TYRONE KIMBLE v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2916-05T12916-05T1

TYRONE KIMBLE,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

-Respondent,

and

BUSINESSEDGE SOLUTIONS INC.,

Respondent-Respondent.

____________________________________

 

Submitted: December 5, 2006 - Decided December 21, 2006

Before Judges Kestin and Payne.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 89,553.

Tyrone Kimble, appellant pro se.

Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (John C. Turi, Deputy Attorney General, on the statement in lieu of brief).

Sills Cummis Epstein & Gross, attorneys for respondent BusinessEdge Solutions Inc. (David W. Garland, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Claimant, Tyrone Kimble, appeals from a decision of the Board of Review denying his claim for unemployment compensation benefits on the ground that he was discharged from his employment "for gross misconduct connected with the work." The Board's decision was based upon the findings and conclusions of an appeals examiner that claimant was disqualified for benefits because of his misconduct in submitting duplicate expense vouchers on a number of occasions in 2004 and 2005. The question of claimant's liability to refund benefits received was remanded for further determination.

"The judicial capacity to review administrative agency decisions is limited." Brady v. Board of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). The factual findings and conclusions of an administrative agency based on substantial credible evidence developed at a hearing are binding on appeal. Id. at 210-11. See also Zielenski v. Board of Review, 85 N.J. Super. 46, 54 (App. Div. 1964); Goebelbecker v. Board of Review, 53 N.J. Super. 53 (App. Div. 1958). In the absence of a determination that the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable which we have no basis for making in this instance the agency's ruling may not be disturbed. See Brady, supra, 152 N.J. at 210.

Our review of the record in the light of the arguments advanced by the parties and prevailing legal standards discloses that none of the numerous issues raised by claimant in challenging the Board's ruling has sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D),(E).

Accordingly, we affirm.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-2916-05T1

December 21, 2006