WASTE MANAGEMENT OF N.J., INC. v. MORRIS COUNTY MUNICIPAL UTILITIES AUTHORITY, ET AL.

WASTE MANAGEMENT OF N.J., INC. v. MORRIS COUNTY
MUNICIPAL UTILITIES AUTHORITY, ET AL.
 A-2806-12T1/A-2808-12T1 (CONSOLIDATED)

In this public bidding matter, the court granted leave
to appeal the denial of an interlocutory injunction based
solely on the trial judge's determination that plaintiffs
were not likely to succeed on the merits. Because the
judge mistakenly overlooked his authority to impose
interlocutory injunctive relief to preserve the parties'
positions and subject matter of the suit – even when there
are legitimate doubts about plaintiffs' likelihood of
success – the court reversed. 12/16/13

IRVIN B. BEAVER VS. MAGELLAN HEALTH SERVICES,

IRVIN B. BEAVER VS. MAGELLAN HEALTH SERVICES,
INC., ET AL.
 A-1311-12T3

Under what circumstances may a litigant pursue common
law and statutory causes of action in the Law Division,
rather than appeal from State final agency determination,
where the merits of the agency determination are at issue?
This is the question we address in deciding this appeal. 12/11/13

PATERSON POLICE PBA LOCAL 1, ET AL. VS. CITY OF PATERSON

PATERSON POLICE PBA LOCAL 1, ET AL. VS. CITY OF
PATERSON, ETC.
 A-1263-11T1

The parties engaged in compulsory interest arbitration
after N.J.S.A. 40A:10-21(b) required public employees to
pay a contribution of 1.5 percent of base salary toward
their health benefits and the resulting award made specific
reference to this requirement. However neither the statute
nor the award defined "base salary." Defendant City of
Paterson interpreted the term as base pensionable salary
and made deductions accordingly. Plaintiffs initiated this
action, contending that "base salary" meant base
contractual salary and excluded additional items of
compensation such as longevity, educational incentives, and
night and detective differentials. Because "base salary"
was defined in a subsequent statute applicable to the award
here, N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16.7, we assume that, absent any
statement to the contrary, the arbitrator used the term
"base salary" as directed by the Legislature. Therefore,
we reverse the judgment entered in plaintiffs' favor. 11/27/13