IN THE MATTER APPLICATION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 33:1-12.18 FOR THE 2004-2005 LICENSE TERM BAYVIEW OPERATING ENT., L.L.C.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4514-04T34514-04T3

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION

FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO

N.J.S.A. 33:1-12.18 FOR THE

2004-2005 LICENSE TERM

BAYVIEW OPERATING ENTERPRISES, L.L.C.

____________________________________________________

 

Submitted November 15, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Coburn and S.L. Reisner.

On appeal from the Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control,

ABA Docket No. 11-04-3889.

Kearns, Vassallo & Kearns, attorneys for

appellant Bayview Operating Enterprises, LLC

(John F. Vassallo, Jr. and Patricia J. Szymanski,

on the brief).

Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General, attorney

for respondent Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control (Lorinda Lasus, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Bayview Operating Enterprises, L.L.C., admits that it failed to file an application for renewal of its liquor license with the municipal issuing authority on time. Bayview further admits that it thereafter failed to file an application for a new license with the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control by the September 28 deadline set forth in N.J.S.A. 33:1-12.18. The Director denied the application on the ground that he lacked jurisdiction and further denied Bayview's motion for reconsideration.

Bayview appeals, arguing that its petition for a new license effectuates the underlying purpose of the alcoholic beverage laws; that it substantially complied with the statutory time frames; and that it relied on information from the municipality in following the course it pursued.

After carefully considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that all of Bayview's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and that the Director's decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record as a whole. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). In Cavallaro v. Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 351 N.J. Super. 33, 43 (App. Div. 2002), we held that the director has no authority to issue a license when the application is filed after September 28. And in In re Application of Virgo's, 355 N.J. Super. 590, 596 (App. Div. 2002), we held that the doctrine of substantial compliance only comes in to play when the licensee files a timely application, at which time the doctrine may be used to grant relief even though the application is technically deficient. Since no application was filed, or even attempted to be filed, until after September 28, there is no basis for overturning the director's decision.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-4514-04T3

November 28, 2005