NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

PER CURIAM.

Michal Manzo appeals from the final decision of the Board of Trustees (Board) of the Police and Firemen's Retirement System (PFRS) denying his request to rescind a retirement application he submitted in 2009 and be retroactively reenrolled into PFRS as a Tier 1 member without any gap in membership. Manzo argues the Board erred in denying his request as untimely. However, even if the request was untimely filed, Manzo argues the equities weigh in his favor, allowing him to rescind his retirement and be retroactively reenrolled into PFRS.

We disagree and affirm. The record shows that on November 8, 2010, the Board informed Manzo he had "thirty days after (A) the effective date of [his] retirement, or (B) the date [his] retirement was approved by the [Board], whichever is the later date, to make any changes to [his] retirement." Manzo did not act to make any changes in his retirement status within the timeframe established by the Board. Given our standard of review, we discern no legal basis to interfere with or otherwise disturb the Board's decision. We also reject Manzo's claim that "the equities favor his position." Manzo received retirement benefits for over two years. He was reenrolled in the PFRS after he was rehired as a firefighter. The tier level he is in now is directly attributable to his voluntary decision to seek to collect the earlier retirement benefits.

I

The Board transmitted Manzo's request to the Office of Administrative Law for determination of contested facts pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to-15 and N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23. The parties thereafter submitted their evidence and legal arguments to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assigned to issue an Initial Decision to the Board. After considering the evidence presented, the ALJ concluded the matter was ripe for Summary Decision. Applying the summary judgment standards in Rule 4:46-2 and Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995), the ALJ found Manzo was not entitled to the relief he was seeking as a matter of law.

The ALJ explained his ruling in an Initial Decision which the Board adopted with modification. The following facts are taken from the ALJ's decision.

II

Manzo began his employment with the Jersey City Department of Fire and Emergency Services in March 1982 and was enrolled in the PFRS shortly thereafter. In 2009, Manzo unsuccessfully ran as an independent candidate for a seat on the Jersey City Council. On July 23, 2009, Manzo was arrested by federal authorities and charged by the Government of the United States with conspiracy to commit extortion under color of official right for allegedly agreeing to accept $5000 from a developer to fund his campaign, in exchange for future official assistance in connection with a purported development project.

Jersey City immediately suspended Manzo without pay from his position as a firefighter. The ALJ found Jersey City officials initially gave Manzo an ultimatum: voluntarily resign or face termination. Manzo eventually negotiated a compromise through which Jersey City agreed not to oppose his application for retirement. On November 17, 2009, Manzo applied for the special retirement benefits authorized by N.J.A.C. 17:4-6.11(b)1 to be effective as of December 1, 2009.

On December 2, 2009, Manzo pled guilty in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to the charge of accepting a bribe as a candidate for political office. However, because the court had not yet imposed a sentence, the Board did not immediately approve Manzo's retirement application and deferred acting on the matter.2 The ALJ also noted that "the legality of Manzo's guilty plea had been called into question by the judge in a related case, because on the claim that the statute under which Manzo had been charged involved the holder of a public office (which Manzo was not) rather than the holder of a public position (which Manzo was as a fireman)."

In the meantime, Manzo's attorney requested the Board to approve his application and allow him to receive his pension benefits. According to the ALJ, Manzo claimed he had exhausted his savings and emphasized the criminal charges were unrelated to his position as a firefighter. On October 13, 2010, the Board sent Manzo a letter informing him that his retirement allowance had "not been Board approved." However, the Board "voted to permit Mr. Manzo to begin collecting his monthly retirement allowance so he can begin recouping his accumulated pension contributions while the criminal charges remain pending." Manzo was thus allowed to recoup the funds he had contributed to his pension account during his employment, approximately $130,317.41, retroactive to December 1, 2009. The Board voted to reexamine Manzo's account on October 1, 2011, or when he received the equivalent of the return on his contributions, whichever occurred first.

On November 8, 2010, Manzo received what appears to be a form-letter from the Bureau of Retirements addressed to "retiree," congratulating him on his retirement. The letter stated "[t]he Board of Trustees, at their regular meeting on November 8, 2010, approved your application for Special Retirement effective December 1, 2009." Of particular relevance here, the letter apprised Manzo, as required under N.J.A.C. 17:4-6.23 and N.J.A.C. 17:4-6.3(a)4, that he had thirty days to "make any changes to [his] retirement." After the thirty day period, the retirement allowance would become "due and payable" and the first check mailed. See N.J.A.C. 17:4-6.3(a). Manzo did not cancel or otherwise change his application by December 8, 2010, and began receiving monthly payments.

Manzo's counsel wrote a letter to the Board dated September 9, 2011, advising it that Manzo's guilty plea would likely be vacated by the court. Counsel thus asked the Board to continue sending Manzo the monthly pension payments. By letter dated November 15, 2011, the Board apprised Manzo's counsel that the Board had discussed Manzo's case at its November 14, 2011 meeting. The Board memorialized that "Manzo's pension was suspended as of October 1, 2011." Nevertheless, the Board "voted to permit Mr. Manzo to continue collecting his monthly retirement allowance until he has recouped the accumulated pension contributions that was [sic] remitted on his behalf." Manzo's accumulated contributions were set to be exhausted on January 1, 2012.

On December 21, 2011, Manzo's lawyer again wrote to the Board asking it to continue sending Manzo the monthly payments. The Board responded on January 10, 2012, stating that although Manzo recouped his accumulated pension contributions as of January 1, 2012, it had "voted to permit Mr. Manzo to continue collecting his monthly retirement allowance."

The ALJ found that "[i]n late January 2012 the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the charges against Manzo, noting that the U.S. Attorney had improperly charged him with a violation of a federal statute." On March 2, 2012, Manzo's attorney advised the Board of the District Court's decision and asked the Board to rescind Manzo's retirement and retroactively reenroll him into the PFRS so he could be rehired by Jersey City.

The Board met to discuss the matter on March 12, 2012. Manzo appeared before the Board on March 14, 2012. By letter dated the same day, the Board informed Manzo's attorney that it had "denied the request to rescind [Manzo's] retirement as he has collected retirement benefits for over two (2) years." Because Manzo did not cancel his retirement application within thirty days of the Board's November 8 letter, "he has far exceeded his 30 day period to rescind his retirement benefits." The Board's letter also advised Manzo of the following relevant provisions in N.J.S.A. 43:16A-15.3 applicable to his case:

In granting summary decision in favor of the Board, the ALJ framed the question thusly: "whether the Board approved Manzo's retirement application before he sought to withdraw it, and, if so, whether there are unique circumstances that warrant disregard of the regulation limiting the time period during which a retirement application can be rescinded." The ALJ acknowledged that the Board "gave very different, and arguably ambiguous, signals at [the] time." However, despite any initial ambiguity, the ALJ found the Board's October 13, 2010 letter permitted Manzo to collect monthly retirement allowances despite the clear authority conferred to the Board by N.J.A.C. 17:1-6.2(c) not to process Manzo's application "until the matter has been fully adjudicated and completely resolved to the satisfaction of the Board of Trustees[.]"

Dispositive of the question at issue, the ALJ found:

Against these findings, the ALJ concluded Manzo had not established any legal or equitable basis for the relief he was seeking. As stated earlier, the Board accepted the ALJ's findings and recommendations without modification.

III

Our standard of review of a final decision of a State administrative agency is well-settled. "[A]n appellate court will not upset an agency's ultimate determination unless the agency's decision is shown to have been arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." Barrick v. State, 218 N.J. 247, 259 (2014) (citations omitted). We must defer to the agency's expertise and superior knowledge of a particular field and not substitute our judgment for that of the agency, even when we may have reached a different conclusion. In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011).

In light of this standard of review, we discern no legal basis to interfere with or otherwise alter the final decision of the Board. The record shows Manzo received favorable treatment by the Board at every turn, even when the regulations governing this pension system vested the Board with the discretion to withhold the issuance of any benefits until the criminal charges against him were completely resolved. Manzo received benefits during the two years at issue in excess of the total contribution payments he made into the system.

We are also compelled to note that Manzo pleaded guilty to accepting a bribe in return for his commitment to support a development project once he was elected to the Jersey City Governing Council. The District Court's decision to vacate his conviction was not based on evidence showing Manzo did not accept a quid pro quo bribe. The court merely found Manzo was not within the class of public officials covered by the statute. Stated differently, he was merely a candidate for public office at the time he accepted this bribe. This is not the equivalent of an exoneration. The District Court's decision does not address the moral dimension of Manzo's actions. We discern no basis to disturb the Board's decision to balance the equities in this case against relaxing the thirty-day time restriction under N.J.A.C. 17:4-6.2 and permit Manzo to withdraw his application for retirement.

Affirmed.