LINDEN BOARD OF EDUCATION v. LINDEN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1331-08T3

LINDEN BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LINDEN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

o/b/o JOHN MIZICHKO,

Defendant-Respondent.

___________________________________

December 7, 2009

Submitted October 6, 2009 - Decided

Before Judges Wefing, Grall and LeWinn.

On appeal from Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Union County,

Docket No. L-4490-06.

Weiner Lesniak L.L.P., attorneys for

appellant (Mark A. Tabakin, of counsel

and on the brief; Rachel M. Caruso, on the brief).

Bucceri & Pincus, attorneys for respondent

(Louis P. Bucceri, of counsel and on the

brief).

PER CURIAM

The Linden Board of Education (Board) appeals from an order of the trial court compelling the Board to reinstate John Mizichko to full-time employment. The order from which the Board appeals was entered on the application of the Linden Education Association (Association) to enforce litigant's rights under a judgment in favor of the Association and Mizichko, which was entered by the trial court on September 27, 2007. That judgment affirmed an arbitrator's decision to set aside the Board's resolution terminating Mizichko's employment. The order enforcing the judgment and compelling reinstatement that is the subject of this appeal was entered on August 15, 2008.

Since the trial court entered the order enforcing its judgment, circumstances have changed. On April 17, 2009, a divided panel of this court reversed the trial court's judgment affirming the arbitrator's decision and reinstated the Board's resolution terminating Mizichko's employment. Linden Board of Education v. Linden, No. A-1236-07 (App. Div. Apr. 17, 2009) (slip op. at 12). The Association's appeal is now pending before the Supreme Court, No. 64295. The decision of this court reversing the trial court's judgment has not been stayed. Because the order that is the subject of this appeal enforces a judgment that has been reversed, it too must be reversed. The arguments raised on this appeal were mooted by this court's subsequent reversal of the underlying judgment.