01-2-2742 In the Matter of Basem Zaghloul, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (9 pp.) Zaghloul, a Newark police officer, was subject to a ten-day suspension following charges of conduct unbecoming a public employee, insubordination, and violations of Newark Police Department Rules and Regulations. The charges arose when Zaghloul became angry after over-hearing two detectives discuss errors he had made on forms and subsequently inappropriately referred to the detectives as “baby” and “sunshine.” At the administrative appeal hearing, counsel moved to dismiss claiming the city hadn’t completed its case and, as a result, Zaghloul should not be forced to testify. The ALJ decided there was a preponderance of the evidence to support a ten-day suspension which was accepted by the Commission. On appeal, the court affirmed holding uncontroverted credible evidence proved the charges against Zaghloul and the Commission’s acceptance of the ALJ’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Further, the court noted that there was no evidence to establish Zaghloul’s reassignment was the result of the violations or in retaliation of same. As such, the court found no fault with the Commission’s decision to impose a ten-day suspension and affirmed.
07-2-2754 Wiss & Bouregy, P.C. v. Bisceglie, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (14 pp.) In pursuit of collections against a client, respondent obtained a default judgment against appellant. Respondent sought an order vacating the default judgment, contending he had just learned of the judgment and neither the pre-action notice nor the summons and complaint were properly served. In its opposition, appellant alleged the court properly served the summons and complaint and submitted evidence of said service. The trial court denied the motion relying on respondent’s certification and found that respondent satisfied the pre-action notice requirements by sending the letter to appellant by regular mail to his proper address. The court also concluded the summons and complaint were properly served. As such, the trial court held appellant’s motion was untimely, failed to present a meritorious defense, and failed to present a sufficient showing to justify exceptional relief. On appeal, the court reversed holding there was no competent evidence of mailing either the pre-action notice or the summons and complaint. The court noted respondent did not present a copy of the certified mail receipt nor certification that it mailed the pre-action notice in accordance with a business custom or practice of mailing. Further, there was no return receipt presented and the court’s printout, which lacked details of the address where service was made, was not conclusive evidence of proper mailing. Based on the disputed issues of service, the trial court prematurely denied appellant’s motion to vacate default judgment.
