Court Opinion

ID: 9927579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-29 15:06:56.398011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:35.918388
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

                                                        SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                        APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                        DOCKET NO. A-1226-22

DAVID WINKLER,

          Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM,

     Respondent-Respondent.
__________________________

                   Argued January 9, 2024 – Decided January 29, 2024

                   Before Judges Smith and Perez Friscia.

                   On appeal from the Board of Trustees of the Public
                   Employees' Retirement System, Department of
                   Treasury, PERS No. xx8026.

                   Michael Patrick DeRose argued the cause the appellant
                   (Crivelli, Barbati & DeRose, LLC, attorneys; Michael
                   Patrick DeRose, on the brief).

                   Porter Ross Strickler, Deputy Attorney General, argued
                   the cause for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney
                   General, attorney; Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant
            Attorney General, of counsel; Porter Ross Strickler, on
            the brief).

PER CURIAM

      Appellant David Winkler appeals from the November 17, 2022 final

agency decision (FAD) of the Board of Trustees (Board) of the Public

Employees' Retirement System (PERS) denying his application for deferred

retirement benefits. The Board denied Winkler's application for benefits after

finding him ineligible due to his convictions stemming from official misconduct

while a State of New Jersey employee. We affirm.

                                      I.

      The pertinent facts are undisputed. In 1987, Winkler began employment

as a repairer for the State and enrolled in PERS. He was last employed as a

building management specialist with the Division of Property Management and

Construction (PMC).

      On April 10, 2008, Winkler was arrested for the theft of State property

between 2005 and 2007—namely, stealing scrap metal and equipment which

was then sold—in a scheme with another State employee. Winkler was charged

with multiple offenses, including second-degree official misconduct. PMC

began an employment disciplinary action for conduct unbecoming of a public

employee and suspended Winkler from employment pending resolution of the

                                                                         A-1226-22
                                      2
charges. On January 23, 2013, a jury convicted Winkler of conspiracy, official

misconduct, theft, and misapplication of government property. Two days later,

the trial judge ordered Winkler's forfeiture of public employment and

permanently disqualified him from holding any public position. Winkler was

sentenced to a five-year term of imprisonment.

      On April 19, the State notified Winkler that he forfeited his employment

with the State in accordance with N.J.A.C. 2C:51-2.         The Civil Service

Commission and the New Jersey Division of Pension and Benefits (Division)

were also notified. At the time, Winkler had twenty years and nine months of

service credit in his PERS account, and irrespective of the forfeiture

disqualification would only have been eligible for deferred retirement benefits

based on his age in October 2021.

      On October 2, 2020, Winkler applied to the Division for deferred

retirement benefits. On August 18, 2022, relying on N.J.S.A. 43:15A-38, the

Board denied his request for benefits, finding him ineligible for cause based on

his employment forfeiture for official misconduct.       Winkler filed a self-

represented appeal seeking reversal of the Board's decision arguing: there were

discrepancies in his case; his misconduct predated "the new law for mandatory

forfeiture"; neither the State's notice of forfeiture nor the judge's ordered

                                                                          A-1226-22
                                       3
forfeiture referenced "the pension"; his job performance was stellar; and he had

saved "the State $4.2 million . . . in reusable furniture" from his "infraction."

      On November 17, the Board issued its FAD finding Winkler ineligible for

deferred retirement benefits. The Board determined Winkler was ineligible

pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:15A-38 because he was removed "for cause on charges

of misconduct." Finding no "disputed questions of fact," the Board decided the

matter "without the need for an administrative hearing."

      On appeal, Winkler raises for the first time his contention that the Board

was equitably estopped from denying deferred retirement benefits because it

failed to determine ineligibility in 2013 when his conviction for official

misconduct was known. Alternatively, Winkler argues the matter should be

remanded to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for a hearing.

                                         II.

      We conduct a limited review of agency determinations.                   In re

DiGuglielmo, 252 N.J. 350, 359 (2022). "An administrative agency's final

quasi-judicial decision will be sustained unless there is a clear showing that it is

arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or that it lacks fair support in the record."

Ibid. (quoting Russo v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 206 N.J. 14,

27 (2011)). We give deference to "the interpretation of the agency charged with

                                                                               A-1226-22
                                         4
applying and enforcing a statutory scheme." Id. at 359-60 (quoting Hargrove v.

Sleepy's, LLC, 220 N.J. 289, 301 (2015)). We also "'defer to an agency's

technical expertise, its superior knowledge of its subject matter area, and its fact -

finding role,'" and therefore are "obliged to accept all factual findings that are

supported by sufficient credible evidence." Futterman v. Bd. of Rev., Dep't of

Labor, 421 N.J. Super. 281, 287 (App. Div. 2011) (quoting Messick v. Bd. of

Rev., 420 N.J. Super. 321, 325 (App. Div. 2011)). However, we are not bound

by an "agency's interpretation of a statute or its determination of a strictly legal

issue." In re Ridgefield Park Bd. of Educ., 244 N.J. 1, 17 (2020) (quoting

Saccone v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 219 N.J. 369, 380 (2014)).

Instead, we "review[] an agency's interpretation of a statute de novo."

DiGuglielmo, 252 N.J. at 359.

      When determining an applicant's eligibility for pension benefits,

"eligibility is not to be liberally permitted." Smith v. Dep't of Treasury, Div. of

Pensions & Benefits, 390 N.J. Super. 209, 213 (App. Div. 2007).

"Instead, . . . the applicable guidelines must be carefully interpreted so as not to

'obscure or override considerations of . . . a potential adverse impact on the

financial integrity of the [f]und.'" Ibid. (second and third alterations in original)

(quoting Chaleff v. Teachers' Pension & Annuity Fund Trs., 188 N.J. Super.

                                                                               A-1226-22
                                          5
194, 197 (App. Div. 1983)). We have recognized "an employee has only such

rights and benefits as are based upon and within the scope of the provisions of

the statute." Caucino v. Bd. of Trs., Teachers' Pension & Annuity Fund, 475

N.J. Super. 405, 413 (App. Div. 2023) (quoting Francois v. Bd. of Trs., Pub.

Emps.' Ret. Sys., 415 N.J. Super. 335, 349 (App. Div. 2010)). The burden to

establish pension eligibility is on the applicant, not the Board. See Patterson v.

Bd. of Trs., State Police Ret. Sys., 194 N.J. 29, 50-51 (2008).

                                       III.

      Winkler concedes his ineligibility for deferred retirement benefits under

the application of N.J.S.A. 43:15A-38, which disqualifies a PERS member from

receiving benefits if removed from public employment "for cause on charges of

misconduct or delinquency." It is clear that "forfeiture of deferred retirement

benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:15A-38 is conditioned on an involuntary

removal due to misconduct related to employment." In re Hess, 422 N.J. Super.

27, 37 (App. Div. 2011).      While acknowledging his statutory ineligibility,

Winkler argues that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies because the Board

failed "to act when initially notified of [his] criminal conviction and subsequent

[judge's] [o]rder of [f]orfeiture of [e]mployment." He avers the Board's failure

to provide notice of his pension ineligibility in 2013 deprived him of financial

                                                                            A-1226-22
                                        6
investment opportunities on the accumulated pension contributions he would

have withdrawn.

      Winkler's argument is procedurally defective because he failed to raise

this argument before the Board, and therefore it is not properly before us. We

generally decline to consider issues not presented below when an opportunity

for such a presentation is available unless the questions raised on appeal concern

jurisdiction or matters of great public interest. Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co.,

62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973); see also Zaman v. Felton, 219 N.J. 199, 226-27 (2014)

(recognizing claims that are not presented to a trial court are inappropriate for

consideration on appeal). Contrary to Winkler's assertion, this matter is not one

of great public concern.

      Nevertheless, we briefly address his equitable estoppel contention. In

addition to the Board's failure to notify him of his ineligibility in 2013, Winkler

argues he detrimentally relied on an estimate of retirement benefits received

from the Division in March 2019. This argument is without merit.

      A pension member cannot invoke an equitable remedy to override an

unambiguous statute. See Berg v. Christie, 225 N.J. 245, 280 (2016). The

doctrine of equitable estoppel is "rarely invoked against a governmental entity."

Welsh v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 443 N.J. Super. 367, 376

                                                                             A-1226-22
                                        7
(App. Div. 2016) (quoting Middletown Twp. Policemen's Benevolent Ass'n

Local No. 124 v. Township of Middletown, 162 N.J. 361, 367 (2000)).

"Equitable estoppel may be invoked against a governmental entity only 'to

prevent manifest injustice.'" Berg, 225 N.J. at 280 (quoting O'Malley v. Dep't

of Energy, 109 N.J. 309, 316 (1987)).       The equitable estoppel doctrine is

limitedly applied to "conduct, either intentionally or under circumstances that

induced reliance." Id. at 279 (quoting Knorr v. Smeal, 178 N.J. 169, 178

(2003)). Such conduct "involves 'a knowing and intentional misrepresentation.'"

Ibid. (quoting O'Malley, 109 N.J. at 317). Hence, the doctrine of equitable

estoppel is inapplicable here.

      Plaintiff has not cited, nor has our research revealed, any authority to

support the argument that the Board had a duty to inform Winkler of his

ineligibility upon his conviction for official misconduct. Further, the estimate

of retirement benefits received was not a misrepresentation by the Division but

rather a projection of available benefits if he was eligible upon retirement. Any

reliance by Winkler was misplaced and certainly not induced. See Tasca v. Bd.

of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 458 N.J. Super. 47, 60 (App. Div. 2019)

(rejecting an equitable estoppel claim because the applicant could not

demonstrate an "award or official correspondence . . . stating that she was

                                                                           A-1226-22
                                       8
eligible for an early retirement pension"). Winkler's argument that his criminal

attorney advised "his pension eligibility was not in jeopardy" is also unavailing.

      Finally, we reject Winkler's argument that the Board's denial of his request

to transfer the case to the OAL should be reversed to provide "the opportunity

to develop a record in light of the new matter he ha[d] raised." "A hearing is

'mandated only when the proposed administrative action is based on disputed

adjudicatory facts.'" Rooth v. Bd. of Trs., Public Emps.' Ret. Sys., 472 N.J.

Super. 357, 369 (App. Div. 2022) (quoting In re Farmer's Mut. Fire. Assurance

Ass'n of N.J., 256 N.J. Super. 607, 618 (App. Div. 1992)). The Board correctly

declined to grant an evidentiary hearing because there were no material facts in

dispute; thus, we conclude its decision was not "arbitrary, capricious, or

unreasonable." DiGuglielmo, 252 N.J. at 359 (quoting Russo, 206 N.J. at 27).

      Affirmed.

                                                                            A-1226-22
                                        9