IN RE THE DISCIPLINARY ACTION OF MERRITT CARR

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                   APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
  This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
   Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
     parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.




                                    SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                    APPELLATE DIVISION
                                    DOCKET NO. A-3987-16T3



IN RE THE DISCIPLINARY
ACTION OF MERRITT CARR.
____________________________

           Argued April 23, 2018 – Decided May 4, 2018

           Before Judges Fasciale and Moynihan.

           On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
           Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-4686-
           16.

           Joshua H. Reinitz argued the cause for
           appellant Merritt Carr (Iacullo Martino, LLC,
           attorneys; Anthony J. Iacullo and Joshua H.
           Reinitz, of counsel and on the brief).

           Arthur R. Thibault argued the cause for
           respondent Borough of Glen Ridge (Apruzzese,
           McDermott, Mastro & Murphy, PC, attorneys;
           Arthur R. Thibault, of counsel and on the
           brief; Kyle J. Trent, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

     Merritt Carr, a Borough of Glen Ridge police officer sergeant,

appeals from an April 24, 2017 Law Division order upholding Carr's

twenty-day unpaid suspension by the Borough Administrator acting

as the hearing officer.        Carr argues "the trial court's decision
lacked sufficient findings of facts and analysis" of the record;

was not supported by sufficient evidence; and was arbitrary and

capricious.    We agree with Carr's first point and remand the case

to the Law Division.

     The trial court's decision listed the charges filed against

Carr: conduct unbecoming a police officer; failure to supervise a

subordinate    officer;      neglect        of    duty;   and    violation      of

departmental   rules   3:7(f),    3:8(b)(3),        and   2.32.140(j).1       The

decision included brief fact findings of less than two pages,

followed by summaries of the Borough's and Carr's arguments –

approximately seven and three pages, respectively, in length.

After stating the applicable law, the court concluded the evidence

supported that Carr: "was located in the basement of the [p]olice

[d]epartment for over one hour and [fifteen] minutes while on duty

as a supervising sergeant"; "was aware he was supporting [a

subordinate officer] who had no experience taking a statement

[from a] witness on his own"; "remained in the basement when [the

subordinate    officer]    took   the       statement[]   from    the   domestic

violence   victim";       "completed        and   approved      the   [temporary


1
 We were not provided with the Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary
Action (PDNA) – that sets forth the charges – in Carr's appendix;
the Borough did not submit an appendix. According to the trial
court's decision, the rules required Carr to assist subordinates,
Rule 3:7(f); fulfill a squad sergeant's responsibilities, Rule
3:8(b)(3); and perform competently, Rule 2.32.140(j).

                                        2                                A-3987-16T3
restraining order that] authorized a weapons search . . . of [a]

home    outside   the   Borough's        jurisdiction   [in]   [d]irect

contravention of the instructions given to [him] by a [m]unicipal

[c]ourt [j]udge"; and approved an investigation report — completed

by the subordinate officer — containing multiple errors.              The

court found the Borough proved "by a preponderance of the evidence

that . . . Carr neglected his duty, failed to perform duties,

failed to supervise a subordinate officer, and engaged in conduct

unbecoming a public employee."

       Rule 1:7-4(a) requires a court to not only find facts, but

to "state its conclusions of law thereon."        "Naked conclusions do

not satisfy the purpose of [Rule] 1:7-4.        Rather, the trial court

must state clearly its factual findings and correlate them with

the relevant legal conclusions."        Curtis v. Finneran, 
83 N.J. 563,

570 (1980).

       The trial court did not correlate its findings of facts with

the elements of each of the charges lodged against Carr.       In fact,

it did not even mention the departmental rules in its conclusion.

We therefore remand the case for the trial court to relate its

findings to each of the specifications "so that the parties and

reviewing court may be informed of the rationale underlying the

court's conclusion."    Petrozzi v. City of Ocean City, 
433 N.J.

Super. 290, 316 (App. Div. 2013) (quoting Orgler v. Orgler, 237

                                    3                            A-3987-16T
3 N.J. Super. 342, 358 (App. Div. 1989)).    We do not mean to imply

that the trial court's conclusion was erroneous; its findings may

well be adequate to uphold each charge.    After determining which

charges are supported by the found evidence, the judge should also

analyze whether the final charges support the suspension imposed.

We leave that to the court's discretion.

     Remanded.   We do not retain jurisdiction.




                                4                          A-3987-16T3