IN THE MATTER REVOCATION CERTIFICATES OF LAURIE ROSEN BY THE STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5306-05T25306-05T2

IN THE MATTER OF THE REVOCATION

OF THE CERTIFICATES OF LAURIE ROSEN

BY THE STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS

___________________________________

 

Submitted: March 20, 2007 - Decided April 3, 2007

Before Judges Kestin and Weissbard.

On appeal from the State Board of Education, EDE-9197-02.

Bucceri & Pincus, attorneys for appellant Rosen (Gregory T. Syrek, of counsel and on the brief).

Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney for respondent State Board of Education (Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Melanie M. Brookes, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Laurie Rosen appeals from a decision of the State Board of Education, affirming the determination of the State Board of Examiners revoking her instructional certifications as a Teacher of Social Studies, Teacher of Elementary School, and Teacher of the Handicapped. In its order of revocation, the State Board of Examiners, after considering the parties' exceptions and reply, adopted the findings and conclusions articulated by Administrative Law Judge Weiss in his initial decision issued following the contested-case hearing he conducted. The Board also adopted Judge Weiss's determination that revocation of Rosen's certifications was the appropriate sanction for her conduct. See N.J.S.A. 52:14B-9, 10.

According to the order to show cause that commenced this proceeding, the broader matter began with the filing of tenure dismissal charges by the Hoboken Board of Education against Rosen "alleging that she had physically mistreated a ten-year-old special education student." Criminal charges of endangering the welfare of a child, assault, and child abuse had also been filed. The tenure dismissal charges were withdrawn upon Rosen's resignation from the school district. The resignation was a condition of her acceptance into a pre-trial intervention program that resolved the criminal charges. This proceeding ensued.

On the instant appeal, Rosen contends that the credibility determinations Judge Weiss made, which informed his findings, conclusions, and determination of remedy, were not well based, i.e., that the allegations made by the one eye witness were inherently incredible for a variety of reasons articulated in Rosen's brief. Rosen also argues that the conclusion reached was "inconsistent with [her] training, behavior and experience."

As Rosen acknowledges, "judicial review of administrative agency decisions is limited." As a general rule, factual findings and conclusions of an agency that are supported by substantial, credible evidence in the record are binding on appeal. See In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 655-61 (l999). Our review of the record in this matter in the light of the arguments advanced by the parties and prevailing legal standards discloses no basis upon which we might view this agency's determination of credibility or its resolution of the issues to be "clearly . . . mistaken . . . and so plainly unwarranted that the interests of justice demand intervention and correction . . . ." Campbell v. New Jersey Racing Commission, 169 N.J. 579, 587-88 (2001)(quoting Clowes v. Terminix Int'l, Inc., 109 N.J. 575, 588 (1988)(quoting State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964))).

Accordingly, with the deference due both to the agency's findings and its expertise in the subject matter, see Campbell, supra, 169 N.J. at 588 (quoting Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965)), we affirm. "When resolution of a legal question turns on factual issues within the special province of an administrative agency, those mixed questions of law and fact are to be resolved based on the agency's fact finding." Campbell, supra, 169 N.J. at 588 (citing Boss v. Rockland Elec. Co., 95 N.J. 33, 42 (1983)).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-5306-05T2

April 3, 2007