
    IN THE MATTER OF THE DISTRICT INHERITANCE TAX SUPERVISORS, HAY REPORT APPEAL. IN THE MATTER OF STATE COLLEGE LIBRARIANS, I AND II, 10 MONTHS AND 12 MONTHS — HAY REPORT APPEAL. NICHOLAS C. MAIDA, APPELLANT, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE, RESPONDENT. ROBERT MICAI, WILLIAM BROWN, ORVILLE ABBOTT, GEORGE HUTCHINSON, JOSEPH R. SMITH, JOHN SHANER AND HENRY JUSTUS, APPELLANTS, v. NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT. IN THE MATTER OF THE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, REPRESENTING CERTAIN PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES IN THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION — HAY REPORT APPEAL. ROBERT J. BERISH, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. JOHN J. FARRELL, CHIEF EXAMINER AND SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT. HYMAN S. ABRAMSON, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. JOHN J. FARRELL, CHIEF EXAMINER AND SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT. ELIZABETH McLAUGHLIN, APPELLANT, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT.
    Argued February 7 and 8, 1972
    Decided April 24, 1972.
    
      
      Mrs. Marilyn Loftus Schauer, Eirst Assistant Attorney General, argued for the Civil Service Commission (Mr. George F. Kugler, Jr., Attorney General, attorney; Mr. David S. Litwin, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).
    
      Mr. Ernest Gross argued in A—74 for the Inheritance Tax Supervisors (Messrs. Gross, Weissberger & Linett, attorneys) .
    
      Mr. William S. Greenberg argued in A-75 for the State College Librarians, in A-78 for the Professional Association, New Jersey State Department of Education, and in A-79 for Robert J. Berish, et al. (Messrs. Sterns and Greenberg, attorneys).
    
      Mr. Mario E. Volpe argued in A-76 for Nicholas C. Maida.
    
      
      Mr. Robert J. Parilow argued in A-77 for Robert Micai, William Brown, Orville Abbott, George Hutchinson, Joseph R. Smith, John Shaner, and Henry Justus (Messrs. Parker, McOay & Criscuolo, attorneys).
    
      Mr. Joel K. Sterns argued in A-80 for Hyman S. Abram-son, et al. (Messrs. Sterns and Greenberg, attorneys; Mr. William S. Gi'eenberg, of counsel and on the brief).
    
      Mr. Richard Newman argued in A-81 for Elizabeth McLaughlin.
   Per Curiam.

The motions to dismiss are denied and the causes are remanded to the Appellate Division for further proceedings. See In re Senior Appeals Examiners, 60 N. J. 366 (1972).

During oral argument we were advised that some of the appellants are attacking the Commission’s determinations in the federal district court as well as here. Such simultaneous proceedings entail litigious vexation and harassment; beyond that they entail the wastage of judicial facilities and reflect adversely on judicial administration. Since the moving papers before us do not seek any pertinent relief we need not now pursue the matter. However, we note that if hereafter active steps are taken towards the simultaneous prosecution of the proceedings in both courts the Attorney General may readily move for a suitable stay or such other relief as may be appropriate. See Devlin v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 47 N. J. 136 (1966); Mennonna v. Penna. R. Co., 5 N. J. Misc. 233 (Sup. Ct. 1937); Amdur v. Lizars, 373 F. 2d 103 (4 Cir. 1967); Mottolese v. Kaufman, 176 F. 2d 301 (3 Cir. 1949); Note, “Stays of Federal Proceedings in Deference to Concurrently Pending State Court Suits,” 60 Colum. L. Rev. 684 (1960); Vestal, “Repetitive Litigation,” 45 Iowa L. Rev. 535 (1960); Note, “Power to Stay Federal Proceedings Pending Termination of Concurrent State Litigation,” 59 Yale L. J. 978 (1950).

Motion to dismiss denied and remanded—-Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Mountain—7.

Opposed—Hone.  