finding that state forfeiture statute did not mandate automatic forfeiture of pensions in every instance of misconduct, in part because of the "national public policy of secure retirement income”
How later courts described this case
- finding that state forfeiture statute did not mandate automatic forfeiture of pensions in every instance of misconduct, in part because of the "national public policy of secure retirement income”
- recognizing that “[pjublic pensions provide public employees with employment stability and financial security”
- in analyzing the legislative intent of a pension forfeiture statute, the Court acknowledged two predilections that weighed against a total pension forfeiture including that "forfeiture – whether of one's pension or any other property or benefit to which one is otherwise entitled – is a penalty or a punishment for wrongful conduct" and that it is also "'remedial in character.'" (citations omitted)
- noting that Uricoli was barred from claiming deferred retirement benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:16A-11.2, the PFRS analog to N.J.S.A. 53:5A-28
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SCHREIBER, J.,
concurring.
I concur. Nothing barred Uricoli’s right to claim accidental disability retirement benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:16A-7 in 1972 because of various back injuries he had incurred while doing routine police work prior to his misconduct. At the time of the traumatic events allegedly causing Uricoli’s disability, all his service was honorable. I would permit that claim to be processed to determine whether Uricoli was eligible for and entitled to an accidental disability retirement allowance under the statutory requirements. I would reverse and remand for that purpose.
It should be noted that at the time of his misconduct Uricoli was not entitled to a pension. He had not attained age 55 and had fewer than 25 years of service. N.J.S.A. 43:16A-5, -11.1. Moreover, he did not qualify under N.J.S.A. 43:16A-11.2, permitting vesting after 15 years of service before age 55, if the employee’s separation from service was not due to charges of misconduct. Therefore his entitlement to a pension is dependent on his disability claim.