Salvatore Piarulli v. Board of Education of the Borough of Garwood, Union County, 1/23/2024, (#67-24)

67-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Salvatore Piarulli,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of Garwood,
Union County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
In this case filed June 6, 2023, petitioner – a member of the Garwood Board of Education (Garwood or
Garwood BOE) – sought indemnification from respondent for attorney fees and costs which he incurred
in relation to a contested case, Board of Education of the Borough of Garwood, Union County v.
Salvatore Piarulli, EDU 01176-23, filed February 7, 2023, wherein Garwood sought a ruling that
petitioner was disqualified from serving on the Garwood BOE because he had filed a Notice of Tort Claim
against Garwood and thereby incurred a conflict of interest. The tort claim followed a vote by Garwood
to remove petitioner as its Sending District Representative (SDR) to the Clark Board of Education and
included a demand for $10 million dollars in damages based on an allegation that he was slandered and
libeled as the result of his removal as SDR. In the instant matter, petitioner sought legal fees and costs
of $22,874.60 as indemnity pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-20, as well as interest and additional costs and
fees as permitted by law, all related to his tort claim against the Garwood BOE. Garwood filed a motion
to dismiss, contending that the petition failed to advance a cause of action that demonstrated
entitlement to indemnification under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-20.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: petitioner’s position that he is entitled to indemnification pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-20 for expenditure of money for his attorney fees and costs because he was primarily
acting in the public interest when he filed his Notice of Tort Claim and when he was “defending” himself
in the course of executing his Board duties when Garwood filed suit to disqualify him as a member is
without merit; 	N.J.S.A. 18A:12-20 only obligates a board of education to defray costs incurred by a
member when he or she is defending against a lawsuit or action brought by others for an act or omission
undertaken in the course of performing his or her official duties as a Board member; petitioner’s filing
of his tort claim initiated an action against the Garwood BOE; and petitioner’s tort claim advanced a
cause of action for his own monetary benefit, which was in conflict with his duties as a Board member.
The ALJ concluded that petitioner is not entitled to be indemnified for his attorneys’ fees and costs
based on N.J.S.A. 18A:12-20 or on any other basis. 	Accordingly, the ALJ dismissed the petition with
prejudice.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ that petitioner is not entitled to indemnification
from the Garwood BOE. 	Accordingly, the Initial Decision was adopted as the final decision in this
matter, and the petition was dismissed with prejudice.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader.
It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.

67-24
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 05656-23
Agency Dkt. No. 158-6/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Salvatore Piarulli,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of
Garwood, Union County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) have been reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge that
petitioner is not entitled to indemnification from the Garwood Board of Education.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the
petition of appeal is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: January 23, 2024
Date of Mailing: January 25, 2024
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1.
Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days from the date
of mailing of this decision.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05656-23
AGENCY REF. NO.:158-6/23
SALVATORE PIARULLI,
Petitioner,
vs.
GARWOOD BOARD OF
EDUCATION, UNION COUNTY,
Respondent.
______________________________
Ronald A. Berutti, Esq., for petitioner (Murray-Nolan, Berutti, LLC, attorneys)
Robert E. Levy, Esq. for respondent (Scarinci & Hollenbeck, attorneys)
Record Closed: September 14, 2023 	Decided: December 21, 2023
BEFORE: JOHN P. SCOLLO, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In EDU 05656-23, the parties are the Garwood Board of Education (hereinafter,
“Garwood”, the “BOE”, or “Garwood BOE”) and Salvatore Piarulli (hereinafter “Piarulli”),
a member. 	In his Petition, filed on June 6, 2023 with the Commissioner of Education,
Piarulli seeks indemnification from Garwood BOE for attorneys’ fees and costs, which
he incurred in the matter of EDU 01176-23. 	On June 23, 2023, Garwood BOE filed it
Motion to Dismiss this Petition. On June 26, 2023, the Commissioner transmitted this
matter to the Office of Administrative Law, where it was filed on June 26, 2023 as a

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05656-23
2
contested case pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15 and N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to 13 and
assigned Docket Number EDU 05656-23.
Piarulli’s June 6, 2023 Petition is in one count (Indemnification) specifically
seeking the following relief: (1) legal fees and costs of $22,874.60 as indemnity,
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-20; (2) interest as allowed by law; (3) reasonable legal fees
and cost for this Petition; and (4) such other further and reasonable relief as may be
permitted by law. 	In its June 23, 2023 Motion to Dismiss, the BOE seeks: (1) an Order
Dismissing the June 6, 2023 Petition with Prejudice, arguing that Piarulli’s Petition fails
to 	advance a 	cause of action demonstrating 	entitlement 	to 	indemnification 	under
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-20; (2) reasonable attorney fees and costs of suit; and (3) such other
relief as may be appropriate.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
History of EDU 01176-23
The 	Department 	of 	Education’s 	Office 	of 	Controversies 	and 	Disputes, 	on
February 	7, 	2023 	transmitted 	a 	matter 	filed 	by 	Garwood 	BOE 	to 	the 	Office 	of
Administrative Law. It was filed on February 7, 2023 as a contested case. It was
captioned Board of Education of the Borough of_Garwood, Union County v. Salvatore
Piarulli and it was given OAL Docket Number EDU 01176-23. 	In EDU 01176-23,
Garwood BOE sought a ruling that Piarulli was disqualified from serving on the BOE
because he filed a Notice of Tort Claim against the BOE on January 11, 2023 and
thereby incurred a conflict of interest. 	On February 9, 2023, EDU 01176-23 was
assigned to John P. Scollo, ALJ. 	During a teleconference held before Judge Scollo on
February 13, 2023, the parties mutually agreed as follows: Piarulli withdrew his January
11, 2023 Notice of Tort Claim in exchange for the BOE withdrawing its February 7, 2023
petition in EDU 01176-23. 	As a result of the February 13, 2023 teleconference, Judge
Scollo issued a February 14, 2023 Letter Order.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05656-23
3
History of EDU 01274-23
On January 24, 2023, Piarulli filed a Petition to the Commissioner of Education
seeking to reverse Garwood BOE’s October 18, 2022 vote to remove him as Garwood’s
Sending District Representative and seeking other relief. 	On February 8, 2023, the
Commissioner transmitted this Petition to the Office of Administrative Law where it was
filed on February 8, 2023 and given OAL Docket Number EDU 01274-23. On February
9, 2023, EDU 01274-23 was assigned to Judge Scollo. 	On February 10, 2023,
Garwood BOE filed a Motion to Dismiss Piarulli’s January 21, 2023 Petition.
As noted above, on February 9, 2023 EDU 01176-23 and EDU 01274-23 were
both assigned to John P. Scollo, ALJ. 	As noted above, during the February 13, 2023
teleconference, EDU 01176-23 and Piarulli’s January 11, 2023 Notice of Tort Claim
were mutually withdrawn.
In EDU 01274-23, Judge Scollo granted the BOE’s Motion to Dismiss, ruling that
the Petition which Piarulli filed with the Commissioner of Education on January 24, 2023
was filed beyond the 90-day time limit allowed by N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3 and therefore was
time-barred. Judge Scollo also ruled that Garwood BOE had the authority to appoint or
to remove any board member to / from the position of Sending District Representative,
and therefore its vote on October 18, 2022 to replace Piarulli as SDR was done within
its authority under N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1(d).
The History of EDU 05656-23
The matter presently before the Tribunal is EDU 05656-23. 	On June 6, 2023,
Piarulli filed a Petition with the Commissioner of Education seeking to be indemnified by
Garwood BOE for attorneys’ fees and costs, which he incurred in the matter of EDU
01176-23. 	Garwood 	BOE 	filed 	a 	Motion 	to 	Dismiss 	on 	June 	23, 	2023. 	The
Commissioner transmitted the matter to the Office of Administrative Law, where it was
filed on June 26, 2023. 	The matter was captioned Salvatore Piarulli v. Board of
Education of the Borough of Garwood, Union County and given OAL Docket Number
EDU 05656-23.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05656-23
4
This writing is Judge Scollo’s Initial Decision on Piarulli’s claim for indemnification
and for other claims presented in EDU 05656-23.
ANALYSIS OF THE PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS
Piarulli’s Position
It is Piarulli’s position that he is entitled to indemnification from Garwood BOE
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-20 for the expenditure of money for his attorneys’ fees and
costs because he was primarily acting in the public interest when he filed his Notice of
Tort Claim on January 11, 2023 and when he was “defending” himself in the course of
executing his Board duties when the BOE filed EDU 01176-23.
Piarulli urges us to read Judge Ciarrocca’s February 2, 2023 Order. 	Judge
Ciarrocca’s February 2, 2023 Order dissolved the temporary restraints put in place by
Judge Walsh’s January 20, 2023 Order and dismissed Garwood’s Complaint without
prejudice in order for the Commissioner of Education to administratively decide the
merits of the matter. 	Piarulli argues that Judge Ciarrocca’s February 2, 2023 Order
means that he was a prevailing party and thus is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees
and costs pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-20.
Piarulli also argues that the mutual dismissal entered into by the parties on
February 13, 2023 during the teleconference with Judge Scollo should be considered as
“concluded in Mr. Piarulli’s favor”, this entitling him to recover attorneys’ fees and costs
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-20.
Garwood BOE’s Position
The essence of Garwood BOE’s argument is that Piarulli, under N.J.S.A.18A:12-
20, is not entitled to indemnification for bringing a personal causation against the Board
on which he serves. Rather, a Board member is only entitled to seek indemnification in
circumstances where he is defending himself against a lawsuit or other action which

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05656-23
5
arises out of his actions performed or omissions made while in the course of the
performance of his duties as a Board member.
Aside from the explicit wording of N.J.S.A.18A:12-20, Garwood BOE reasons
that the purpose of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-20’s indemnification provisions is found in the
statement accompanying the initial adoption of the statute. 	Garwood quotes from the
statement as follows:
“The purpose of this bill is the give protection to every
person holding office, position or employment under the
jurisdiction of the board of education from financial loss
arising from alleged negligence or other act or happening in
the discharge of his duties and within the scope of his
employment.”
Garwood argues that in the above-quoted section, the word “protection” clearly refers to
indemnification for the defense of an action brought against a Board member. Garwood
argues that the word “protection” clearly does not refer to not indemnification being
afforded to a Board member brought for initiating an action against his own Board.
Garwood 	also 	argues 	that 	indemnification 	is 	only 	available, 	under
N.J.S.A.18A:12-20, when a Board member has been sued or otherwise brought into an
action when the actions for which he has been sued arise out of or in the course of the
performance of his duties as a member of the Board. Garwood BOE argues that the
filing of a Notice of Tort Claim in which Piarulli sought money damages was not an
action that could in any way be classified as something that arose out of and in the
course of the performance of his duties as a member of the Board. 	That is to say, he
was not acting in his official capacity as a member of the Board. 	Quite to the contrary,
by filing the Notice of Claim, he created a conflict of interest under N.J.S.A.18A:12-2 by
becoming interested in a claim for money damages against the Board. 	Moreover, his
contesting of the BOE’s Petition (EDU 01176-23) was in furtherance of his own claim for
money damages and not in furtherance of his duties as a Board member.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05656-23
6
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
Issues of Fact
The factual analysis of the parties’ positions in this matter requires an exposition
(in the form of questions) of the factual issues presented. Some of the factual questions
presented in this matter are as follows:
(1) 	Is there a fee-shifting statute available to Piarulli, which (a) permits an
award of attorneys’ fees and costs for Piarulli’s filing of a Notice of Tort Claim against
Garwood BOE; (b) which permits an award of attorneys’ fees and costs for defending
against Garwood BOE’s Petition filed under EDU 01176-23; and, (c) which permits an
award of attorneys’ fees and costs for bringing this present action filed under EDU
05656-23 against Garwood BOE?
(2) 	Is there a court rule available to Pirulli, which permits an award of
attorneys’ fees and costs for the same set of questions presented in sections (a), (b)
and (c) of Question One?
(3) 	Is there a Common Law exception involving a fiduciary’s breach of his
fiduciary duties available to Piarulli, which permits an award of attorneys’ fees and costs
for the same set of questions presented in sections (a), (b) and (c) of Question One?
(4) 	Is there a contract between Piarulli and Garwood BOE, which permits an
award of attorneys’ fees and costs for the same set of questions presented in sections
(a), (b) and (c) of Question One?
The answers to these and other questions are set forth below in the Tribunal’s
FINDINGS OF FACT.
Chronology of Background Information
The chronology set forth below is taken from Judge Scollo’s Initial Decision dated
July 24, 2023 in the matter of EDU 01274-23. It is not a verbatim account, but it sets
forth events, which the Tribunal deemed particularly significant. 	The Tribunal included
this chronology herein to help the reader understand the background of this matter.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05656-23
7
November, 2021 and January, 2022
Piarulli was elected to the Garwood BOE in the November, 2021 election. 	He
was sworn-in in January, 2022. 	At the BOE’s reorganization meeting, the BOE
appointed him as Garwood’s Sending District Representative to the BOE of Clark
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-8.1 and 8.2. Clark is where Garwood sends its high school
students. Garwood will be referred to as a “sending district” and Clark will be referred to
as a “receiving district”.
October 18, 2022
On October 18, 2022, Garwood BOE voted in favor of a resolution to replace
Piarulli as its SDR to the Clark BOE with another board member. Piarulli contends that
this was the result of defamatory statements and retaliation by the BOE’s president,
whom he claims is a “political rival”.
It should be noted that N.J.A.C.. 6A:3-1.3 (i) sets forth a 90-day time limit for the
filing of a Petition with the Office of the Commissioner of Education, wherein a Petitioner
seeks relief from an action taken by a board of education. 	Thus, if Piarulli wanted to
contest the BOE’s October 18, 2022 action that removed him from the position of SDR,
the 90-day limit for filing a Petition, as measured from October 18, 2022, would expire
on January 16, 2023.
January 11, 2023
On January 11, 2023, Piarulli filed a Notice of Tort Claim in which he sought
monetary and non-monetary relief from Garwood BOE.
January 16, 2023, January 20, 2023 and January 24, 2023
January 16, 2023 marked ninety days from the date (October 18, 2022) that the
Garwood BOE voted to replace Piarulli as the SDR to the Clark BOE.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05656-23
8
On January 20, 2023, the Garwood BOE filed a Verified Complaint and Order to
Show Cause in the Superior Court seeking to prevent Piarulli from serving on the
Garwood BOE in any capacity, i.e., to remove Piarulli from membership on the Garwood
BOE. 	The BOE’s reason for filing these papers was that Piarulli’s filing of the Notice of
Tort Claim on January 11, 2023 put him into a conflict of interest with his BOE
obligations and thus mandated either his resignation from the BOE or his removal from
the BOE pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:12-2. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:12-2 is entitled “Inconsistent
Interests or Office Prohibited”. 	It encompasses situations where a board member may
have a conflict of interest. 	Garwood BOE contends that it was required by N.J.S.A.
18A:12-2 to take immediate action. Both sides agree that the text of N.J.S.A. 18A:12-2
states that no member of a Board of Education may serve or continue to serve on a
BOE if he has a direct or indirect interest in a claim against the BOE. 	Thus, Garwood
BOE contends that Piarulli refused to resign and that its filing of the January 20, 2023
Verified Complaint and Order to Show Cause was a necessity required by the law and
was not a tortious act.
On January 20, 2023, Judge Thomas Walsh granted the BOE’s application for
relief, issuing a Temporary Restraining Order against Piarulli, with the provision that
Piarulli could move to vacate the restraints on two days’ notice.
On January 24, 2023, Piarulli filed his Petition with the Commissioner in which he
sought to overturn the resolution of October 18, 2022. 	January 24 th was eight days
beyond January 16 th. 	This was later transmitted to the OAL and assigned Docket
Number EDU 01274-23.
Piarulli admitted that he filed the Notice of Tort Claim on January 11, 2023 in
which he sought non-monetary relief and money damages from the BOE. While Piarulli
admitted 	that 	his 	$10,000,000 	claim 	does 	indeed 	say 	that 	he 	seeks 	monetary
compensation from Garwood BOE, he claimed that the $10,000,000 figure was a mere
placeholder on a form and that his primary reason for filing the Notice of Claim was to
protect the public’s interest in having its duly-elected BOE member continue to serve in
a capacity to which he was appointed by the BOE (i.e., serving as the BOE’s SDR).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05656-23
9
January 24, 2023
On 	January 	24, 	2023, 	Piarulli, 	in 	addition 	to 	filing 	a 	Petition 	with 	the
Commissioner of Education, undertook another action. 	Responding to Garwood BOE’s
Verified Complaint and Order to Show Cause, Piarulli filed his own Verified Complaint
and Order to Show Cause in Superior Court, Union County, Chancery Division alleging
that the BOE’s actions were illegal; seeking to vacate the January 20, 2023 Temporary
Restraining Order issued by Judge Walsh; and seeking a dismissal of Garwood’s
Verified Complaint.
February 2, 2023
On February 2, 2023, Mark P. Ciarrocca,, P.J. Cv., Union County Superior Court,
observing 	that 	neither 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:6-9 	nor 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:12-2 	state 	that 	the
Commissioner of Education has the exclusive jurisdiction [to decide the controversy],
decided that an administrative remedy was nevertheless available. 	Judge Ciarrocca
therefore dissolved the temporary restraints set forth in Judge Walsh’s January 20,
2023 Order and dismissed Garwood BOE’s Verified Complaint without prejudice, so that
the Commissioner of Education would review and decide the matter pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 18A-6-9.
As noted above, the matter (EDU 01274-23) was transmitted to the OAL and was
ultimately decided in Judge Scollo’s Initial Decision dated July 24, 2023.
The 	above-stated 	timeline 	of 	events 	and 	the 	recitation 	of 	certain 	facts 	is
consistent with the parties’ prior submissions.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having considered the arguments of the parties, set forth above, as well as the
background of this matter, I hereby make the following FINDINGS OF FACT.
From a plain reading of Judge Ciarrocca’s February 2, 2023 Order, I FIND that
he merely dissolved the temporary restraints contained in Judge Walsh’s January 20,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05656-23
10
2023 	Order, 	and I 	FIND 	that he merely dismissed Garwood’s Complaint without
prejudice so that the merits of the Complaint could be decided administratively by the
Commissioner of Education. I FIND that the rulings contained in Judge Ciarocca’s
February 2, 2023 Order do not state that the matter has been “concluded in Piarulli’s
favor”. 	I FIND that the rulings do not declare Piarulli to be “the prevailing party”, nor do
they characterize Piarulli as “winning” or “prevailing” in the matter.
I FIND that that during the February 13, 2023 teleconference the parties mutually
agreed that in exchange for Piarulli’s withdrawal of his January 11, 2023 Notice of Tort
Claim, Garwood BOE dismissed its February 7, 2023 Petition filed under OAL Docket
Number EDU 01176-23. 	I FIND that during the February 13, 2023 teleconference,
neither Piarulli nor Garwood BOE made any reservation of rights to continue to seek
attorneys’ fees and / or costs from each other. 	I FIND that the parties’ mutual
exchange, Piarulli’s withdrawal of his Notice of Tort Claim in exchange for the BOE’s
dismissal of EDU 01176-23, was the parties’ complete and final expression of their
desire to end all issues related to the filing of the Notice of Tort Claim and the filing of
EDU 01176-23.
From a reading of the applicable statute, I FIND that N.J.S.A.18A:12-20 only
obligates a Board of Education to defray all costs incurred by a member when he is
defending himself against a lawsuit or action brought against him by others for an act he
does or for an omission he makes while he is in the course of the performance of his
duties as a Board member. 	I FIND that when Piarulli filed his Notice of Tort Claim he
initiated an action that was against the BOE. 	I further FIND that Piarulli’s filing of a
Notice of Tort Claim was not an action undertaken in his own defense as a member of
the Board who was acting in furtherance of the performance of his duties as a Board
member. 	I further FIND that when Piarulli filed his Notice of Tort Claim, he was
advancing a cause of action for his own monetary benefit, which, under N.J.S.A.18A:12-
2 was in conflict with his duties as a Board member. 	I further FIND that when Piarulli
contested Garwood BOE’s Petition (filed under Docket Number EDU 01176-23), he was
not defending against an action initiated by others against him as a member of the
Board acting in the course of the performance of his duties, but instead was acting in
furtherance of his own claim against Garwood BOE.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05656-23
11
Having considered the above-stated Questions One through Four, I make the
following Findings of Fact. 	I have found that since Piarulli was not defending an action
initiated by others against him as a board member acting in the furtherance of the
performance of his duties as a Board member, N.J.S.A 18A:12-20 does not afford
Piarulli a right to seek indemnification from Garwood BOE in this matter. 	I FIND that
there was no fee-shifting statute applicable under the circumstances presented. I FIND
that the filing of a Notice of Tort Claim does not give rise to an enforceable claim for an
award of attorney fees by virtue of any Court Rule. 	I FIND that there was no breach of
any fiduciary duty under the circumstances presented for which attorneys’ fees and / or
costs could be sought. I FIND that there was no contract between Piarulli and Garwood
BOE that provided for the recovery of attorney fees for breach thereof.
APPLICABLE LAW
Indemnity of Members of Boards of Education Against Cost of Defense of Civil and
Criminal Action
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-20 governs the indemnification of board of education members
against 	the 	expenses 	and 	costs 	of 	their 	defense 	when 	lawsuits 	or 	other 	legal
proceedings are brought against them in their capacity as board members acting in the
course of their duties.
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-20 states:
Whenever a civil, administrative, criminal, or quasi-criminal
action or other legal proceeding has been or shall be brought
against any person for any act or omission arising out of and
in the course of the performance of his duties as a member
of a board of education, and in the case or a criminal or
quasi-criminal action such action results in final disposition in
favor of such person, the board of education shall defray all
costs of defending such action, including reasonable counsel
fees and expenses, together with costs of appeal, if any, and
shall 	save 	harmless 	and 	protect 	such 	person 	from 	any
financial 	loss 	resulting 	therefrom. 	Indemnification 	for
exemplary or punitive damages shall not be mandated and
shall be governed by the standards and procedures set forth
in N.J.S.A. 59:10-4. Any board of education may arrange for

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05656-23
12
and 	maintain 	appropriate 	insurance 	to 	cover 	all 	such
damages, losses and expenses.
The Law of Compromise and Settlement
The settlement of lawsuits, as a policy matter, ranks high. Nolan v. Lee Ho, 120
N.J. 465, 472 (1990). 	Generally, a settlement agreement is governed by principles of
contract law. Thompson v. City of Atlantic City, 190 N.J. 359 (2007). 	Purported
ambiguities in in a settlement agreement must be construed against the party that
drafted the agreement. Linan-Faye Construction Co., Inc. v. Housing Authority of the
City of Camden, 995 F. Supp. 520 (U.S. District Court of New Jersey, 1998).
In 	ascertaining 	the 	meaning 	and 	scope 	of 	a 	settlement 	agreement, 	it 	is
appropriate for a court to consider that courts do not rewrite contracts in order to provide
a better bargain for the parties than that which was contained in their writing. Grow
Company, Inc. v. Chokshi, 403 N.J. Super. 443 (App. Div. 2008), citing Christfano v.
N.J. Mfgrs. Ins. Co., 361 N.J. Super. 228, 237 (App. Div. 2003).
An agreement to settle a lawsuit, voluntarily entered, is binding upon the parties,
whether or not made in the presence of the court, and even in the absence of a writing.
Green v. John H. Lewis & Co., 436 F. 2d 389 (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit,
1970).
An oral agreement between counsel, to settle a personal injury case for $10,000,
was enforceable, where the parties and their counsel did not think that agreeing to an
amount was merely an intermediate step which had no legal efficacy until settlement
papers were executed. Williams v. Vito, 365 N.J. Super. 225 (Law Div. 2003).
Regardless of a party’s subjective intent, his outward manifestation of his intent
to be bound by signing a settlement agreement could not be undone, in the absence of
fraud, mistake, duress, or some other contract defense. 	Nevets C.M., Inc. v. Nissho
Iwai American Corp., 726 F. Supp. 525, Affirmed, Appeal of Nevets, C.M. , Inc. 899
F.2d 1218.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05656-23
13
Where the parties agree upon the essential terms of a settlement, so that the
mechanics can be “fleshed out” in writing to be thereafter executed, the settlement will
be enforced notwithstanding the fact that the writing does not materialize due to a
party’s later reneging. Lahue v. Pio Costa, 263 N.J. Super. 575 (App. Div. 1993);
certification denied 134 N.J. 477 (1993).
Courts 	will 	not 	ordinarily 	inquire 	into 	the 	adequacy 	or 	inadequacy 	of 	the
consideration underlying a compromise settlement which was fairly and deliberately
made. 	And only where the inadequacy of the consideration is grossly shocking to the
conscience of the court will the court interfere with a settlement agreement which was
voluntarily executed by the parties. Pascarella v. Bruck, 190 N.J. Super. 118 (App. Div.
1983); certification denied, 94 N.J. 600 (1983).
There is a clear public policy in New Jersey favoring settlement of litigation, and
only where there is fraud, or other compelling circumstances will a court refuse to honor
a settlement agreement. Herrera v. Township of South Orange Village, 270 N.J. Super.
417 (App. Div. 1993); certification denied, 136 N.J. 28 (1993). 	A settlement agreement
can be set aside if it was achieved through coercion, deception, fraud, undue pressure,
or unseemly conduct, or if one party was not competent to voluntarily consent thereto.
Peskin v. Peskin, 271 N.J. Super. 261 (App. Div. 1994); certification denied, 137 N.J.
165 (1994). 	A party seeking to vacate a settlement based on fraud must prove the
following: (1) that there was a material misrepresentation, (2) which was made with
knowledge of the falsity and with the intent that the misrepresentation be relied on, and
(3) that there was actual reliance upon the misrepresentation to the party’s detriment.
The Law Governing Recoupment of Attorney Fees
Under the “American Rule”, which is followed in New Jersey, litigants must bear
the cost of their own attorneys’ fees. Counsel fee awards, as exceptions to the
American Rule, fall under four general categories:
(1) those granted pursuant to a fee-shifting statute;
(2) those allowed by court rule;

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05656-23
14
(3) a tightly circumscribed common law exception in settings involving breaches of
fiduciary duties; and
(4) those granted through a contractual agreement.
In Gannett Satellite Information, LLC v. Township of Neptune, A-63 September Term
2021, 085719, the New Jersey Supreme Court declared, “[T]he American Rule remains
in force.”
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
I CONCLUDE that when Piarulli filed his Notice of Claim he was not protecting
any of the public’s rights. 	I CONCLUDE that when Piarulli filed his Notice of Claim he
asserted a monetary claim for his own benefit.
Having found that during the February 13, 2023 teleconference the parties
mutually agreed that in exchange for Piarulli’s withdrawal of his January 11, 2023 Notice
of Tort Claim, Garwood BOE dismissed its February 7, 2023 Petition filed under OAL
Docket Number EDU 01176-23; and having found that during the February 13, 2023
teleconference, neither Piarulli nor Garwood BOE made any reservation of rights to
continue to seek attorneys’ fees and / or costs from each other; and having found that
the parties’ mutual exchange (Piarulli’s withdrawal of his Notice of Tort Claim in
exchange for the BOE’s dismissal of EDU 01176-23) was the parties’ complete and final
expression of their desire to end all issues related to the filing of the Notice of Tort Claim
and the filing of EDU 01176-23, I CONCLUDE that the parties there and then mutually
relinquished their rights to seek attorneys’ fees and / or costs from each other.
I have found that Judge Ciarrocca’s February 2, 2023 Order, merely dissolved
the temporary restraints contained in Judge Walsh’s January 20, 2023 Order, and
merely dismissed Garwood’s Complaint without prejudice so that the merits of the
Complaint could be decided administratively by the Commissioner of Education. I have
found that the rulings contained in Judge Ciarrocca’s February 2, 2023 Order do not
declare Piarulli as “winning” or “prevailing” in the matter. I have found that Piarulli is not
entitled to seek attorneys’ fees and / or costs under N.J.S.A. 18A:12-20. 	I have found

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05656-23
15
that Piarulli is not entitled to seek attorneys’ fees and / or costs based on a fee-shifting
statute. 	I have found that Piarulli is not entitled to seek attorneys’ fees and / or costs
based on any court rule. I have found that Piarulli is not entitled to seek attorneys’ fees
and / or costs due to the breach of a fiduciary’s duty. 	I have found that Piarulli is not
entitled 	to seek attorneys’ 	fees 	and / 	or costs 	based 	on 	a contract. I 	therefore
CONCLUDE that since none of the above-referenced exceptions to the American Rule
apply in this matter, the American Rule will not allow Piarulli to recover attorneys’ fees
(and / or costs of suit) in this matter.
Having found that N.J.S.A.18A:12-20 only obligates a Board of Education to
defray costs incurred by a member when he is defending himself against a lawsuit or
action brought against him by others for an act he does or for an omission he makes
while he was in the course of the performance of his duties as a Board member, and
having found that Piarulli’s filing of his Notice of Tort Claim and subsequent contesting
of Garwood BOE’s Petition (EDU 01176-23) were not actions that were done in the
course of the performance of Piarulli’s duties as a Board member, 	I CONCLUDE that
Piarulli is not entitled to be indemnified for his attorneys’ fees and / or costs based on
N.J.S.A. 18A:12-20 or on any other basis.
ORDER
Pursuant to the foregoing conclusions, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition
filed by Piarulli on June 6, 2023 is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that this ORDER shall be served upon the parties via email and said
parties shall acknowledge receipt of said ORDER within seven (7) days.
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	initial 	decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified, or rejected by the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. 	If the Commissioner of the Department of

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05656-23
16
Education does not adopt, modify, or reject this decision within forty-five days and
unless such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become
a final decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the COMMISSIONER
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ATTN: 	BUREAU OF CONTROVERSIES
AND DISPUTES, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey
08625-0500, marked “Attention: Exceptions.” A copy of any exceptions must be sent to
the judge and to the other parties.
December 21, 2023
DATE 	JOHN P. SCOLLO, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
db