01-2- 9310 In the Matter of Jusino, App. Div. (per curiam) (11 pp.) Appellant Jusino appealed from the final decision of respondent New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, which found that he made an intentional misstatement of fact on applications for registration of two motor vehicles and suspended his New Jersey driver’s license for 180 days pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:3-37. The panel affirmed. It deferred to the MVC’s interpretation of N.J.S.A. 39:1-1 to mean that the “true owner” of a motor vehicle was the one who maintained ultimate control and authority over the vehicle, not the one who held legal title, and to its interpretation that the signature of the “true owner” was required on a registration application, and found that Jusino’s admissions—that he purchased the vehicles for his neighbor, who could not do so because he was an illegal alien, and he then transferred the vehicles to the neighbor—clearly established that he was not the “true owner” of the vehicles and that he intentionally misstated on the registration applications that he was the owner.
01-2-9320 In re Renewal Application for Permit to Carry a Handgun of Dubinsky, App. Div. (per curiam) (7 pp.) Allen Dubinsky appealed from the trial court’s order denying his application to renew his permit to carry a handgun. The court found that Dubinsky failed to establish a “justifiable need” for the permit as required by N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(d). The court did so notwithstanding that the chief of police of the town where Dubinsky resided approved Dubinsky’s application after an investigation. Dubinsky argued that the trial court erred by failing to afford deference to the police chief’s approval of his application. While a court had to give due consideration to a police chief’s denial of an application for a firearms purchaser identification card under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3, the court’s role in considering an application for a permit to carry was distinct from its role in considering an application for a FPIC. The chief was authorized to issue the FPIC, subject to court action if there was an appeal. By contrast, although the chief can approve an application for a permit to carry, only the court can actually issue the permit. The appellate panel affirmed the denial of Dubinsky’s application and declined to address Dubinsky’s challenges to the constitutionality of the permit-to-carry statute for the first time on appeal.
