SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2090-16T3

IN THE MATTER OF 

CHRISTIE MONSERRATE,

SHERIFF'S OFFICER (S9999R),

COUNTY OF HUDSON.

_____________________________

Submitted October 29, 2018 – Decided

Before Judges Haas and Sumners.

On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service 

Commission, Docket No. 2016-3516.

Christie Monserrate, appellant pro se.

Chasan Lamparello Mallon & Cappuzzo, PC, attorneys 

for respondent County of Hudson (Cindy N. Vogelman, 

of counsel and on the brief; Qing H. Guo, on the brief).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent Civil Service Commission (Pamela N. 

Ullman, Deputy Attorney General, on the statement in 

lieu of brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant Christie Monserrate appeals from the November 30, 2016 final 

decision of the Civil Service Commission (Commission) upholding the removal 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

November 7, 2018
2

A-2090-16T3

of appellant's name from a list of candidates eligible for appointment to the 

position of Sheriff's Officer with the County of Hudson (the County). We 

affirm.

The County previously employed appellant as a Corrections Officer 

between September 2001 and February 2011. During that period, the County 

disciplined appellant on six separate occasions for various breaches of the 

County's rules and procedures. The County imposed a major, twenty-day 

suspension for one of these infractions and a major, forty-five-day suspension 

for another. In the latter incident, appellant failed to complete reports and, as a 

result, three inmates were incorrectly released from custody.

In October 2010, the County charged appellant with, among other things, 

insubordination, conduct unbecoming an employee, and neglect of duty after an 

investigation revealed she had been carrying on a prohibited personal 

relationship with an inmate at the jail. Appellant had received numerous calls 

from the inmate on her cell phone while at the jail, and she also gave $490 to 

the inmate's mother so the inmate could pay a fine. The County sought to 

remove appellant from employment, but agreed to permit her to resign 

voluntarily in good standing in February 2011.
3

A-2090-16T3

In November 2013, appellant took an open competitive examination for 

the Sheriff's Officer position with the County. She received a passing score and 

appeared on the certification for this position as the 148th eligible candidate on 

a list containing 200 names.

The Commission has promulgated regulations that permit names to be 

removed from an eligible list for a variety of reasons that may disqualify the 

candidate for appointment. N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7; N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1. Specifically, 

N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1(a)(7) states that a candidate may be removed from an eligible 

list if he or she "[h]as a prior employment history which relates adversely to the 

title[.]"

The job specification for a Sheriff's Officer includes duties such as 

maintaining order and security in the courtroom, serving court processes, 

assisting in making criminal identifications, and apprehending fugitives. A 

Sheriff's Officer may also be assigned to perform other law enforcement duties 

outside the courtroom. Because of appellant's extremely poor prior employment 

history in the criminal justice field, the County asked the Commission to remove 

appellant's name from the list.

Through her attorney, appellant contested this proposed action, and the 

matter was referred to the Commission's Division of Appeals and Regulatory 
4

A-2090-16T3

Affairs, which upheld the removal of appellant's name from the eligible list. The 

Division advised appellant of her right to appeal its determination to the 

Commission and, through her attorney, appellant took advantage of this 

opportunity for review.

On November 30, 2016, the Commission rendered a comprehensive 

written decision approving the County's request to remove appellant from the 

eligible list. The Commission found that 

appellant's prior disciplinary history, together with her 

admissions to concealing a personal relationship with 

an inmate from her former employer, providing money 

to that inmate's mother to pay a fine for him, and 

routinely taking calls on a personal cell phone within 

the confines of the correctional facility from that same 

individual, reflects poorly on the appellant's ability to 

perform [the] law enforcement duties [described 

above]. Accordingly, . . . appellant's adverse 

employment history provides a sufficient basis to 

remove . . . appellant's name from the subject eligible 

list.

This appeal followed.

On appeal, appellant argues that the Commission erred in removing her 

name from the eligible list due to her poor employment history. She also asserts 

that she did not have notice and an opportunity to be heard concerning the 

Commission's action. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we 

find insufficient merit in appellant's contentions to warrant discussion in a 
5

A-2090-16T3

written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D) and (E). We therefore affirm substantially 

for the reasons stated by the Commission in its comprehensive final decision. 

We add the following brief comments.

Appellate review of an administrative agency decision is limited. In re 

Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 27 (2007). A "strong presumption of reasonableness 

attaches" to the Commission's decision. In re Carroll, 339 N.J. Super. 429, 437 

(App. Div. 2001) (quoting In re Vey, 272 N.J. Super. 199, 2015 (App. Div. 

1993), aff'd, 135 N.J. 306 (1994)). Therefore, we generally defer to final agency 

actions, only "reversing those actions if they are 'arbitrary, capricious or 

unreasonable or [if the action] is not supported by substantial credible evidence 

in the record as a whole.'" N.J. Soc'y for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. 

N.J. Dep't of Agric., 196 N.J. 366, 384-85 (2008) (alteration in original) (quoting 

Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980)). It is not our place 

to second-guess or substitute our judgment for that of the agency and, therefore, 

we do not "engage in an independent assessment of the evidence as if [we] were 

the court of first instance." In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999) (quoting State 

v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999)).

Applying these principles, we discern no basis for disturbing the 

Commission's decision to remove appellant from the eligible list. Appellant was 
6

A-2090-16T3

represented by an attorney throughout the proceedings before the Commission. 

She received written notice of the proposed removal of her name from the 

eligible list, and a full opportunity to contest this action. The record amply 

supports the Commission's conclusion that appellant's unsatisfactory 

employment record in her prior position as a Corrections Officer "reflect[ed] 

poorly on [her] ability to perform the[] law enforcement duties" of a Sheriff's 

Officer under N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1(a)(7). This decision was not arbitrary, 

capricious, or unreasonable, is supported by substantial credible evidence, and 

is entitled to our deference.

Affirmed.