Ellis v. N.J. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs

Full title: DANE R. ELLIS, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS…

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Date published: Apr 18, 2017

DOCKET NO. A-1175-15T1 (App. Div. Apr. 18, 2017)

Opinion

DOCKET NO. A-1175-15T1

04-18-2017

DANE R. ELLIS, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, Respondent.

Dane R. Ellis, appellant pro se. DeCotiis, FitzPatrick & Cole, LLP, attorneys for respondent Township of North Brunswick (Ronald H. Gordon, on the brief). Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney for respondent Government Records Council (Debra A. Allen, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION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. Before Judges Fisher and Ostrer. On appeal from the Government Records Council, Complaint No. 2015-205. Dane R. Ellis, appellant pro se. DeCotiis, FitzPatrick & Cole, LLP, attorneys for respondent Township of North Brunswick (Ronald H. Gordon, on the brief). Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney for respondent Government Records Council (Debra A. Allen, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM

The record on appeal demonstrates that appellant Dane R. Ellis filed duplicate copies of a complaint in the same forum that asserted the same respondent's denial of access to the same governmental records. The September 29, 2015 order issued by the Government Records Council, of which appellant now complains, recites only the fact that the complaint here was duplicative of a complaint "being adjudicated as Dane R. Ellis v. North Brunswick Police Dep't (Middlesex), GRC Complaint No. 2015-184."

Appellant has no right to maintain multiple cases regarding the same subject matter. Because the appellant will have his "day in court" in the other pending matter, his appeal of the dismissal of this case has insufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.

CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION