
    IN THE MATTER OF THE NEGOTIATIONS OF A LABOR CONTRACT FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF THE SURROGATE.
    Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
    Argued May 8, 1990
    Decided May 30, 1990.
    Before Judges MICHELS, DEIGHAN and R.S. COHEN.
    
      Joseph F. Polino argued the cause for appellant Elton A. Conda {Joseph F. Polino and Joseph M. Pinto on the brief).
    
      Michael L. Diller, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause, for respondent the Hon. Martin L. Haines, A.J.S.C. (Robert J. Del Tufo, Attorney General, attorney, Michael R. Clancy, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel, and Michael L. Diller on the brief).
    
      Barry P. Sarkisian argued the cause amicus curiae, for the County Officers Association of New Jersey (Sarkisian & Dronzek, attorneys, Barry P. Sarkisian and James F. Dronzek on the brief).
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a determination by the Assignment Judge of Burlington County that Surrogate’s employees are subject to the authority of the Assignment Judge with respect to the negotiation of a labor contract.

Our thorough review of the matter convinces us that the appealed determination should be affirmed essentially for the reasons stated by Judge Martin L. Haines in Parts I, II and VI of his August 31, 1989, opinion, which is reported at 243 N.J.Super. 656, 581 A.2d 125. Parts III, IV, V and VII concern the manner in which the Assignment Judge may proceed in the face of a disagreement with the Surrogate over their respective authority. Those matters are moot and are not the subject of the appeal. For that reason we do not comment on them.

We have studied the recent opinion in CWA Local 1044 v. The Honorable Chief Justice, 118 N.J. 495, 572 A.2d 613 (1990). We find nothing in it inharmonious with Judge Haines’ opinion here.

Affirmed.  