# REGINA NAGLE v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ETC. ROSEMARY MCCOY v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ETC. (STATE POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM) (CONSOLIDATED)

> New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · February 11, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6221382

## Case

- **Court:** New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
- **Decided:** February 11, 2022
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6221382

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 NOS. A-2758-19
A-3887-19

REGINA NAGLE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
STATE POLICE
RETIREMENT SYSTEM,

Respondent-Respondent.
__________________________

ROSEMARY MCCOY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
STATE POLICE
RETIREMENT SYSTEM,

Respondent-Respondent.
__________________________

Submitted November 29, 2021 – Decided February 11, 2022
Before Judges Fasciale and Sumners.

On appeal from the Board of Trustees of the State
Police Retirement System, Department of the Treasury,
SPRS Nos. xx-3425 and xx-3426.

Lauren Sandy, attorney for appellants.

Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Christopher Meyer, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In these consolidated appeals, the parties having filed a stipulation of

dismissal. We must point out appellants' counsel notified the court on January

21, 2022, that this matter was being dismissed because respondent issued a

final agency decision on July 29, 2021, which reconsidered and granted the

relief appellants requested due to newly enacted legislation. Unbeknownst to

the court, that decision was rendered four months before we considered the

appeal on November 29, 2021. While we appreciate counsel's representation

that there were administrative issues in implementing the decision, she had a

responsibility to alert the court of the probable resolution to avoid unnecessary

waste of judicial resources. See Sessner v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., 435

N.J. Super. 347 (App. Div. 2014). In fact, our decision in this appeal was

A-2758-19
2
scheduled to be released on January 24, 2022, but was pulled upon notification

of the dismissal.

Dismissed with prejudice and without costs.

A-2758-19
3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6221382. Public record. Not legal advice.