McEVOY v. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF CLIFFSIDE PARK, 40 N.J. 600 (1963)

194 A.2d 243

JOHN J. McEVOY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF CLIFFSIDE PARK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND JOHN GERRITY, ET AL., INTERVENORS-RESPONDENTS.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.Argued September 23, 1963 —
Decided October 7, 1963.

Appeal from Superior Court, Appellate Division.

Page 601

Mrs. Sylvia B. Pressler argued the cause for plaintiff-appellant (Messrs. Okin Pressler, attorneys; Mrs. Pressler, of counsel and on the brief).

Mr. Leon S. Wolk argued the cause for intervenors-respondents (Messrs. Basile, Delchop Wolk, attorneys; Mr. Wolk, of counsel and on the brief).

No appearance was made or brief filed on behalf of defendants-respondents.

The opinion of the court was delivered

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the majority opinion of that court 78 N.J. Super. 534 (1963).

It should be noted, however, that the statement in the opinion that “[p]laintiff could have been retained in service for a specified period of time [after age 65], provided it did not extend beyond his seventieth birthday” (78 N.J. Super., at p.
539) is not necessary to the decision. Plaintiff’s retention here was “for an indefinite period,” which the Appellate Division properly held to mean that the borough could involuntarily retire him at any time. The question was, therefore, not involved — and we specifically reserve it — whether N.J.S.A. 43:16-1.1
empowers a municipality to retain a police chief in service after he has reached his sixty-fifth birthday on any basis other than at the will of the governing body.

No costs to any party.

For affirmance — Chief Justice WEINTRAUB, and Justices JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, HALL, SCHETTINO and HANEMAN — 7.

For reversal — None.

Page 602