MICHAEL LALLEY v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM -
Annotate this CaseNOT 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-5682-17T4
MICHAEL LALLEY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
POLICE AND FIREMEN'S
RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Respondent-Respondent.
____________________________
Submitted December 9, 2019 – Decided December 27, 2019
Before Judges Sumners and Geiger.
On appeal from the Board of Trustees of the Police and
Firemen's Retirement System, Department of the
Treasury, PFRS No. 3-66911.
Feeley & LaRocca, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Pablo
N. Blanco, of counsel and on the brief; John Daniel
Feeley, on the brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Jeffrey David Padgett, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Michael Lalley appeals from a May 14, 2018 final decision of the Board
of Trustees (Board) of the Police and Firemen's Retirement System (PFRS),
which found that, due to misconduct, Lalley forfeited his entire pension service
credit. We affirm.
I.
This appeal arises from the following facts. Lalley was hired as a police
officer by the City of Newark Police Department in September 1990 and
enrolled in the PFRS on October 1, 1990. He was assigned first to patrol and
spent a major portion of his career in its Narcotics Division. He was
subsequently promoted to Sergeant. During his tenure in the Narcotics Division,
Lalley assisted the United States Drug Enforcement Administration with
investigations at both the federal and state level.
In early 2010, Lalley was approached by agents of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), seeking his cooperation with an investigation of fellow
members of the Newark Police Department. Lalley declined to cooperate in the
investigation. Unbeknownst to Lalley, during the same time period, the FBI was
also investigating Lalley's sexual relations with M.H., who was then seventeen
A-5682-17T4
2
years old, and other minors in the mid-1990s. Lalley became aware that the FBI
had spoken to M.H. and would contact him again.
In an interview on January 11, 2010, M.H. informed the FBI that Lalley
had called him on January 4, 2010 and instructed him to "lie for [Lalley]." M.H.
also stated that Lalley had paid him for sexual acts while M.H. was a minor and
that their sexual relations went on for approximately two years at a frequency of
one or two encounters per week.
On January 12, 2010, Lalley called M.H. During the conversation, which
was consensually recorded, Lalley again instructed M.H. to lie to the FBI about
their past sexual relationship. Lalley told M.H.: "They don't know nothing
about me and you. But you gotta back that up if they ask do you—Did you ever
have sex with me? No. Right?"
On January 19, 2010, Lalley called M.H. a third time and again instructed
M.H. to conceal their prior sexual relations. The consensually recorded phone
call included the following conversation:
M.H.: And you're telling me to tell them I was
[nineteen] but, like when I met you, I was [seventeen],
bro. I can't lie to them.
....
Lalley: [T]hey can't prove you're lying. You're not
lying.
A-5682-17T4
3
....
Lalley: I would say you—maybe you were [eighteen].
. . . You was over [eighteen] though, you know?
M.H.: I doubt it. . . . I was younger than that . . . when
I got out of high school, I was [seventeen].
Lalley: [B]ut . . . what I'm saying is, the thing is you
gotta say you was over [eighteen].
On January 22, 2010, Lalley urged M.H. to meet with him in person to
discuss M.H.'s statements to the FBI. He told M.H., "You gotta do this okay. I
got kids, you got kids so. You know what I'm saying? We gotta meet!"
Throughout the conversation, Lalley repeatedly stated that no sexual acts with
M.H. occurred and that M.H. should tell the "truth" to the FBI.
On February 16, 2010, the FBI filed a criminal complaint against Lalley,
charging him with obstruction of justice and witness tampering based upon his
recorded statements to M.H. Lalley was subsequently indicted by a federal
grand jury. In December 2010, Lalley entered into a plea agreement with the
United States Attorney's Office.
On January 10, 2011, Lalley pleaded guilty to one count of obstruction of
justice by attempting to tamper with a witness with intent to hinder, delay, and
prevent the communication of information to a law enforcement officer relating
to the commission of a federal offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2),
A-5682-17T4
4
(3) (2018). During the plea colloquy, Lalley made the following admissions as
part of the factual basis for his plea:
Mr. Gramicconi: 1 Mr. Lalley, from at least in or about
January 2010 to the present, were you employed as a
sergeant with the Newark Police Department?
[Lalley]: Yes.
Mr. Gramicconi: During that time were you aware that
the [FBI] was conducting a federal investigation into
criminal conduct allegedly committed by certain
members of the Newark Police Department including
yourself?
[Lalley]: Yes.
Mr. Gramicconi: Were you also aware that the
investigation concerned among other things,
allegations that you had sexual contacts with an
individual identified by the initial M.H., who at the time
was a minor, that is approximately [seventeen] years
old?
[Lalley]: Yes.
Mr. Gramicconi: On the dates of January 12th, 19th,
and 22nd, of 2010, . . . did you speak to M.H. several
times regarding M.H.'s communications with the FBI?
[Lalley]: Yes.
....
1
Gramiccioni was one of the two Assistant U.S. Attorneys appearing for the
Government.
A-5682-17T4
5
Mr. Gramicconi: During these conversations did you
attempt to persuade M.H. to conceal your past sexual
relationship with M.H. by asking M.H. to tell the FBI
that M.H. was over [eighteen] years old at the time?
[Lalley]: Yes.
Mr. Gramicconi: In doing so, did you intend to impede
the FBI's investigation into the possible commission of
federal offenses allegedly committed by you, based on
your relationship with M.H.?
[Lalley]: Yes.
Mr. Gramicconi: Did you know what you were doing
was against the law?
[Lalley]: Yes.
On the same day he pleaded guilty, Lalley received notice of disciplinary
action based upon: conviction of a crime, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(5); conduct
unbecoming a public employee, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(6); and neglect of duty,
N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(7). He was terminated from employment by the Newark
Police Department effective January 10, 2011.2
During the subsequent sentencing hearing before Judge Peter G. Sheridan,
Lalley stated he took "full responsibility for [his] actions in trying to conceal an
embarrassing period in [his] life." He stated he "would like to apologize to the
2
There is no indication in the record that Lalley contested his termination.
A-5682-17T4
6
men and women of the Newark Police Department, on which [he] brought shame
and dishonor, in a department which [he] was proud to serve for [twenty] years."
Judge Sheridan took in account Lalley's position as a police officer when
rendering his sentence:
[O]bstruction of justice, especially by a police officer,
is a very substantial and heinous crime. In the court
system we rely upon the truthfulness and the work of
the police officers every day, and their work is essential
to the judiciary being able to proceed on cases, and to
keep and maintain justice in our society.
So, for a police officer to hinder a prosecution or
an investigation in a way that Mr. Lalley has, is a
substantial disruption. And when he talks about
embarrassment, . . . he embarrassed the entire police
force by obstructing justice in this case.
....
So, for [ten] or [twelve] days, Mr. Lalley was
attempting to influence and hinder the federal
investigation of the Newark police force as it applied to
him. To me that's a very substantial offense. And
despite [defense counsel's plea], that crime deserves
punishment and that punishment must be served in
prison.
....
But in this case where the police officer obstructs
justice, that's a betrayal of the faith and trust that we
give our police officers every day.
A-5682-17T4
7
Judge Sheridan sentenced Lalley to a sixteen-month prison term followed by
three years of supervised release. 3
While the criminal charges were pending, Lalley applied for a service
retirement with twenty years of credit. On June 10, 2013, the Board determined
that, based on its consideration of the factors enumerated in N.J.S.A. 43:1-3,
Lalley's entire PFRS service and salary credit should be forfeited due to his
"dishonorable service." The Board found that total forfeiture was appropriate
due to: the nature of the misconduct or crime, including the gravity or
substantiality of the offense (factor seven); the "[d]irect relationship between"
the misconduct and Mr. Lalley's "public duties as a law enforcement officer"
(factor eight); and his "[h]igh degree of moral turpitude" (factor nine). The
Board concluded that:
starting from 1991 through at least 1999, Mr. Lalley
had engaged in sexually explicit acts with minors
ranging in ages eight to [seventeen]. In 2010, Mr.
Lalley tried to conceal his illegal conduct by instructing
his former victims to lie to the FBI regarding their
previous sexual relationship. Mr. Lalley attempted to
corruptly persuade his victim to conceal his past sexual
relationships from the FBI with intent to hinder, delay
and prevent the communication with the FBI which is
considered a federal offense.
3
We find no indication that Lalley appealed his federal conviction or sentence.
A-5682-17T4
8
As a law enforcement officer, Mr. Lalley violated
the public trust by his actions. He also corrupted the
lives of minors with his flagrant disregard for the laws
that he was sworn to uphold. . . .
Mr. Lalley was enrolled in the PFRS on October
1, 1990, and the criminal misconduct commenced in
1991 (a few months after he became a law enforcement
officer). Mr. Lalley engaged in this misconduct for
nearly his entire career as a police officer/sergeant for
the City of Newark. Consequently, the Board found
Mr. Lalley's criminal misconduct to be highly
egregious and an extraordinary degree of moral
turpitude.
Lalley appealed and the Board referred the matter to the Office of
Administrative Law for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).
Lalley was the only witness at the hearing. In addition to certain facts that were
stipulated, the balance of the record consisted of exhibits placed in evidence.
The ALJ found that, "[b]ased on Lalley's admitted conversations with
M.H., his admissions during his plea allocution, as well as [Judge] Sheridan's
determination that M.H. was seventeen when the sexual contact occurred, . . .
Lalley had sexual contact with a seventeen-year-old minor." The ALJ further
found that the sexual contact between Lalley and M.H. "occurred no earlier than
1994" "while Lalley was employed as a police officer." The ALJ concluded
there was no competent evidence in the record to prove "that the sexual contact
occurred during [Lalley's] exercise of duties as a police officer."
A-5682-17T4
9
The ALJ further found that Lalley "obstructed justice to avoid criminal
charges" "over a period of two months in 2010."
The ALJ concluded that the first six Uricoli4 factors were not in dispute.
Lalley served as a police officer for twenty years; his pension was vested. He
"was dismissed from the force after he pled guilty to the federal charge."
Similarly, factors ten and eleven were not in dispute. Thus, factors seven, eight,
and nine were critical to determining whether pension forfeiture should be
partial or total.
As to factor seven (nature of the misconduct or crime, including the
gravity of the offense), the ALJ found that "[o]bstruction of justice and sexual
contact with a minor are grave offenses. Obstruction of justice is entirely
contrary to the reliance placed on police officers to be truthful and uphold the
integrity of police work. Likewise, sexual acts with a minor are acts of
substantial moral turpitude."
As to factor eight (relationship between the misconduct and the member's
public duties), the ALJ found no residuum of competent evidence to prove
Lalley's misconduct involved "his official duties as a police officer although it
occurred during his tenure as a police officer." Nevertheless, "[t]o the extent .
4
Uricoli v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen’s Ret. Sys., 91 N.J. 62, 77-78 (1982).
A-5682-17T4
10
. . that cooperation and truthfulness in the conduct of a federal investigation is
part of a police officer's duties, his obstruction of justice does impact on those
responsibilities."
Finally, as to factor nine (quality of moral turpitude or degree of
culpability, including motives), the ALJ found that "[o]bstruction of justice to
conceal a relationship with a seventeen-year-old [minor] is misconduct
demonstrating substantial moral turpitude. Lalley was motivated to avoid
criminal charges for himself as well as to avoid embarrassment for himself and
his family. In doing so he betrayed the public trust."
The ALJ concluded total forfeiture was appropriate because Lalley's
"egregious" misconduct were "acts of moral turpitude and evince a betrayal of
the high standard of conduct expected of police officers." The Board adopted
the ALJ's Initial Decision affirming total forfeiture of Lalley's PFRS
membership service due to dishonorable service. This appeal followed.
Lalley raises a single point for our consideration:
I. LALLEY IS ENTITLED TO THE PROCESSING
OF HIS RETIREMENT APPLICATION BECAUSE
THE PENALTY OF FORFEITURE WAS
EXCESSIVE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
SINCE THE MISCONDUCT WAS UNRELATED TO
HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES AND TOOK PLACE AFTER
OVER TWENTY YEARS OF HONORABLE
SERVICE.
A-5682-17T4
11
II.
The scope of our review in an appeal from a final decision of an
administrative agency is limited. Russo v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret.
Sys., 206 N.J. 14, 27 (2011) (citing In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 27 (2007)).
The agency's decision should be upheld "unless there is a clear showing that it
is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or that it lacks fair support in the
record." Ibid. (quoting Herrmann, 192 N.J. at 27-28). In light of the deference
applied to such determinations, when an appellate court reviews administrative
sanctions, "the test . . . is 'whether such punishment is so disproportionate to the
offense, in light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of
fairness.'" Herrmann, 192 N.J. at 28-29 (alteration in original) (quoting In re
Polk, 90 N.J. 550, 578 (1982)). Thus, while an appellate court must be vigilant
about not substituting its own judgment for that of an agency, Polk, 90 N.J. at
578, if the record reveals that the sanction is so disproportionate to the offense
committed, in light of all the circumstances, as to shock one's sense of fairness,
the sanction need not be affirmed.
We are not, however, "bound by an agency's interpretation of a statute or
its determination of a strictly legal issue." Russo, 206 N.J. at 27 (quoting
Mayflower Sec. Co. v. Bureau of Sec., 64 N.J. 85, 93 (1973)). "[W]e apply de
A-5682-17T4
12
novo review to an agency's interpretation of a statute or case law." Ibid. (citing
Toll Bros., Inc. v. Twp. of W. Windsor, 173 N.J. 502, 549 (2002)).
A.
A public employee must provide "honorable service" to receive pension
or retirement benefits. N.J.S.A. 43:1-3(a) ("The receipt of a public pension or
retirement benefit is . . . expressly conditioned upon the rendering of honorable
service by a public officer or employee."); N.J.A.C. 17:1-6.1(a); see also
Corvelli v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 130 N.J. 539, 550 (1992)
(noting all of New Jersey's public pension statutes have an implied requirement
of honorable service, and forfeiture can be ordered for employees who violate
that requirement). The Board is authorized to order forfeiture, in whole or in
part, "for misconduct occurring during the member's public service which
renders the member's service or part thereof dishonorable." N.J.S.A. 43:1-3(b);
N.J.A.C. 17:1-6.1(a), (c). Ordinarily, to require forfeiture of that portion of a
member's pension that accrued prior to the criminal activity, the Board must find
that the misconduct was related to the member's service. Masse v. Bd. of Trs.,
Pub. Emps.' Ret. Sys., 87 N.J. 252, 263 (1981). Nevertheless, forfeiture is not
limited to misconduct resulting in a criminal conviction. Corvelli, 130 N.J. at
552. Rather, "[t]he term 'honorable service' . . . is sufficiently generic to
A-5682-17T4
13
encompass a broad range of misconduct bearing on the forfeiture decision,
including but not limited to criminal conviction." Ibid.
The forfeiture of a public employee's pension is governed by the factors
enumerated in Uricoli, 91 N.J. at 77-78, and subsequently codified in N.J.S.A.
43:1-3(c). The eleven factors are:
(1) the member's length of service; (2) the basis for
retirement; (3) the extent to which the member’s
pension has vested; (4) the duties of the particular
member; (5) the member's public employment history
and record covered under the retirement system; (6) any
other public employment or service; (7) the nature of
the misconduct or crime, including the gravity or
substantiality of the offense, whether it was a single or
multiple offense and whether it was continuing or
isolated; (8) the relationship between the misconduct
and the member's public duties; (9) the quality of moral
turpitude or the degree of guilt or culpability, including
the member's motives and reasons, personal gain and
similar considerations; (10) the availability and
adequacy of other penal sanctions; and (11) other
personal circumstances relating to the member which
bear upon the justness of forfeiture.
[N.J.S.A. 43:1-3(c).]
The factors "must be balanced and then weighed in terms of the goals to
be achieved under the pension laws." Uricoli, 91 N.J. at 78. The Board may,
however, attribute more weight to factors seven, eight, and nine, when
A-5682-17T4
14
applicable. Corvelli, 130 N.J. at 552-53 (holding total pension forfeiture "was
justified . . . by application of Uricoli factors seven, eight, and nine").
B.
The Legislature has spoken on the serious nature of witness tampering. In
2007, it enacted N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1. Subsection (a) provides in pertinent part:
A person who holds or has held any public office,
position, or employment, . . . who is convicted of any
crime set forth in subsection b. of this section, or of a
substantially similar offense under the laws of another
state or the United States which would have been such
a crime under the laws of this State, which crime or
offense involves or touches such office, position or
employment, shall forfeit all of the pension or
retirement benefit earned as a member of any State . . .
pension fund or retirement system in which he
participated at the time of the commission of the
offense and which covered the office, position or
employment involved in the offense. As used in this
section, a crime or offense that "involves or touches
such office, position or employment" means that the
crime or offense was related directly to the person's
performance in, or circumstances flowing from, the
specific public office or employment held by the
person.
[N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1(a).]
Tampering with witnesses, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:28-5, is one of the
enumerated crimes to which subsection (a) applies. N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1(b)(14).
A-5682-17T4
15
Lalley was convicted of obstruction of justice through attempted witness
tampering, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2) and (3). That federal offense is substantially
similar to the crime of tampering with witnesses, N.J.S.A. 2C:28-5. The
criminal conviction conclusively establishes his misconduct. Indeed, Lalley,
who pleaded guilty, does not deny committing the offense.
Law enforcement officers are held to a higher standard of conduct than
other public employees and are obliged to act in a reasonable manner. In re
Phillips, 117 N.J. 567, 576-77 (1990). Law enforcement officers "must present
an image of personal integrity and dependability in order to have the respect of
the public." Twp. of Moorestown v. Armstrong, 89 N.J. Super. 560, 566 (App.
Div. 1965). "Every police officer has an inherent duty to obey the law" and
serve with "good faith, honesty, and integrity." State v. Stevens, 203 N.J. Super.
59, 65-66 (Law Div. 1984) (quoting Driscoll v. Burlington Bridge Co., 8 N.J.
433, 474-76 (1952)). This higher standard of conduct applies to the behavior of
law enforcement officers on or off-duty. Phillips, 117 N.J. at 577.
Despite his twenty-year career as a Newark police officer, Lalley was
terminated from employment as a result of his witness tampering. He was
federally prosecuted, pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice by attempting to
A-5682-17T4
16
tamper with a witness, and was sentenced to federal prison followed by
supervised release. By any measure, his misconduct was egregious.
Lalley's misconduct was also directly related to his employment as a
Newark police officer. The FBI was investigating the Newark Police
Department, of which Lalley was a member. The investigation encompassed
Lalley's conduct of engaging in sexual relations with minors, including M.H.
When Lalley learned the FBI would be interviewing M.H, he repeatedly
attempted to tamper with M.H.'s statements to thwart the FBI's investigation.
The "primary duty" of police officers "is to enforce and uphold the law."
Phillips, 117 N.J. at 576 (quoting Armstrong, 89 N.J. Super. at 566). Their
honesty and credibility are central to their role as law enforcement officers. As
recognized by Judge Sheridan, Lalley's conduct violated his oath of office,
undermined his ability to perform his duties, and tarnished the reputation of the
entire department. Moreover, his obstruction of justice was motivated by his
attempt to conceal his sexual relations with minors that occurred early on in his
career as a police officer. The victims of that conduct were children that Lalley
was sworn to protect.
The ALJ's findings, which were adopted by the Board, are supported by
sufficient credible evidence in the record. The ALJ carefully applied and
A-5682-17T4
17
weighed the Uricoli factors. Considering the totality of the circumstances, total
forfeiture of Lalley's pension credits was not arbitrary, capricious or
unreasonable. It was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to
our sense of fairness. Taking into account the serious nature of the misconduct
and substantial moral turpitude involved, coupled with the fact that the witness
tampering arose out of an unsuccessful attempt to conceal earlier misconduct
that took place shortly after Lalley became a police officer, we discern no basis
to overturn the Board's final decision. Moreover, the misconduct related to the
performance of his duties as a police officer, and the high standards expected of
police officers both on and off duty.
Affirmed.
A-5682-17T4
18
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
