Amato v. Township of Ocean School District, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). Yesterday’s post included discussion of a per curiam affirmance by the Supreme Court. Today, the Court published another per curiam affirmance in this case. The Court affirmed “substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Puglisi’s thorough and thoughtful opinion” for the Appellate Division. That decision was published at 480 N.J. Super. 239 (App. Div. 2024).

The Appellate Division’s decision was discussed here. The Court added two clarifying comments. First, the Court noted, as “correct,” the Appellate Division’s conclusion that “teachers were deemed essential employees ‘by the public authority declaring the state of emergency’ through ‘the Governor’s delegation of the responsibility to protect the public to [the Office of Emergency Management (OEM)], and OEM’s adoption of [the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s] list of essential employees, which included teachers.” But the Justices added that “teachers were also deemed essential employees ‘by the public authority declaring the state of emergency’ through the Governor’s delegation of authority to the Department of Health (DOH), and DOH’s issuance of two separate vaccination plans deeming teachers to be ‘essential employees.’”

Second, “like the Appellate Division, [the Court] reject[ed] respondent’s contention that it was ‘denied due process because the Judge of Compensation summarily granted petitioner’s motion after relieving petitioner of the basic requirement to present affidavits from individuals with personal knowledge of the relevant facts.’” The Court observed that the full text of the applicable administrative provision, N.J.A.C. 12:235-3.5(b), requires affidavits on personal knowledge only where “the notice of motion or responsive pleading relies on facts not of record.” Here, the motion at issue relied on public documents, not “facts of record.”