On Tuesday, September 24, three judges sitting in Part D of the Appellate Division will hear oral argument in Bulur v. The New Jersey Office of the Attorney General. The issue there is whether the Attorney General’s office acted improperly in taking over the operations of the City of Paterson Police Department. [Disclosure: My firm, Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC, represents the City of Paterson in various matters. My firm has had no involvement, however, in this particular matter.] The case was filed in the Law Division, Passaic County, but the Attorney General successfully moved to transfer the matter to the Appellate Division. Thus, somewhat unusually for the Appellate Division, there is no opinion below to review.

The Attorney General and the other respondents in this appeal contend that the supersession was proper based on the “loss of faith in the leadership of the Department, longstanding fiscal challenges, and mounting public safety concerns in the City of Paterson,” and that the Attorney general had the power to take the supersession action. Plaintiffs argue that the Attorney General had no such legal authority and that his action was ultra vires. The parties also differ regarding whether plaintiffs’ lawsuits, filed months after the Attorney General issued his order of supersession, were timely.

The case has attracted the interest of the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police, which filed an amicus curiae brief. That brief took no position as to whether the Paterson supersession was proper but advocated that any decision by the Appellate Division should require that the Attorney General’s office promulgate defined standards and principles to guide the exercise of statutory supersession authority.

The oral argument of this appeal can be viewed here. It should be an interesting one.