# Uricoli v. Police & Fire. Retirem. Sys.

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · August 5, 1982 · 91 N.J. 62

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9718881

## Case

- **Full name:** Eugene J. Uricoli, Appellant, v. the Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen’s Retirement System, Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** August 5, 1982
- **Citations:** 91 N.J. 62; 449 A.2d 1267; 1982 N.J. LEXIS 2175
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Schreiber
- **Judges:** Handler, Pashman, Schreiber, O'Hern
- **Cited by:** 70 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/9718881

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”
- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9718881. Public record. Not legal advice.