Return to Browsing

3 N.J.A.R. 183

Van Holt, Raymond E. v. Sea Bright, Mayor & Council of Borough of & Edward Segall
Formats: PDF | DjVu— Help viewing DjVu Files
Citation: 3 N.J.A.R. 183
Decision Date: 1981
Agency: DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL
Synopsis: Appellant, Raymond E. Van Holt, objected to the renewal of respondent Edward Segall's plenary retail consumption license by the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Sea Bright. Respondent Segall moved to dismiss the appeal upon the basis that the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control had no jurisdiction to accept the appeal because it was not timely filed within 30 days of June 2, 1980, the date upon which the Mayor and Council of Sea Bright approved the renewal of the license. The administrative law judge found that 31 days after the action of the local issuing authority renewing Segall's license, appellant Van Holt mailed to the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control a notice appealing the renewal action of the local issuing authority. The judge noted that N.J.A.C. 13:2-17.3 requires that an appeal from the renewal of an alcoholic beverage license by a municipal issuing authority must be taken within 30 days from the action ap- pealed from. The judge concluded that the filing of the appeal takes place upon receipt by the Director rather than upon the mailing of the notice and thus, in this case, the Director received the notice six days after the last date for filing permitted by N.J.A.C. 13:2-17.3. Observ- ing that it is well settled that the Director of the Alcoholic Beverage Control has no jurisdiction to accept an appeal not timely filed and that enlargement of statutory time for appeal to a state administrative agency lies solely with the Legislature, the administrative law judge concluded that the appeal of the objector was out of time. Accordingly, the appeal of the objector was dismissed as being out of time. Joseph P. Grabler, Esq. for Appellant Thomas J. Smith, Jr., Esq. for Respondent, the Borough of Sea Bright (Smith and Shaw, Attorneys) David S. Piltzer, Esq. for Respondent, Edward Segall (Piltzer and Piltzer, Attorneys)
Rule(s) Cited: 13:2-17.3