A recent appellate court decision has concluded that a former township mayor’s challenge to an ethics board ruling will not proceed, after the board revoked its earlier finding of violation and imposed no penalties. The case highlights the limits of appellate review when a party has already received a favorable outcome from an administrative agency.
On April 8, 2026, the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed a final agency decision issued by the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs’ Local Finance Board in October 2024. The appellant, Christopher Silva, had filed his appeal after the Board revoked a notice of violation and determined he did not violate the Local Government Ethics Law (LGEL), N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.1 to -22.5.
According to court documents, in March 2022, the Local Finance Board began investigating complaints regarding Silva’s conduct while serving as Mayor of Mullica Township. The complaint alleged that Silva participated in votes and discussions about ordinances and resolutions involving the Township Police Department at times when his son-in-law was employed by that department. Additional allegations included claims that Silva failed to recuse himself during two committee meetings concerning police matters and met with representatives from the Police Benevolent Association.
Silva’s legal counsel responded on April 5, 2022, stating that after being elected mayor, Silva sought guidance from the municipal attorney regarding potential conflicts of interest. Counsel wrote: “After . . . Silva was elected, he approached the municipal attorney [(the attorney)] . . . to provide a legal opinion on what [he] could vote on and what he could not, as he was sensitive to the appearance of a potential conflict.” According to this account, initial advice instructed Silva to refrain from voting on economic issues benefiting his son-in-law but allowed participation in other police matters. In 2018, this advice was modified so that Silva could participate in police matters unless they financially impacted his son-in-law.
On August 24, 2022, following its investigation, the Board issued a notice determining nine violations under N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.5(d) and imposed fines totaling $900 ($100 per violation). However, these fines were waived because “Silva ‘reasonably relied on the advice of’ the attorney.” Disagreeing with this outcome and seeking full exoneration rather than excusal based on legal advice received, Silva requested an administrative hearing.
An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reviewed the matter and found that Silva had acted according to legal advice provided by municipal counsel. The ALJ concluded that “Silva’s acts… are nothing more than ministerial acts and ha[d] not violated [N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.5(d)] because there simply was no exercise of judgment to potentially impair Silva’s judgment” and “Silva’s conduct… ha[d] no direct or indirect financial or personal involvement that might reasonably impair his objectivity or independence of judgment in violation” of state law.
The Local Finance Board subsequently reviewed exceptions filed against this initial decision but ultimately agreed with key findings favoring Silva. In its final agency decision dated October 16, 2024, it stated: “Silva met the four prerequisites to the reliance of counsel defense… Hence, the Board h[e]ld[] that [Silva] did not violate N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.5(d)[,] because he met the reliance of counsel defense.” The Board formally revoked its earlier notice of violation but noted that absent successful reliance on counsel defense there could have been nine substantiated violations.
Despite having achieved revocation of all charges and avoidance of penalties or formal findings against him under LGEL provisions, Silva appealed further—arguing reputational harm from any suggestion he acted unethically remained unaddressed by merely relying on an advice-of-counsel defense rather than outright exoneration by statutory interpretation alone.
The Appellate Division rejected these arguments as insufficient for further judicial review. Citing precedent such as Price v. Hudson Heights Development LLC (417 N.J. Super.), it stated: “[A] party ‘who obtains the judgment sought may not be heard to complain on appeal about reasons or rationales cited for action.'” The court emphasized it does not issue advisory opinions nor review successful outcomes where appellants are not aggrieved parties: “Here, Silva achieved a successful outcome… His speculative assertion that he has sustained ‘reputational harm’ does not entitle him to appellate review.” It also noted appeals must address practical effects rather than moot or abstract issues.
Ultimately affirming without modification or remand for further proceedings, Judges Paganelli and Jacobs signed off on behalf of the Appellate Division under Docket No. A-0590-24. Attorneys involved included Elliott J. Almanza for Christopher Silva and Zachary L. Aboff representing respondent Local Finance Board.
Source: A059024_Silva_v_Local_Finance_Board_Opinion_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
