Case Name: JAMES T. HANNAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF PATERSON; MICHAEL ADAMO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT OF PATERSON POLICE P.B.A. LOCAL NO. 1; AND PATERSON POLICE P.B.A. LOCAL NO. 1, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. CITY OF PATERSON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; LAWRENCE KRAMER, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF PATERSON; WILLIAM F. FORBES, AS DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OF THE CITY OF PATERSON; AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PATERSON, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS; FIREMEN'S MUTUAL BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, LOCAL NO. 2; FIREMEN'S MUTUAL BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, LOCAL NO. 2A; WILLIAM FILIPPELLI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT OF FIREMEN'S MUTUAL BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, LOCAL NO. 2; AND WILLIAM J. COMER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ASSISTANT CHIEF OF THE PATERSON FIRE DEPARTMENT, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. CITY OF PATERSON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; LAWRENCE KRAMER, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF PATERSON; WILLIAM F. FORBES, AS DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OF THE CITY OF PATERSON; AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PATERSON, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1982-11-08
Citations: 91 N.J. 427
Docket Number: 
Parties: JAMES T. HANNAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF PATERSON; MICHAEL ADAMO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT OF PATERSON POLICE P.B.A. LOCAL NO. 1; AND PATERSON POLICE P.B.A. LOCAL NO. 1, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. CITY OF PATERSON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; LAWRENCE KRAMER, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF PATERSON; WILLIAM F. FORBES, AS DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OF THE CITY OF PATERSON; AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PATERSON, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. FIREMEN’S MUTUAL BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, LOCAL NO. 2; FIREMEN’S MUTUAL BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, LOCAL NO. 2A; WILLIAM FILIPPELLI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT OF FIREMEN’S MUTUAL BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, LOCAL NO. 2; AND WILLIAM J. COMER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ASSISTANT CHIEF OF THE PATERSON FIRE DEPARTMENT, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. CITY OF PATERSON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; LAWRENCE KRAMER, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF PATERSON; WILLIAM F. FORBES, AS DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OF THE CITY OF PATERSON; AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PATERSON, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 91
Pages: 427–428

Head Matter:
JAMES T. HANNAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF PATERSON; MICHAEL ADAMO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT OF PATERSON POLICE P.B.A. LOCAL NO. 1; AND PATERSON POLICE P.B.A. LOCAL NO. 1, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. CITY OF PATERSON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; LAWRENCE KRAMER, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF PATERSON; WILLIAM F. FORBES, AS DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OF THE CITY OF PATERSON; AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PATERSON, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. FIREMEN’S MUTUAL BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, LOCAL NO. 2; FIREMEN’S MUTUAL BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, LOCAL NO. 2A; WILLIAM FILIPPELLI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT OF FIREMEN’S MUTUAL BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, LOCAL NO. 2; AND WILLIAM J. COMER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ASSISTANT CHIEF OF THE PATERSON FIRE DEPARTMENT, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. CITY OF PATERSON, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; LAWRENCE KRAMER, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF PATERSON; WILLIAM F. FORBES, AS DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OF THE CITY OF PATERSON; AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PATERSON, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
November 8, 1982.

Opinion:
ORDER
We granted certification in this case because the petition alleged the presence of an important constitutional question with respect to the loss of a claimed fundamental right to an adequate level of police and fire protection guaranteed by NJ.Const. (1947), Art. I, § I.
Assuming, without deciding, that our Constitution incorporates such a guarantee, having considered the briefs and oral argument of the parties and the record below with supplements, and the judgment and decision of the Appellate Division, we are satisfied that the level of reduction of forces involved did not create a genuine legal issue as to the substantive deprivation of such a claimed right and that defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. R. 4:46-2.
It is accordingly ORDERED that, certification having been improvidently granted, the within appeal is dismissed.
For dismissal — Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices PASHMAN, CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER, HANDLER, POLLOCK and O'HERN, JJ.
Opposed —None.