SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4961-17T1

TEACHERS' PENSION AND 

ANNUITY FUND,

Petitioner-Respondent, 

v. 

CAROL ZIZNEWSKI, 

Respondent-Appellant.

____________________________

Submitted February 27, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Vernoia and Moynihan.

On appeal from the Board of Trustees of the Teachers' 

Pension and Annuity Fund, TPAF No. 1-10-147561.

Carol A. Ziznewski, appellant pro se. 

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Amy Chung, Deputy Attorney 

General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

March 20, 2019
2

A-4961-17T1

Carol Ziznewski appeals from a May 16, 2018, final decision of the Board 

of Trustees of the Teachers' Pension and Annuity Fund (the Board) finding 

Ziznewski's partial forfeiture of salary and service, which we affirmed in 

Teachers' Pension and Annuity Fund v. Ziznewski (Ziznewski Pension), No. A0881-16 (App. Div. Apr. 13, 2018), commenced on January 1, 2006. We affirm.

The facts underlying the Board's decision imposing a partial forfeiture of 

Ziznewski's salary and service are set forth in our prior decision, see id. at 2, 

and need not be repeated here. It is sufficient to note that following lengthy 

tenure proceedings against Ziznewski before the New Jersey Acting 

Commissioner of Education, she was terminated in August 2010 from her 

teaching position in the Edison Township school district. 1 We affirmed the 

Acting Commissioner's decision adopting an administrative law judge's (ALJ) 

recommendation that Ziznewski be dismissed due to insubordination and 

conduct unbecoming a public employee. Ziznewski Tenure, slip op. at 12. 

Following her August 2010 dismissal, Ziznewski applied for service 

retirement to be effective September 1, 2010. The Board approved Ziznewski's 

 

1

 In In re Tenure Hearing of Carol Ziznewski (Ziznewski Tenure), No. A-0083-

10 (App. Div. Apr. 13, 2012), we affirmed the Acting Commissioner of 

Education's decision upholding Ziznewski's dismissal based on insubordination 

and conduct unbecoming charges. 
3

A-4961-17T1

service retirement "but determined her pension and salary would be forfeited 

pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:1-3(b) beginning in the 'year of the offense'—January 1, 

2006—through the last date on which pension contributions were remitted on 

her behalf—June 30, 2010." Ziznewski Pension, slip op. at 3. The matter was 

referred to an ALJ for a hearing.

The ALJ granted the Board's motion for summary decision for imposition 

of a partial forfeiture of Ziznewski's service and salary based on the tenure ALJ's 

factual findings and conclusions concerning Ziznewski's misconduct. Ibid. The 

forfeiture ALJ later granted the Board's motion for summary disposition 

imposing a period of partial forfeiture commencing on January 1, 2006, and 

ending on June 30, 2010. Ibid. The Board adopted the forfeiture ALJ's findings 

and recommendations. 

Ziznewski appealed, and we affirmed the Board's decision granting 

"partial forfeiture of service and salary through June 30, 2010, but remand[ed] 

. . . for a determination of the commencement date of the forfeiture." Id. at 4. 

More particularly, we observed that the forfeiture ALJ summarized the tenure 

ALJ's factual findings concerning the time period during which Ziznewski acted 

in a manner warranting partial forfeiture of service and salary under N.J.S.A. 

43:1-3(d). Id. at 12-13. However, we determined the forfeiture ALJ, and thus 
4

A-4961-17T1

the Board, did not "specifically incorporate" the tenure ALJ's findings to support 

the conclusion that the period of partial forfeiture should commence on January 

1, 2006. Id. at 13-14. We remanded "for the sole purpose of having the Board 

either set forth the findings that support the given commencement date or to 

revise same based on the evidence." Id. at 14.

In its final decision following the remand, the Board explained that it 

"reviewed all previous documentation" in the matter, including the tenure and 

forfeiture ALJs' findings. The Board relied on the tenure ALJ's findings that:

"Ziznewski exhibited a 'pattern of egregious conduct' that escalated during the 

2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years"; the 2005-2006 school year "became 

horrible, heated, and argumentative and a 'travesty' [that] got so bad that [the 

principal] indicated it was difficult to describe the extent of it"; and "after 

September[] 2005, [the principal] claimed that he periodically . . . mention[ed] 

complaints to [Ziznewski] about her not coordinating with teachers generally, 

and . . . tried to mediate meetings in order to address those concerns, but . . . 

Ziznewski would fail to show up and/or cooperate." The Board also relied on 

the tenure ALJ's finding that the problems with Ziznewski's conduct that lead to 

her dismissal "began to build" during the 2005-2006 school year, and the 
5

A-4961-17T1

forfeiture ALJ's finding that "the behaviors . . . which [led] to the tenure charges 

started before January 1, 2006[,] and steadily escalated." 

The Board concluded Ziznewski's misconduct warranting partial 

forfeiture of service and salary under N.J.S.A. 43:1-3(d) "started well before

January 1, 2006, and steadily escalated." The Board further found that although 

"it arguably could have commenced a forfeiture prior to" January 1, 2006, a 

forfeiture period commencing on that date and continuing "through June 30, 

2010, the last date pension contributions were remitted on [Ziznewski's] behalf, 

is appropriate in light of [her] continuous and escalating misconduct." This 

appeal followed.

"Our review of administrative agency action is limited." Russo v. Bd. of 

Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 206 N.J. 14, 27 (2011). A reviewing court 

will presume the validity of the "administrative agency's exercise of its 

statutorily delegated responsibilities." Lavezzi v. State, 219 N.J. 163, 171 

(2014). Thus, "an appellate court ordinarily should not disturb an administrative 

agency's determinations or findings unless there is a clear showing that (1) the 

agency did not follow the law; (2) the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or 

unreasonable; or (3) the decision was not supported by substantial evidence." In 

re Virtua-West Jersey Hosp. Voorhees for a Certificate of Need, 194 N.J. 413, 
6

A-4961-17T1

422 (2008). "The burden of demonstrating that the agency's action was 

arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable rests upon the [party] challenging the 

administrative action." In re Arenas, 385 N.J. Super. 440, 443-44 (App. Div. 

2006).

"[T]he test is not whether an appellate court would come to the same 

conclusion . . . but rather whether the factfinder could reasonably so conclude 

upon the proofs." Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997) (quoting 

Charatan v. Bd. of Review, 200 N.J. Super. 74, 79 (App. Div. 1985)). A 

reviewing court "may not vacate an agency determination because of doubts as 

to its wisdom or because the record may support more than one result." In re 

N.J. Pinelands Comm'n Resolution PC4-00-89, 356 N.J. Super. 363, 372 (App. 

Div. 2003). "Where . . . the determination is founded upon sufficient credible 

evidence seen from the totality of the record and on that record findings have 

been made and conclusions reached involving agency expertise, the agency 

decision should be sustained." Gerba v. Bd. of Trs., Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys., 83 

N.J. 174, 189 (1980).

Ziznewski presents a singular argument for our consideration. She 

contends the Board's decision should be reversed because the Board failed to 

comply with our remand order requiring that it set forth its findings supporting 
7

A-4961-17T1

the commencement date of the partial forfeiture. We have carefully considered 

the argument and find that it lacks sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a 

written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and affirm for the reasons set forth in the 

Board's decision, which includes findings supporting its determination that the 

period of partial forfeiture under N.J.S.A. 43:1-3(d) commenced on January 1, 

2006.

Affirmed.