NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF SOLID WASTE COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT v. DOMINICK J. MAZZA

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4311-08T34311-08T3

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,

BUREAU OF SOLID WASTE

COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT,

Respondent,

vs.

DOMINICK J. MAZZA and

MAZZA & SONS, INC.,

Appellants.

__________________________________

 

Submitted: June 9, 2010 - Decided:

Before Judges Cuff and Fasciale.

On appeal from a Final Order of the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Docket No. PEA050008-132440(SW).

Ansell Zaro Grimm & Aaron, P.C., attorneys for appellants (Robert A. Honecker, Jr., of counsel; Barry M. Capp, on the brief).

Paula T. Dow, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Gary W. Wolf, II, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellants Dominick J. Mazza and Mazza & Sons, Inc. operate a solid waste facility. Respondent New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Solid Waste Compliance and Enforcement (NJDEP) assessed a $25,000 penalty after Dominick J. Mazza excluded one of two inspectors who appeared at his facility to conduct an inspection. He appealed and the matter was assigned to the Office of Administrative Law.

NJDEP filed a motion for summary disposition. The motion was granted by an administrative law judge, and the Commissioner of NJDEP adopted the decision. We review the disposition of a motion for summary disposition.

On appeal, Mazza admits he excluded an inspector, but argues that his motive for excluding the inspector created a material issue of fact that precluded summary disposition. We disagree.

We have carefully reviewed the record and the arguments presented by counsel and conclude that the decision of the agency is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record as a whole and the issues presented by Mazza are without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-4311-08T3

June 28, 2010