IN THE MATTER OF DENNIS M. KEENAN

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                   APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

                                              SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                              APPELLATE DIVISION
                                              DOCKET NO. A-2517-08T2



IN THE MATTER OF
DENNIS M. KEENAN
______________________________

           Argued Telephonically              April        26,    2010    ­
           Decided May 13, 2010

           Before Judges Reisner and Chambers.

           On appeal from the Board of Trustees of the
           Police and Firemen's Retirement System,
           Department of Treasury, Docket Nos. 3-10-
           22451 and 3-10-35617.

           Samuel J. Halpern argued                the       cause       for
           appellant Dennis M. Keenan.

           Don E. Catinello, Deputy Attorney General,
           argued the cause for respondent Board of
           Trustees, Police and Firemen's Retirement
           System (Paula T. Dow, Attorney General,
           Attorney; Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant
           Attorney General, of counsel; Mr. Catinello,
           on the brief).

PER CURIAM

    Dennis       Keenan   appeals      from    a   December         9,    2008    final

determination     of   the    Police    and    Firemen's          Retirement     System

(PFRS)   Board    of   Trustees,    requiring         him    to    make    $30,541     in

payments   to    the   PFRS    pension    fund        in    connection         with   his

retirement.      We affirm.

      The background was discussed at length in our prior opinion

in Hemsey and Keenan v. Board of Trustees, 
393 N.J. Super. 524

(App. Div. 2007) (Keenan I), rev'd on other grounds, 198 N.J.

                                                                       here.1
215   (2009),   and    need    not   be    repeated    in     detail              In

summary, we concluded that in 1998, the PFRS Board's staff had

advised    Keenan     that    he   could      retire   from    his     PFRS-covered

position as Fire Chief, and accept a position as Public Safety

Director the day after his retirement, while retaining his PFRS

pension.    The advice was wrong, but we held that when the Board

finally discovered the error in 2002, the Board was equitably

estopped from requiring Keenan to re-pay $450,000 in pension

benefits that he had received during the years from 1998 to

          Keenan I, supra, 
393 N.J. Super. at 535-36.                  However, we
2002.

held that Keenan must re-enroll in the PFRS system and make

pension contributions until he retired from his new position.

Id. at 537.

      When Keenan retired on July 1, 2007, the Board notified him

that he was required to reimburse the PFRS pension system for

$30,541 in pension contributions that he should have made from

1998 to 2002.       Keenan objected to the repayment requirement and


1
  The Supreme Court granted certification only as to our decision
regarding Hemsey, and reversed our decision only as to that
employee; the Court did not address our decision in Keenan's
case.



                                                                           A-2517-08T2
                                          2

also challenged the Board's calculation of the amount of his

pension at $6849.            The Board eventually re-calculated Keenan's

pension      at   $7141,     which      was    based      on    forty-three        years      of

service, including the years 1998 to 2002.                            Before the agency,

Keenan did not challenge the agency's final calculation of the

pension amount.            On this appeal, however, he contends that his

pension     should      have    been    calculated          without      considering         the

years 1998 to 2002; he argues that pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:15.3,

the   Board       should    have    calculated       the       pension       based     on    his

retirement in 1998, followed by his having earned additional

years of service from 2002 to 2007, when he finally retired.

      Having reviewed the record, we find no abuse of discretion

or other error in the Board calculating the pension as it did,

or in the Board requiring Keenan to make pension contributions

for   the    years      which    were   included       in      that     calculation.          We

affirm      substantially        for    the    reasons         stated       in   the   initial

decision     of    Administrative        Law      Judge     Masin,      which      the    Board

adopted      in   its    final     determination.              We     add    the   following

comments.

      Our decision in Keenan I was based on equitable principles,

taking into account the agency's role in misleading Keenan and

the financially ruinous consequences of requiring him to repay

an enormous sum of money.               We did not hold that the agency was




                                                                                       A-2517-08T2
                                              3

bound      to    treat   Keenan      as   having   retired    in    1998    for       all

conceivable future purposes. Our decision also acknowledged the

importance of maintaining the actuarial integrity of the pension

system.         Id. at 536.

      In this case, it is necessary to include the years 1998 to

2002 in order to qualify Keenan as having forty-three years of

service credit, which in turn results in his being entitled to a

monthly pension of $7141.             Since Keenan is receiving the benefit

of service credit for the 1998-2002 time period, we perceive no

inequity in his being required to make pension contributions for

that period.         Finally, although he was not legally entitled to

do   so,    from     1998     to   2002   Keenan   earned    $450,000      in    public

pension benefits, while also earning over $100,000 a year in

public     salary.       We    conclude     that   our   decision    in     Keenan       I

accorded him as much equitable relief as he was entitled to, and

no further equitable relief is warranted here.

      Affirmed.




                                                                                A-2517-08T2
                                            4