JAMES M. MALONEY 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4281-06T54281-06T5

JAMES M. MALONEY,

Appellant,

vs.

NEW JERSEY MOTOR

VEHICLE COMMISSION,

Respondent.

__________________________________

 

Submitted: December 12, 2007 - Decided:

Before Judges Cuff and Lisa.

On appeal from a Final Decision of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission.

James M. Maloney, appellant pro se.

Anne Milgram, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Emily H. Armstrong, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant James M. Maloney appeals from a final decision of the Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC) that denied his request for an administrative hearing and confirmed his current driving while intoxicated surcharge balance. Appellant argues that the agency should have conducted an administrative hearing because he submitted competent evidence that the agency used an erroneous address to notify him of the imposition of the surcharge and the amount due. We disagree and affirm.

This matter returns to this court following appellant's initial appeal from the February 22, 2005 determination of the MVC denying his request for an administrative hearing to determine the validity of an outstanding surcharge and continuing suspension of his New Jersey driving privileges. We affirmed the determination but allowed Maloney "to seek an administrative hearing if he can furnish to the [MVC] competent factual evidence that the Fort Lee address was not his official last address of record with the [MVC] on the dates when the surcharge notices were sent to him. Maloney v. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n, No. A-3954-04T2 (App. Div. Dec. 7, 2005).

On January 3, 2006, Maloney submitted an affidavit with supporting exhibits in support of his request for an administrative hearing. Maloney explained that he was a merchant seaman at the time of and after the offense. He also explained that the address of record in Fort Lee used by the MVC was the address of a mail receiving and forwarding service he used when he was at sea. Thus, Maloney cannot demonstrate that he had no association with the address used by the MVC. We, therefore, affirm the March 8, 2007 final determination denying Maloney's request for an administrative hearing to contest the validity of the surcharge.

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-4281-06T5

December 20, 2007