the relative had with the interested organization and the amount of interest the relative had in the official’s actions.” Kremer v. Plainfield, 101 N.J.Super. 346, 351, 244 A.2d 335 (Law Div.1968) (setting aside approval of variance application where board member’s nephew was a partner in the law firm which represented the applicant before the board); see also Van Itallie, supra, 28 N.J. at 258, 146 A.2d 111 (finding no disqualification because board member’s brother only held a low level position in a large corporation that could potentially benefit from the zoning decision and there was no evidence that the brother’s employment status would have benefited from the board’s decision); Petrick v. Planning Bd. of Jersey City, 287 N.J.Super. 325, 331-32, 671 A.2d 140 (App.Div. 1996) (<HOLDING>). Turning to our decision in Haggerty, upon
holding board members wifes occasional employment as an occupational therapist with hospital whose application for a park ing garage was pending before the board could not reasonably be viewed as improperly influencing board members judgment holding that county airport board and twenty board members in their representative capacities had sovereign immunity in suit for negligence holding that petitioners status as school board members does not permit them to step into the shoes of the school board and invoke its right to appeal recognizing absolute immunity for board members and the director of the mississippi state board of nursing recognizing absolute immunity for attorneys and board members of the texas medical board