Dismissed officer seeks reinstatement to force

Wayne Truex
wants job back
in Lakewood

By joyce blay
Staff Writer

Dismissed officer seeks
reinstatement to force
Wayne Truex
wants job back
in Lakewood
By joyce blay
Staff Writer

Attorneys for former Lakewood police officer Wayne Truex, who was fired in November, will present their case for his reinstatement at 9 a.m. Nov. 14 before Judge John Futey at the Office of Adminis-trative Law in Trenton, according to Mark Stanton, the deputy records custodian.

"It is called a contested case hearing and it is held in the same way as a trial, but not exactly the same," said Stanton. "It is more informal. The administrative law judge will issue an initial decision, which is transmitted to the agency from which the case is being appealed."

If Truex is not reinstated, said Stanton, he can appeal the judge’s decision to the Appellate Division of the state Superior Court as the next step in the appeals process. From there, he can continue his petition for reinstatement all the way to the state Supreme Court, if it agrees to hear the case.

Stanton, who spoke to the Tri-Town News by telephone on Aug. 6, said there are two issues Futey will hear in order to make his determination. One issue will deal with the suspension of Truex, and the other his dismissal on Nov. 21.

"There was a protest lodged against the suspension," said Stanton. "The dismissal matter is new to us [but] is in the process of being referred as well to Judge Futey."

Truex was dismissed from the Lakewood Police Department following an accident in which he struck and killed Lester Eldridge, 65, of Elmhurst, N.Y., while driving his marked police car on patrol along Clifton Avenue close to midnight on Aug. 30, 2002. Eldridge was crossing the street toward his car after attending a wedding in Lakewood.

Truex, an 18-year police veteran, was fired after telling on-scene officers that he had been drinking beer with his lunch several hours prior to the accident, then denying the admission during questioning by Internal Affairs officers on Sept. 2.

Stanton did not know whether the suspension was related to the incident last year for which Truex was dismissed, or whether it was a separate disciplinary action.

Not only did the former police officer placed his career in jeopardy following the accident, but the dead man’s only living relative also served Truex, the township and the police department with a multimil­lion dollar lawsuit.

Jeffrey H. Ward, the attorney represent­ing Stephen Eldridge, the brother of the ac­cident victim, recently told the Tri-Town News he had reached a settlement with Guy Ryan, an associate with the law firm of township attorney Steven Secare. The six-figure settlement, which Ward declined to reveal until it is finalized, is significantly lower than the $5 million Eldridge initially sought and it also releases Truex from civil responsibility in the incident, the attorney said.

However, he added, it does not reinstate Truex to his former position.

To accomplish that goal, Truex has turned to his own attorneys and the legal avenues open to him under the New Jersey Department of Personnel.

In its meeting minutes of March 14, the Merit System Board of the New Jersey Department of Personnel listed among the decisions on its Internet Web site denial of a request by Truex for interim relief of his immediate suspension effective Nov. 19, 2002 — two days before his dismissal.

Stanton said the two matters would likely be consolidated and heard by Futey at the same time. He said Michael Hobbie was listed on the petition as the attorney who would represent Truex before Futey on Nov. 14 in the matter of his suspension, while Edward Bertuccio would represent Truex in the matter of the dismissal.

Both attorneys are principals in the Toms River firm of Hobbie, Corrigan, Bertuccio and Tashjy.

Hobbie represented Truex in the initial action taken by the Merit Board.

Neither attorney returned calls from the Tri-Town News requesting further informa­tion on the proceeding.

However, Stanton said that unless specifically prohibited by the judge, the hearing would be open to the public.