SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3998-15T4

ANDREW KING,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BOROUGH OF SOUTH RIVER,

Defendant-Respondent.

_______________________________

Submitted July 5, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges Nugent and Accurso.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Middlesex County, Docket 

No. C-000139-15.

Sciarra & Catrambone, LLC, attorneys for 

appellant (Charles J. Sciarra, of counsel; Mr. 

Sciarra and Christopher A. Gray, on the 

briefs.)

Apruzzese, McDermott, Mastro & Murphy, PC, 

attorneys for respondent (Mark J. Blunda, of 

counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff, Andrew King, appeals from the April 22, 2016 order 

for judgment upholding his termination from employment as a Borough 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

October 23, 2017
2 A-3998-15T4

of South River police officer. The Borough had terminated 

plaintiff after he tested positive for cocaine in a randomly 

administered drug test. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the 

Borough failed to prove the reliability of the New Jersey State 

Toxicology Laboratory report on which it based its disciplinary 

charges. Plaintiff also contends the judge who conducted the 

hearing on his disciplinary charges improperly shifted the burden 

of proof to him. The record belies these contentions. 

Accordingly, we affirm the order of judgment. 

During the first week in May 2014, the Borough of South River 

Police Department randomly selected eight "police personnel," 

including plaintiff, for random drug testing. In accordance with 

established policy and procedure, plaintiff filled out a drug 

testing medication information form and provided a urine sample. 

He represented on the form that he had taken no prescription or 

non-prescription medication, cough medicines, cold tablets, 

aspirin, diet medication, or nutritional supplements within the 

preceding fourteen days. Plaintiff's sample was sent to the New 

Jersey State Toxicology Laboratory in Newark, where testing 

revealed the presence of Benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine. 

Plaintiff was notified of the positive results, suspended 

without pay, and charged with a violation of the Department's 

policy on drug testing as well as numerous other infractions. 
3 A-3998-15T4

Following a departmental hearing, a hearing officer recommended 

plaintiff be terminated from his position. The Borough's governing 

body adopted the hearing officer's recommendation and terminated 

plaintiff's employment on August 10, 2015. Plaintiff timely filed 

a complaint in Superior Court, alleging the Borough terminated him 

without just cause, and seeking de novo review of the Borough's 

decision. 

Following a de novo hearing, Judge Frank M. Ciuffani issued 

a written decision in which he determined plaintiff knowingly 

ingested cocaine. Judge Ciuffani upheld plaintiff's termination 

from employment as mandated by applicable drug testing policies. 

On appeal, plaintiff argues two points: the New Jersey State 

Toxicology Laboratory report is arbitrary; and the trial court 

improperly shifted the burden of proof to him. We reject these 

arguments and affirm the order for judgment, substantially for the 

reasons expressed by Judge Ciuffani in his written decision. We 

add the following brief comments.

Plaintiff supports his arguments mostly with unsupported 

assertions and statements of the court that plaintiff takes out 

of context. For example, in support of his first argument that 

the lab report of plaintiff's urine sample was arbitrary, plaintiff 

asserts, "[t]he laboratory in the matter failed to follow 

established guidelines for the handling of drug testing." His
4 A-3998-15T4

citation to the record is a reference to the New Jersey Law 

Enforcement Drug Testing Manual. Plaintiff cites to no evidence 

that supports his claim the guidelines were not followed. 

Moreover, the trial court rejected plaintiff's challenge to 

the lab results. The State presented as a witness the Acting 

Director of the New Jersey State Toxicology Laboratory, who gave 

a detailed explanation of the protocols and procedures for testing 

random samples, as well as the threshold or "cutoff" level for 

cocaine. The Acting Director authenticated documents concerning 

the tests performed on plaintiff's sample, explained that he 

reviewed all the data concerning plaintiff's sample, and testified 

he signed off on the final reports.

The court found the State Laboratory Director's testimony

concerning the sampling and testing procedures and protocols

"trustworthy and reliable." This finding was amply supported by 

sufficient credible evidence in the record, so we will not disturb 

it. Willingboro Mall, LTD. v. 240/242 Franklin Ave., LLC, 215 

N.J. 242, 253 (2013). 

Plaintiff's contention the trial court shifted the burden of 

proof is also devoid of merit. In its written opinion, the trial 

court stated explicitly that "[d]isciplinary charges against 

police officers must be proven by the employer by a preponderance 

of credible evidence." Plaintiff overlooks that statement and 
5 A-3998-15T4

instead emphasizes the court's finding that plaintiff "failed to 

prove that he knowingly ingested cocaine." 

Plaintiff's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant 

further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.