01-2-8193 In re Untimely Request for Hearing, Registration Number 0906-03064, App. Div. (per curiam) (6 pp.) Kennedy Arms Condominium Association, Inc. argued that penalties imposed by respondent Department of Community Affairs, Division of Code and Standards, Bureau of Housing Inspection should either be set aside or that there should be an evidentiary hearing at the administrative level to determine whether some penalties should have been imposed on individual dwelling units instead of the common elements. The bureau inspected the property in April 2012, finding 116 violations, 10 of which were in the common areas and the balance in individual units. Subsequent inspections revealed many unabated violations. N.J.S.A. 55:13A-18 establishes a 15-day period for contesting housing violations and monetary penalties. Appellant’s failure to seek a hearing within that time frame was fatal to its appeal. Appellant was treated fairly and neglected to take advantage of numerous opportunities to seek relief from the bureau’s findings as well as the penalties and sanctions imposed. Accordingly, equitable intervention was not appropriate. The appellate panel affirmed the penalties.
14-2-8151 State v. Pendleton, App. Div. (per curiam) (9 pp.) Defendant Thomas Pendleton was convicted in 1993 of various crimes committed against a minor, M.R. Defendant argued that the judge erred by sua sponte dismissing his petition and that he demonstrated good cause for the release of the records. The state countered by arguing that defendant never filed a proper motion for a new trial or petition for post-conviction relief and the judge properly denied defendant’s request because he failed to demonstrate good cause pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:82-46. In denying defendant’s application, the judge reached a conclusion about the merits of a request for a new trial, when, in fact, defendant was seeking interim relief, i.e., only release of the state’s file. The judge concluded that any request to release defendant’s own file was barred by the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2A:82-46. That statute, however, prohibits public access to certain information and has no more applicability to a defendant’s request for post-conviction discovery than it would to the pre-trial release of the same or similar information consistent with the state’s discovery obligations. The appellate panel reversed and remanded to the Law Division so the judge may reconsider defendant’s motion in the context of the proper legal framework.
