MARK RICHARDSON v. NEW JERSEY MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0652-04T50652-04T5

MARK RICHARDSON,

Appellant,

 

V.

NEW JERSEY MOTOR VEHICLE

COMMISSION,

Respondent.

_______________________________________

 

Argued October 25, 2006 - Decided November 14, 2006

Before Judges Wefing and Yannotti.

On appeal from a final decision of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission.

Mark Richardson, appellant argued the cause pro se.

Emily H. Armstrong, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney; Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ms. Armstrong, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Mark Richardson (Richardson) appeals from a final determination of the Chief Administrator of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC) dated April 13, 2004, denying his application for a hearing and reaffirming previously imposed surcharge assessments. We affirm.

At issue here are automobile insurance surcharges imposed by the MVC pursuant to N.J.S.A. 17:29A-35 and N.J.A.C. 13:19-13.1. The surcharges arise from Richardson's 1997 convictions in East Orange for careless driving and failing to observe a traffic control device; a 1999 conviction in Springfield Township for driving while his driving privileges were suspended; and a conviction in Union Township in 2000 for driving while suspended.

The East Orange convictions resulted in surcharges totaling $200. The Springfield Township conviction resulted in surcharges in the amount of $750 payable in three annual installments of $250. Similarly, the Union Township conviction resulted in surcharges of $750, payable in three annual $250 installments. The record shows that Richardson only made two payments respecting these surcharges; a payment of $100 and a payment of $40.

The record establishes that the MVC issued notices to Richardson concerning these surcharges. The MVC issued a notice dated February 19, 1999 stating that the first $100 surcharge arising from the East Orange convictions was due and, if not paid, Richardson's driving privileges would be suspended. It appears that Richardson paid the first $100 installment arising from the East Orange convictions, however, the record does not disclose when that payment was made.

By notice dated March 23, 2000, the MVC advised Richardson that it had imposed the first of the three $250 installments arising from the Springfield Township conviction. The MVC assessed Richardson the second $100 installment respecting the East Orange convictions. The March 23, 2000, notice stated that Richardson's total surcharges were $350 and that he had paid $40, leaving a balance due of $310.

In 2001, the MVC billed Richardson $250, which was the second surcharge resulting from the Springfield Township conviction. This was added to the $310 in surcharges that remained owing. According to the MVC's notice dated February 23, 2001, Richardson owed surcharges in the amount of $560, plus interest of $11.22, and collection costs of $80, for a total of $651.22.

In December 2001, the MVC imposed the first of the three $250 surcharges arising from the Union Township conviction. According to the notice dated December 20, 2001, this $250 surcharge was added to the $560 in surcharges that had been previously billed and remained unpaid, for a total of $810 due in surcharges. Richardson also was billed for interest in the amount of $34.61, and collection costs of $160. The December 20, 2001, notice stated that Richardson owed a total of $1,004.61.

In February 2002, the MVC imposed the second $250 surcharge arising from the Union Township conviction and the third $250 surcharge for the Springfield Township conviction. These surcharges were added to the surcharges of $810 that had been previously billed and remained unpaid. The notice dated February 28, 2002, stated that Richardson owed surcharges in the amount of $1,310, plus $41.20 in interest, and collection costs of $160, for a total of $1,511.20.

In March 2003, the MVC imposed the third $250 surcharge resulting from the Union Township conviction, bring the total amount of surcharges due to $1,560. The notice dated March 6, 2003, stated that Richardson also owed interest in the amount of $107.31, and collection costs of $360. According to this notice, Richardson owed a total of $2,027.31.

In a letter to the MVC dated July 7, 2004, Richardson requested an administrative hearing. Richardson stated that he had paid $200 in 1999. Richardson wrote another letter to the MVC dated August 8, 2004, in which he stated that he had paid money to the MVC "on several occasions."

The Chief Administrator responded in a letter dated August 13, 2004, stating that the MVC had reviewed his record and had determined that its assessments were valid. Additional interest had accrued on the unpaid surcharges since the notice of March 6, 2003. The Chief Administrator stated that the surcharge account balance was $2,238.84, and interest would continue to accrue until the judgments entered for the unpaid surcharges were fully satisfied. The Chief Administrator also rejected Richardson's application for a hearing, stating that a hearing was not required because Richardson had not raised any disputed issues of fact or law in his request for a hearing. This appeal followed.

The scope of our review of a decision from an administrative agency is narrow. We may only set aside such a determination if the agency's action is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole, or the action is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980). The agency's action is presumed to be valid and the burden is on the appellant to show otherwise. McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J. Super. 544, 563 (App. Div. 2002).

We are satisfied that Richardson has not carried his burden of showing that the MVC erred in its imposition of the surcharges. Although Richardson stated in his letters to the MVC that he made certain payments respecting the surcharges, the MVC's records show payments that total only $140. These payments were reflected on the MVC's records. Richardson did not present any documentary evidence to the MVC to establish that the surcharges were incorrectly assessed or that any other payments were made. Moreover, because he had not presented any disputed issue of fact or law respecting the surcharges, Richardson's request for an administrative hearing was properly denied pursuant to N.J.A.C. 13:19-1.2(e).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

6

A-0652-04T5

November 14, 2006