Return to Browsing

8 N.J.A.R. 579

Millet, Jose A. v. Gaming Enforcement, Division of, Department of Law and Public Safety
Formats: PDF | DjVu— Help viewing DjVu Files
Citation: 8 N.J.A.R. 579
Decision Date: 1986
Agency: CASINO CONTROL COMMISSION
Synopsis: Petitioner applied to the Casino Control Commission for licensure as a casino employee pursuant to N.J.S,A. 5:12-90. Licensure was opposed by the Division of Gaming Enforcement based upon petitioner's failure to disclose information material to licensure pursuant to N.J.S.A. 5:12-86b and 86(b)2. The administrative law judge assigned to the case found that petitioner did not disclose his criminal record history in that he did not dislcose a disorderly persons offense or charges related to assault on a police officer. When finding that petitioner's knowledge of written English was limited, the judge found that petitioner fully understood spoken English and that an agent of the Division of Gaming Enforcement had conducted a telephone interview of petitioner at which time all the questions on the previous history disclosure form were explained. During that interview petitioner was confronted with his prior record and indicated that he had forgotten about one incident and did not mention the other because he had been found not guilty. The judge determined that these explanations were mutually inconsistent and not persuasive since the incident constituted petitioner's only conviction and such a significant event would not be easily forgotten. Noting that an applicant has the affirmative burden to establish his qualifications, the judge observed that to excuse an intentional failure to disclose or the provision of misleading statements would hamper the ability of the Casino Control Commission to evaluate an applicant's qualifications. In addition, the judge concluded that peritioner's failure to disclose his criminal record in violation of 86b of the act automatically precludes him from meeting his burden of demonstrating good character, honesty and integrity under section 89b(2) of the act. Accordingly, petitioner's application for licensure was denied. Upon review, this initial decision was modified by the Casino Control Commission to conclude that respondent failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the requisite degree of good character, honesty and integrity for casino licensure, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 5:12-89(b)(2) and 90(b). Julio L. Mendez, Esq., for the petitioner (Velez & Mendez, P.A., attorneys) Frances I. Sundheim, Deputy Attorney General, for the respondent (W. Cary Edwards, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney)
Rule(s) Cited: 19:41-8.8 
Statute(s) Cited: 24:21-9