Kenneth Mr. Vercammen was included in the 2017 “Super Lawyers” list published by Thomson Reuters.

To schedule a confidential consultation, email us at VercammenAppointments@NJlaws.com, call or visit www.njlaws.com

(732) 572-0500

Thursday, March 11, 2010

JOHN KRAYNIAK V. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM A-2578-08T3

JOHN KRAYNIAK V. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM A-2578-08T3 03-08-10

In this appeal we decide whether a member of the
Prosecutor's Part of the Public Employees' Retirement System
(PERS) is eligible to retire pursuant to the Early Retirement
Incentive Act (ERI), L. 2008, c. 21. We hold that such a member
is not eligible to retire pursuant to ERI.

JOHN PAFF v. DIVISION OF LAW A-3007-08T1

JOHN PAFF v. DIVISION OF LAW
A-3007-08T1
03-05-10
We analyze whether unpublished Administrative Agency Advice
(AAA) letters issued by the Division of Law, which interpret the
statutes and regulations the Division's administrative agency
clients are required to apply and enforce, are "government
records" for purposes of the Open Public Records Act (OPRA),
N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13, and therefore available to the public.
We answer that question in the negative because we are satisfied
that the AAAs are a "record within the attorney-client
privilege," N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1, and therefore not subject to
public access under OPRA.

NJ EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, ET AL V. STATE OF NJ, ET AL A-4460-07T1

NJ EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, ET AL V. STATE OF NJ, ET AL
A-4460-07T1 03-04-10
We hold that members of the Teachers' Pension and Annuity
Fund (TPAF), although entitled by law to the receipt of vested
benefits upon retirement, possess no constitutionally-protected
contract right to the particular level, manner or method of
State funding provided by statute.

In re Election Law Enforcement Commission Advisory Opinion No. 01-2008 (A-83-08

In re Election Law Enforcement Commission Advisory
Opinion No. 01-2008 (A-83-08) 3-8-10
The Election Law Enforcement Commission’s interpretion
of N.J.S.A. 19:44A-11.2(a)(6) is not plainly
unreasonable. An “ordinary” expense of holding public
office does not include legal costs incurred defending
against an indictment charging official corruption.

Friday, March 5, 2010

2A:44-131. Priority of lien over assignments

2A:44-131. Priority of lien over assignments
The lien given by and filed pursuant to this article shall have priority over an assignment, by a contractor or subcontractor to a third person of moneys due or to grow due to such contractor or subcontractor for labor performed or materials furnished for a public improvement referred to in this article even though such assignment was made prior to filing of notice by the lien claimant, but not if such money had been paid to the assignee at the time of the filing of notice.

2A:44-130. Release of funds from lien; bond

2A:44-130. Release of funds from lien; bond
The funds to which a lien has attached as provided by section 2A:44-129 of this title may be released and paid to the contractor by the financial officer of the public agency upon the filing with such officer of a bond in double the sum of all claims filed under the provisions of this article against the contract or the funds due or to grow due thereunder, and conditioned for the payment of such sum as may be adjudged to be due under such claims. The bond shall be approved, as to the form by the chief law officer of the public agency, and, as to the sufficiency thereof, by the financial officer with whom it is filed.

2A:44-129. Commencement and extent of lien; exception

2A:44-129. Commencement and extent of lien; exception
A lien created by this article shall, from the time of the filing thereof, attach, to the extent of the liability of the contractor or subcontractor as the case may be, for the claim preferred upon any funds due or to grow due to the contractor from the public agency under the contract against which the lien claim is filed unless released as provided by section 2A:44-130 of this title.

59:10A-2. Grounds for refusal to provide defense

59:10A-2. Grounds for refusal to provide defense
The Attorney General may refuse to provide for the defense of an action referred to in section 1 if he determines that:

a. the act or omission was not within the scope of employment; or

b. the act or the failure to act was because of actual fraud, willful misconduct or actual malice; or

c. the defense of the action or proceeding by the Attorney General would create a conflict of interest between the State and the employee or former employee.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

59:10A-5. Methods of providing defense

59:10A-5. Methods of providing defense
The Attorney General may provide for a defense pursuant to this act by an attorney from his own staff or by employing other counsel for this purpose or by asserting the State's right under any appropriate insurance policy which requires the insurer to provide the defense.

59:10A-4. Attorney General's exclusive control over litigation

59:10A-4. Attorney General's exclusive control over litigation
Whenever the Attorney General provides for the defense of a State employee or former State employee pursuant to this act, the Attorney General may assume exclusive control over the representation of such employee or former State employee and such employee or former State employee shall cooperate fully with the Attorney General's defense.

59:10A-3. The Attorney General's authority to represent

59:10A-3. The Attorney General's authority to represent
In any other action or proceeding, including criminal proceedings, the Attorney General may provide for the defense of a State employee or former State employee, if he concludes that such representation is in the best interest of the State.