DAWN E. APARIN et al. v. COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER and BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF GLOUCESTER COUNTY,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
 
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
 
 

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-183-00T3

DAWN E. APARIN, DOUGLAS A.
DANIELS, EDWARD DWYER, ROSE
LEE FLEMING, JOSEPH F. GORECKI,
ELMER HAMMEL, DAVID R. HUBERT,
JR., ROBERT H. JOHNSON, ADRIAN LUGO,
JR. and GEORGE W. WAGNER, JR.,

Plaintiffs/Respondents,

v.

COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER and BOARD
OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF
GLOUCESTER COUNTY,

Defendants/Appellants,

__________________________________

COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER and BOARD
OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF
GLOUCESTER COUNTY,

Third-Party Plaintiffs/
Appellants,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
JANICE MITCHELL MINTZ, COMMISSIONER,
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL,

Third-Party Defendants.

____________________________________

Argued October 2, 2001 - Decided October 29, 2001

Before Judges Wallace, Jr., Carchman and Wells.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Gloucester County, GLO-L-1306-99,
whose opinion is reported at ___ N.J. Super. ___.

Joseph T. Carney argued the cause for appellants (Brown & Connery, attorneys; William M. Tambussi, of counsel, Mr. Carney on the brief).
 
Thomas H. Ward argued the cause for respondents
(Albertson Ward, attorneys; Mr. Ward on the brief).

PER CURIAM

The judgment of the Law Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Holston in his opinion reported at ____ N.J. Super. _____ (Law Div. 2001). We are satisfied that the findings of fact are supported by substantial credible evidence in the record and find no sound reason or justification to interfere with them. See Rova Farms Resort v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974).