Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-5950-11T3
02-09-2015
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, Respondent, v. SUSANA ESPEJO, Appellant.
Bastarrika, Soto, Gonzales & Somohano, attorneys for appellant (Franklin G. Soto, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Debra A. Allen, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Reisner and Koblitz. On appeal from the State of New Jersey, Department of Community Affairs, Division of Codes and Standards, Agency Docket No. R558972. Bastarrika, Soto, Gonzales & Somohano, attorneys for appellant (Franklin G. Soto, on the brief). John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Debra A. Allen, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Susana Espejo appeals from a June 15, 2012 final determination of the Department of Community Affairs (Department), Division of Codes and Standards, denying as untimely her administrative hearing request.
Espejo and Juan Diaz are the owners of a multiple dwelling on Doremus Street in Paterson (the property). Beginning in November 2009, the Department's Bureau of Housing Inspection sent Espejo a series of inspection reports, violation notices, and penalty notices concerning the property. On July 14, 2011, the Bureau issued a notice of a $1457 penalty. A February 1, 2012 letter from the Bureau acknowledged that Espejo had paid $1074 toward the penalty, notified Espejo that the property would be re-inspected, and advised her that if the previously-noted violations were not abated by that time, additional penalties would be assessed.
On March 29, 2012, the Bureau issued a Commissioner's Notice of Continuing Unabated Violations and Orders to Abate Violations and to Pay Penalty. The Notice assessed a $6000 penalty. The Notice advised Espejo in capital letters that "YOU MAY CONTEST THESE ORDERS" and then advised in smaller print that she could contest the orders by filing a request for an administrative hearing within fifteen days of her receipt of the Notice. The Notice also advised that a hearing request must specify the issues that she wished to raise at the hearing.
There is no dispute that Espejo received the Notice on May 2, 2012, as memorialized by her signature on a certified mail receipt. By letter dated May 25, 2012, Espejo's attorney requested a hearing on her behalf. However, the letter did not specify any issues that Espejo wished to raise at the hearing. On June 15, 2012, the agency sent the attorney a response, stating that the appeal letter had been received by the agency on or about June 1, 2012, and was rejected as untimely.
On this appeal, Espejo advises us in her statement of facts that she is not solely responsible for managing the property, she is financially unable to make the repairs, and the co-owner is uncooperative. She asserts that "some" of the violations were abated and that she should not be "solely held responsible" for the violations at the property. There is no record to support those contentions, and they were not raised before the agency.
In her legal argument, she contends that the notice of her right to a hearing was in small print, she did not understand the notice, and she did not initially have the funds to retain an attorney. Those contentions likewise were not presented to the agency. She also argues that it is unfair to deny her a hearing solely because her hearing request was a few days late.
The relevant statute provides that any person "aggrieved" by an order issued by the Commissioner shall be entitled to a hearing. However, "[t]he application for such hearing must be filed with the commissioner within 15 days of the receipt by the applicant thereof of notice of the ruling, action, order or notice complained of." N.J.S.A. 55:13A-18. The fifteen-day time limit is jurisdictional. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Wertheimer, 177 N.J. Super. 595, 599-600 (App. Div. 1980). We find no merit in Espejo's argument that the notice of her right to a hearing was insufficient. Nor does anything else in this record suggest that we should reach a different result than Wertheimer.
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION