IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH NARDONE v.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5207-03T2

IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH NARDONE,

STOREKEEPER 2 (PS6570K), COMMISSION

FOR THE BLIND AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED

____________________________________

 

Argued: May 10, 2005 - Decided:

Before Judges Kestin and Alley.

On appeal from the Merit System Board, 2004-190.

Arnold Shep Cohen argued the cause for appellant Nardone (Oxfeld Cohen, attorneys; Mr. Cohen, of counsel and on the brief).

George N. Cohen argued the cause for respondent Merit System Board (Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, attorney; Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Pamela N. Ullman, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In a final decision on an examination appeal from a determination by the Division of Selection Services, the Merit System Board found the applicant, Joseph Nardone, ineligible for the position of Storekeeper 2 with the Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired. The basis for the Division's determination had been that Nardone did not satisfy the experience requirements to qualify for the promotional examination.

The Board reviewed the administrative record and determined independently that the experience requirements had not been satisfied. It also held that a desk audit could not be performed as requested in respect of the work Nardone had actually done in the past, which he held out in partial satisfaction of the experience requirements, because "[a] desk audit can only determine the work that is being performed at the time of the audit."

On appeal, Nardone argues that the Board's decision on the experience requirements issue "was arbitrary, capricious, and was motivated by bad faith." He also contends that the denial of a desk audit violated his due process rights. We affirm.

Our review of the record in the light of the written and oral arguments of the parties and prevailing standards of law discloses that the Board's understanding of Nardone's work experience was supported by the record, and its assessment and rejection of his argument to consider out-of-title work as a part of his work experience eligibility record was reasonable and appropriate. See, e.g., Watson v. Farrell, 116 N.J. Super. 434, 436-37 (App. Div. 1971). We are, on appeal, bound by adequately supported factual determinations made by an administrative agency, especially where the agency's subject matter expertise informs its decision. See Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 598-99 (1965).

The Board's determination to deny Nardone's request for a desk audit seems unremarkable and rooted in reason. It is, therefore, by definition, not violative of Nardone's due process rights. Absent a demonstrable departure from statutory standards, or a patent violation of a constitutional guarantee, we are not privileged to substitute our judgment for that of an administrative agency in administering the subject matter field committed by the Legislature to its management. See Dentists for Quality Care, Inc. v. State Bd. of Dentistry, 339 N.J. Super. 257, 263-264 (App. Div. 2001). We are not persuaded that the denial of a desk audit contravened the agency's own standards promulgated in N.J.A.C. 4A:3-3.9, as Nardone contends.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-5207-03T2

October 20, 2005