IN THE MATTER APPLICATION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 33:1-12.18 FOR THE 2004-2005 LICENSE TERM ZAYNAH RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1915-04T51915-04T5

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION

FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO

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

2004-2005 LICENSE TERM

ZAYNAH RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.

_____________________________________________________________

 

Submitted March 21, 2006 - Decided April 10, 2006

Before Judges Coburn and Lisa.

On appeal from the Department of Law and Public

Safety, Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control,

ABA Docket No. 10-04-3877.

Margulies, Wind & Herrington, attorneys for

appellant Zaynah Restaurant Group, Inc. (Frank E. Catalina, on the brief).

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney

for respondent Department of Law and Public

Safety, Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control

(Lorinda Lasus, Deputy Attorney General, of

counsel; Michele Boyer, Deputy Attorney General,

on the brief).

PER CURIAM

A plenary retail consumption license was transferred to Zaynah Restaurant Group, Inc. ("Zaynah"), by the Municipal Board of Alcohol Beverage Control of the City of Jersey City on October 21, 2003. Zaynah failed to file its renewal application for 2004-2005 with the local agency by July 30, 2004, a violation of N.J.S.A. 33:1-12.13, and further failed to file an application for a new license with the Director of the Division of Alcohol Beverage Control by September 28, 2004, in violation of N.J.S.A. 33:1-12.18. The Director denied the application on the ground that he lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.

Zaynah appeals, arguing that the Director's decision was inequitable because it was "not aware of the date within which to renew the license, and was also affirmatively prevented from obtaining that information by the action of the authorizing agency in affixing stamped information physically on the license in the area where its expiration date was displayed." Ab7 It further argues that "knowing that such licenses run from year to year," it simply concluded, "not unreasonably, that [it] would have to renew the license at or about the anniversary date of its issuance." Ibid.

After carefully considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that all of appellant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.

R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). The Director's decision was required by the statutes noted and by our interpretation of those statutes in Cavallaro v. Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 351 N.J. Super. 33 (App. Div. 2002). We also note that appellant presented no evidence of substantial compliance. Thus, In re Application of Virgo's, 355 N.J. Super. 590 (App. Div. 2002), provides no support for its appeal.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-1915-04T5

April 10, 2006