. Plaintiff filed this action after defendant withheld final payment of $61,290, for alleged costs incurred as a result of plaintiff’s delayed delivery of the bearings, asserting numerous claims, including for breach of contract under common law and the New Jersey Uniform Commercial Code. Defendant asserted counterclaims for, among other things, breach of contract and violations of the UCC. Defendant appealed from: the orders denying its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and its cross-motion for partial summary judgment; the order awarding attorney fees to plaintiff; and from the final judgment awarding damages to plaintiff. Plaintiff cross-appealed the amount of attorney fees awarded pursuant to the Offer of Judgment Rule. The panel found that the facts supported the finding that defendant had sufficient minimum contacts with New Jersey to warrant the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction. It also held that the court properly denied partial summary judgment to defendant. It found that parties had not agreed as to the time for delivery of the bearings and, therefore, the time for delivery was governed by the UCC gap-filling provisions and delivery had to be made within a reasonable time under the circumstances, and that there clearly was a genuine factual dispute as to whether delivery was reasonable under the circumstances. The panel also found that the record amply supported the court’s ultimate finding that plaintiff delivered the bearings within a reasonable time. The panel also found that the court properly barred admission of defendant’s “summary of costs,” as it contained inadmissible hearsay, and properly declined to qualify one of defendant’s witnesses as an expert. The panel found that the court erred in applying the New York Prompt Payment Act to calculate pre- and postjudgment interest and it reversed the award and remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest in accordance with Rule 4:58-2(a) and recalculation of postjudgment interest in accordance with Rule 4:42-11(a). Finally, the panel found no abuse of discretion in the amount of attorney fees awarded.
