PARIS E. ARMWOOD v. BOARD OF REVIEW DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NOS. A-4338-16T1
A-0747-17T1
A-0748-17T1
PARIS E. ARMWOOD,
Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
and MONTCLAIR GOLF
CLUB,
Respondents.
________________________
Submitted October 31, 2018 – Decided December 11, 2018
Before Judges Fuentes and Moynihan.
On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of
Labor, Docket Nos. 084,533, 084,535, and 084,538.
Paris E. Armwood, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent Board of Review (Melissa Dutton Schaffer,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Elizabeth A.
Davies, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Respondent Montclair Golf Club has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
In these consolidated appeals, Paris E. Armwood challenges final
administrative determinations by the Board of Review (Board) dismissing his
appeals from adverse decisions rendered by the Appeal Tribunal holding him
liable for refunds of unemployment benefits paid under three separate claims.
The Board ruled the appeals were not timely under N.J.S.A. 43:21-6(c), which
provides that the Appeal Tribunal's decision shall be deemed to be the final
decision of the Board unless, within twenty days after notification or mailing of
the Appeal Tribunal's decision, a further appeal is filed. Armwood claims:
POINT I
APPELLANT'S OVERPAYMENT LIABILITY
SHOULD BE LESS THAN IT IS BECAUSE OF HIS
BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE
POINT II
APPELLANT'S APPEAL TO BOARD OF REVIEW
SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE
GOOD CAUSE WAS NOT SHOWN IN APPEAL
POINT III
RESPONDENT ALLEGES THAT OVERPAYMENT
WAS DISCOVERED IN SEPTEMBER 2015 BUT
A-4338-16T1
2
BANKRUPTCY CERTIFICATION OF NOTICE WAS
FILED APRIL 2014
In his reply brief, Armwood also raised the following points:
POINT I
APPELLANT'S APPEAL TO BOARD OF REVIEW
SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE
GOOD CAUSE WAS NOT SHOWN
A. No Proof of Timely Mailing by Appeals Tribunal
B. Good Cause Rule
POINT II
APPELLANT'S OVERPAYMENT LIABILITY
SHOULD BE LESS THAN IT IS BECAUSE OF HIS
BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE
A. Inclusion of Bankruptcy
B. 11 SC Subsection 523(a)
POINT III
RESPONDENT ALLEGES THAT OVERPAYMENT
WAS DISCOVERED IN SEPTEMBER 2015, BUT
U.S. BANKRUPTCY CERTIFICATION OF NOTICE
WAS FILED APRIL 2014
We discern no error in the Board's decisions and affirm.
Our "review [of] administrative agency decisions is limited." Brady v.
Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997) (citing Public Serv. Elec. v. N.J. Dep't
A-4338-16T1
3
of Envtl. Prot., 101 N.J. 95, 102 (1985)). We will not disturb the Board's action
unless it is "arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable." Ibid. (citing In re Warren,
117 N.J. 295, 296 (1989)). "We [also] defer to an agency's interpretation of its
own regulations unless [that interpretation is] 'plainly unreasonable.'" Frazier
v. Bd. of Review, Dep't of Labor, 439 N.J. Super. 130, 134 (App. Div. 2015)
(quoting In re Election Law Enf't Comm'n Advisory Op. No. 01-2008, 201 N.J.
254, 262 (2010)). "'[W]hen [the] agency's decision is plainly mistaken,'
however, it is entitled to no such deference and must be reversed in the interests
of justice." Ibid. (alterations in original) (quoting W.T. v. Div. of Med.
Assistance & Health Servs., 391 N.J. Super. 25, 36 (App. Div. 2007)).
We briefly review the facts pertinent to this appeal. In three separate
determinations on September 18, 2015, the Director of the Division of
Unemployment and Disability (Director) held Armwood liable, pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 43:21-16(d), for refunds of benefits paid after he falsely or fraudulently
misrepresented his earning during three separate periods in 2008, 2009 and
2010, fined him as authorized by N.J.S.A. 43:21-16(a) and disqualified him
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(g)(1) from benefits for a one-year period from the
date the Division discovered Armwood's illegal receipt of benefits. Armwood
filed an appeal of each determination on February 22, 2016. The appeals were
A-4338-16T1
4
considered filed within time in light of Armwood's claim that he never received
the Director's determinations which were mailed to Armwood on September 17,
2015.
The Appeal Tribunal affirmed the Directors' determinations on each claim
and mailed each decision to Armwood on April 20, 2016. Armwood, in a letter
to the Board dated March 9, 2017, stated his disagreement with the amount of
the monies owed the Division. The Board filed the letter on March 20, 2017 as
an appeal of all three of the Appeal Tribunal's decisions but dismissed each
appeal because Armwood's letter was filed beyond the twenty-day statutory
period without a showing of good cause.
The good cause exception to the twenty-day time limit on unemployment-
appeals filings, codified pursuant to our Supreme Court's holding in Rivera v.
Board of Review, 127 N.J. 578 (1992), allows tardy filings where an appellant
shows: "1. The delay in filing the appeal was due to circumstances beyond the
control of the appellant; or 2. The appellant delayed filing the appeal for
circumstances which could not have been reasonably foreseen or prevented."
N.J.A.C. 12:20-4.1(h).
Armwood claims in his merits brief he received notice of the Appeal
Tribunal's decisions only after his wife told him "that the Department of Labor
A-4338-16T1
5
had taken their taxes." He does not specify when his wife so advised him. He
does, however, state in his brief that, after he contacted the Department of Labor
"in July [2016,] they sent him the [d]ecision dated April 20, 2016."
Even accepting Armwood's claim that he did not receive the mailed
decision after it was posted in April 2016, he offered no competent evidence that
his filing – eight months after he received the decisions in July – was late due
to circumstances beyond his control or was delayed because of circumstances
which could not reasonably have been foreseen or prevented so as to constitute
good cause under N.J.A.C. 12:20-4.1(h). Absent proof of good cause, we affirm
the Board's dismissal of Armwood's appeals on these three matters.
Armwood contends his claims should be reduced because his 2014
bankruptcy petition included the "NJ Department of Labor, Unemployment
Insurance" as a debtor to whom a notice was sent by the Bankruptcy Noticing
Center on July 20, 2014. Armwood did not mention the bankruptcy proceedings
in the March 2017 appeal letter he sent to the Board. 1 The Board was not
presented with that issue and we thus decline to consider it. Nieder v. Royal
1
Nor does Armwood explain how the monetary liabilities established by the
Director's September 18, 2015 decisions were discharged by the July 18, 2014
order of the United States Bankruptcy Court granting him a debtor's discharge.
A-4338-16T1
6
Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973); see also Brady v. Dep't of Pers., 149 N.J. 244, 266-67 (1997) (applying Nieder to an agency determination).
Affirmed.
A-4338-16T1
7
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
