JOSEPH A. GARDI 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION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-6011-11T4

JOSEPH A. GARDI,

Petitioner-Appellant, v.

NEW JERSEY MOTOR VEHICLE

COMMISSION,

Respondent-Respondent.

Submitted January 13, 2014 Decided

Before Judges Parrillo and Guadagno.

February 4, 2014

On appeal from the New Jersey Motor Vehicle

Commission.

Joseph A. Gardi, appellant pro se.

John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Nicole T. Minutoli, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Appellant Joseph Gardi appeals the July 18, 2012 order of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC) denying his

requestfora hearing and suspending his drivingprivilegesfor twenty-fivedays. We affirm.

Appellant,a licensed New Jerseydriver, was issued a motor vehicle"warningin person"on December22,2010, and in

accordancewithN.J.S.A.39:5-30.10, was placed on a one-year

period of probation. Lessthan four monthslater, on April18,

2011, appellant was chargedwithfailure to observe a traffic controldevice in New YorkState, a motor vehicle offense that,

if committed in New Jersey,would be violative ofN.J.S.A.39:4-

81; appellant was convictedof the charge.

The NewYork convictionwasposted to appellant's New Jersey driving record on April 9, 2012. The violation having occurred during the periodof his driver licenseprobation,and pursuant to the InterstateDriver License Compact (Interstate Compact),1on April 10, 2012, theMVC issuedappellant a Notice of Scheduled Suspensionstating its intentto suspend his New Jersey driving privileges for ninety days in accordancewith

N.J.S.A.39:5-30, N.J.S.A.39:5-30.10 and N.J.A.C.13:19-10.6.

Appellant requested a hearing onthe proposed suspension on

April 19, 2012. He didnotdispute that he had a New Jersey driver license at the timeof the offense and that he was

1The Interstate Compact, N.J.S.A.39:5D-1 to -14, requiresthat New Jerseytreatout-of-state conduct as ifoccurring in New Jersey.

convicted of failure toobserve a traffic control device in New

York. Because he failed to set forth any disputed material facts or legal issues, theMVC, in accordance withN.J.A.C.

13:19-1.2(d), denied appellant'srequest for a hearing in a final agency decision of July 18, 2012. However, basedona review of appellant's driver history recordand consideringhis need for his driving privilege, the MVCdirectedthat the proposed suspension term of ninety daysbereduced to twenty- five days,effective August13, 2012.

This appealfollows.

An evidentiary hearing is not required where there are no disputed issues of materialfact,N.J.Div.ofMotorVehiclesv.

Pepe, 379 N.J.Super.411,419 (App. Div. 2005),and the law

mandates that the MVC suspend orrevokea license without

exercisingany discretion,id.at 415-16; N.J.S.A.39:5D-4;

N.J.S.A.52:14B-11; N.J.A.C.13:19-1.13. On this score,

N.J.A.C.13:19-1.2(d) provides that a hearing request must

"specify all disputed material facts whichthe licenseeorhis or her attorney intendstoraiseat such hearing[,]" and also "set forthall legal issues" intended to be raised, as wellas "all arguments on thoseissues which the licensee wishes the [MVC] to consider." A hearing request is deniedfor failure to comply withthese requirements. N.J.A.C.13:19-1.2(e).

Here, appellant's hearing request containedneither disputed facts nor legal issues. It isundisputed that appellant was convictedofa motor vehicleoffense in New York during a period of his driver license probation in New Jersey. Becauseofthat fact, the MVC was mandatedby law to suspend

appellant'slicense. N.J.S.A.39:5-30.10;N.J.A.C.13:19-10.6.

In thisregard, the applicable regulation provides:

(a) Persons whose licenses arerestored after asuspension imposedunderN.J.A.C.

13:19-10.2or after a suspensionimposed under thissection, personswhoare officiallywarned afteranadministrative hearing, and persons who successfully complete aCommission Driver Improvement ProgramorProbationaryDriver Program may retain their licenses uponthe express condition and understandingthatany subsequent violation oftheMotor Vehicle and TrafficLaw of the State of New Jersey committed withinone year of the restoration, official warning, or warning following successful completion of a Driver Improvementor ProbationaryDriver Program shall, except for good cause, result in suspensionof driving privilegesfor the following periods:

1. When the subsequent violation occurs within sixmonths of the date ofthe restoration, official warning or warningfollowing completion of a Driver Improvement or Probationary Driver Program 90 days[.]

[N.J.A.C.13:19-10.6.]2

On appeal,appellant provides nolegal basis for

challengingthe MVC's denial of his hearingrequest, nor does he presentanyfacts to bedeveloped at such a hearing that would warranta different determination. On thecontrary, appellant claims onlythata suspension will be burdensome. Yet,personal hardship does not overcomea regulatory-mandatedsuspension. Simply put,the MVC's decision to suspend appellant's driving privilegesfor twenty-fivedays and to denyhim an evidentiary hearingonundisputed factsand a legalmandate is neither arbitrary nor capricious and is supported by substantial

credible evidence in the record. InreHeller,73 N.J.292, 309

(1977).

Affirmed.

2The MVC reducedappellant's suspensionofdriving privilege to twenty-fivedays, because the suspension was intended to be rehabilitative rather thanpunitive in nature.