SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-0256-22 

THOMAS A. CONNORS, 

CHARLES MARTINI, WILLIAM 

MORTON, DENIS BARRY, 

SALVATORE TOLENO, ROBERT 

MORRIS, TIMOTHY LATOUR, 

WAYNE FORSYTHE, and all 

similarly situated individuals, 

 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v.

VILLAGE OF RIDGEFIELD PARK, 

 Defendant-Respondent. 

_______________________________

Argued October 24, 2023 – Decided January 5, 2024 

Before Judges Gooden Brown and Puglisi. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-7742-20.

Marcia J. Mitolo argued the cause for appellants 

(Limsky Mitolo, attorneys; Marcia J. Mitolo, of counsel 

and on the briefs). 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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.
2 A-0256-22

Philip N. Boggia argued the cause for respondent 

(Boggia, Boggia & Betesh, LLC, and Fox Rothschild 

LLP, attorneys; Philip N. Boggia, Joseph W. Voytus,

Kenneth Aaron Rosenberg, and Sara Hale Bernstein, on 

the brief). 

PER CURIAM 

 Plaintiffs1 Thomas Connors, William Morton, Denis Barry, Salvatore 

Toleno, Robert Morris, Timothy LaTour, and Wayne Forsythe appeal from the 

Law Division's August 31, 2022, order that denied their motion for summary 

judgment, granted defendant Village of Ridgefield Park's motion for summary 

judgment, and dismissed plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice. We affirm. 

 Plaintiffs, former police officers retired from Ridgefield Park, are over the 

age of sixty-five and eligible for Medicare. The Police Benevolent Association 

(PBA) Local 86 represents patrol officers and sergeants employed by Ridgefield 

Park. Plaintiffs were active PBA members prior to their retirement and the PBA 

continues to represent their interests as retirees.

 Morton retired at the rank of captain on January 1, 1996, and Connors 

retired at the rank of sergeant on February 1, 1998. The other plaintiffs retired 

at the rank of patrol officer: Toleno on September 1, 1982; Forsythe on 

1

 Charles Martini voluntarily dismissed his claims with prejudice and did not 

participate in this appeal. 
3 A-0256-22

November 1, 1986; Barry on July 1, 1990; Morris on July 1, 1992; and LaTour 

on February 1, 2001. 

Ridgefield Park and the PBA have entered into contract negotiation 

agreements (CNAs) since 1980. Prior to 1984, the CNAs did not provide for 

retirees' medical health benefits. On January 10, 1984, the Board of 

Commissioners of Ridgefield Park adopted Resolution No. 3, which "elect[ed] 

to adopt the provisions of [the State Health Benefits Program (SHBP) Act] and 

adhere to the rules and regulations promulgated by the State Health Benefits 

Commission [(SHBC)] to implement the provisions of the law." The resolution 

acknowledged certain rules and regulations of the SHBC, and adopted the 

following provision: 

WHEREAS, we hereby agree to pay the premium or 

periodic charges for the benefits provided to all eligible 

retired employees and their dependents covered under 

the program, but not including survivors, if such 

employees retired from a State or locally-administered 

retirement system effective after the date the employer 

adopted the [SHBP] on a benefit based on [twenty-five] 

or more [years] of service credited in such retirement 

system . . . and also to reimburse such retired employees 

for their premium charges under Part B of the Federal 

Medicare Program covering the retired employees and

their spouses in accordance with the regulations. 
4 A-0256-22

Although the resolution referred to reimbursement of Part B premiums for 

retirees and their spouses, this provision was not incorporated into the 

subsequent CNA. Instead, the CNA entered in 1984 states: 

The Village of Ridgefield Park shall pay insurance 

benefits to employees of the Ridgefield Park Police

Department with [twenty-five] years or more of service 

and certain employees who retired on disability pension 

in accordance with Schedule A attached. 

Schedule A provides: 

Effective May 1st, 1984, the Village of Ridgefield Park 

will provide health coverage for all elig[i]ble present 

and future pensioners and their dependents which is

provided under [the SHBP] Act. 

The conditions of this act provide[] that coverage will 

be provided to present and future pensioners and their 

dependents who retired, under the Police and Firemen's 

Retirement System with [twenty-five] or more years of 

service, as well as those employees who retire on 

disability pensions based on fewer years of service

credited in the retirement system provided they are

eligible for such coverage under the aforementioned

law. 

Although the successive CNAs covering the next thirty-four years 

incorporated these provisions,2

 Ridgefield Park never participated in the SHBP. 

2

 Because the PBA does not represent captains, Morton entered into a different 

employment agreement that entitled him to the same "fringe benefits" including 

medical coverage as other full-time employees of Ridgefield Park. 
5 A-0256-22

Instead, it provided health benefits to employees and retirees either through a 

self-funded plan or the Bergen Municipal Employee Benefits Fund. None of the 

CNAs from 1980 through 2018 incorporated a specific provision requiring 

Ridgefield Park to reimburse retirees for their spouses' Medicare Part B 

premiums (spouses' premiums) as reflected in the resolution. 

In 2015, Connors began submitting reimbursement applications for his 

spouse's premiums, which Ridgefield Park denied. He raised the issue with the 

PBA and, in March 2019, the PBA filed a grievance challenging Ridgefield 

Park's denial. The parties selected an arbitrator and scheduled a hearing date in 

February 2020, which was adjourned because Ridgefield Park and the PBA were 

in negotiations to extend their existing CNA. 

On March 19, 2020, the parties entered into a memorandum of agreement 

(MOA) wherein the PBA agreed to withdraw the grievance "in [its] entirety and 

with prejudice" and agreed "not to grieve the retiree health benefits issue in the 

future." The MOA also provided that future CNAs would remove any reference 

to the SHBP. Accordingly, the subsequent CNA, which covered 2019 through 

2024, explicitly stated Ridgefield Park "shall not be responsible for reimbursing 

any retiree for the Medicare Part B premiums incurred on behalf of his/her 

spouse or other dependents." 
6 A-0256-22

Six months later, the PBA issued a letter to all retired members informing 

them: "For those of you who are unaware, as per the contract at the time of your 

retirement, you are all eligible for Medicare Part B. If you are already enrolled 

with Medicare Part B, you are entitled to reimbursement from the Village." 

Plaintiffs, except for Forsythe and Morton, submitted vouchers seeking 

reimbursement for their spouses' Medicare Part B premiums.3

Plaintiffs then filed a complaint in Superior Court seeking to compel 

Ridgefield Park to reimburse spouses' premiums. Upon completion of 

discovery, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. On August 31, 2022, 

Judge Robert C. Wilson denied plaintiffs' motion, granted defendant's motion 

and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. 

In its written opinion, the court first noted the SHBP "permits, but does 

not require, public employers to participate in the SHBP and reimburse retirees 

and their spouses for Medicare Part B premiums." A non-state public employer 

upon the adoption and submission to the division of an 

appropriate resolution prescribed by the commission, 

may pay the premium or periodic charges for the 

benefits provided to a retired employee and the 

employee's dependents covered under the program, . . . 

3

 Forsythe's and Morton's spouses were not eligible for Medicare until 2019, 

after the MOA was executed. They did not seek reimbursement but were 

presumably named plaintiffs in the complaint as to Count II, which seeks 

declaratory judgment—anticipatory breach of contract. 
7 A-0256-22

and may also reimburse the retired employee for the

employee's premium charges under Part B of Medicare

covering the retired employee and the employee's 

spouse. 

[N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.38(b)(1).]

Although Ridgefield Park adopted the resolution in 1984 memorializing 

its decision to provide health care through the SHBP and incorporated Schedule 

A in subsequent CNAs, it never filed the requisite documents with the SHBC 

and took no further action to enroll in the SHBP. Thus, the trial court found 

"the language included in the [CNAs] referencing the SHBP had no effect" and 

rejected plaintiffs' argument that Ridgefield Park intended to provide the same 

benefits as afforded under the SHBP. The court also noted none of the plaintiffs 

had sought reimbursement until they received the PBA's advisement letter. 

The court then addressed plaintiffs' claim Ridgefield Park should be 

equitably estopped from refusing to reimburse for spouses' premiums. It found 

Ridgefield Park never represented it would reimburse plaintiffs for spouses' 

premiums and plaintiffs never relied on any alleged representation to their 

detriment; therefore, plaintiffs failed to establish the grounds for equitable 

estoppel. 

Lastly, the court addressed plaintiffs' argument they were entitled to 

reimbursement for spouses' premiums because the CNA at the time they retired 
8 A-0256-22

provided for reimbursement. First, the judge reiterated his finding that none of 

the CNAs required Ridgefield Park to reimburse spouses' premiums. The judge 

then noted "retiree health benefits are not vested for life unless the collective 

bargaining agreements expressly state so," citing M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. 

Tackett, 574 U.S. 427, 442 (2015). After reviewing the CNA in effect at the 

time of each plaintiff's retirement, the court determined none contained a 

provision vesting retirees' health benefits for life. Thus, even if a prior CNA 

had provided for reimbursement, the benefit would have applied only to that 

CNA term because it was not specifically vested. Therefore, the court 

determined the most recent CNA governed the terms of plaintiffs' health 

benefits, and that CNA expressly provided retirees were not entitled to 

reimbursement for spouses' premiums. 

The court also found the PBA, through the MOA settling plaintiffs' 

grievance, agreed to dismiss the grievance and not to bring similar grievances 

in the future regarding reimbursement of spouses' Medicare Part B premiums. 

Thus, the court found the matter was resolved through the MOA and plaintiffs 

were contractually barred from bringing a suit raising the same issue. 

In this appeal, plaintiffs raise a single issue for our consideration: 

PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE 

NEGOTIATIONS AGREEMENT THE VILLAGE 
9 A-0256-22

REIMBURSES RETIREES AND SPOUSES 

MEDICAL BENEFITS UP TO MEDICARE AGE, 

BUT ARBITRARILY REFUSES TO REIMBURSE 

RETIREES' SPOUSES FOR MEDICARE PART B 

COSTS. 

We review the trial court's grant or denial of a motion for summary 

judgment de novo, applying the same standard used by the trial court. Samolyk 

v. Berthe, 251 N.J. 73 (2022); Stewart v. N.J. Tpk. Auth./Garden State Parkway, 

249 N.J. 642, 655 (2022); Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, 244 N.J. 567, 582 

(2021). The appellate court considers "whether the competent evidential 

materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving 

party, are sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed 

issue in favor of the non-moving party." Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 

142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995). The trial court's interpretation of a contract is also 

reviewed de novo. Serico v. Rothberg, 234 N.J. 168, 178 (2018); Kieffer v. Best 

Buy, 205 N.J. 213, 222 (2011). 

Having reviewed the record in light of the applicable standards, we affirm 

substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Wilson's well-reasoned decision. 

We add the following comments. 

Although Ridgefield Park apparently intended to join the SHBP, it never 

took any action to do so and instead provided health insurance to employees and 
10 A-0256-22

retirees through other plans. We agree with the trial court that any reference to 

the SHBP in the CNAs had no effect. Even if we construe the CNAs to require 

Ridgefield Park to provide insurance coverage comparable to the SHBP, as 

plaintiffs urge us to do, the town nevertheless would not be compelled to 

reimburse spouses' premiums because this benefit is discretionary. Pursuant to 

N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.28(b)(1), an 

employer other than the State . . . may pay the premium 

or periodic charges for the benefits provided to a retired 

employee and the employee’s dependents covered 

under the program . . . and may also reimburse the 

retired employee for the employee’s premium charges

under Part B of Medicare covering the retired employee 

and the employee’s spouse. 

Contrary to plaintiffs' contentions, these clauses are independent of each 

other, and the town's decision to reimburse retirees' premiums does not amount 

to partial performance requiring them to reimburse for spouses' premiums, 

which it has never done. 

We also agree with the judge's finding that because none of the CNAs in 

place at the time of each plaintiff's retirement created a vested interest in retiree 

benefits, the most recent CNA controls. Accordingly, the 2019-2024 CNA, 

which explicitly states retirees are not entitled to reimbursement of their spouses' 

Medicare Part B premiums, is dispositive of the issue. 
11 A-0256-22

Because plaintiffs' claims fall short on their merits, we need not address 

whether plaintiffs were contractually barred or estopped from bringing the 

complaint because of the MOA. To the extent we have not expressly addressed 

any issues raised by plaintiffs, it is because they lack sufficient merit to warrant 

discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

Affirmed.