Court Opinion

ID: 9756455
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:29:40.059158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:22.989987
License: Public Domain

O’HERN, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the opinion and judgment of the Court, except insofar as the opinion suggests that the initial appointment could not have been ratified. The trial court determined that the Jersey City Council impliedly ratified Casamasino’s 1987 appointment by its silence because “plaintiff occupied his office in an open and notorious manner,” and “one could not conclude otherwise but that the Council had full knowledge of the fact that plaintiff was functioning in every respect as the tax assessor.”
There is decisional support for the theory that the conduct of the township managers constituted an approbation of [Casamasino’s] status as tax assessor so as to validate his appointment. See Barkus v. Sadloch, 20 N.J. 551, 120 A.2d 465 (1956), where [the] Court held that the inappropriate appointment of a city employee was subsequently validated by council’s acts in approving payrolls upon which the employee’s name appeared. In this vein, see also Cetrulo v. Byrne, 31 N.J. 320, 330, 157 A.2d 297 (1960), and Kovalycsik v. Garfield, 58 N.J.Super. 229, 239, 156 A.2d 31 (App.Div.1959).
[Ream v. Kuhlman, 112 N.J.Super. 175, 193, 270 A.2d 712 (App.Div.1970).]
However, I do not believe that tenure as tax assessor may be acquired as a holdover. There having been no reappointment by the new mayor when Casamasino’s original term expired in 1991, the qualifications for achieving tenure under N.J.S.A. 54:1-35.31 were not met.