01-2-9368 In the Matter of C.L., N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (10 pp.) M.L., the mother and co-guardian of C.L., a 25-year-old male with autism and epilepsy, individually and on behalf of C.L., appealed the final decision of the Department of Human Services, Division of Developmental Disabilities, denying a request that M.L. receive payment for providing care and supervision to C.L. from his allocated self-directed day services budget that he received pursuant to the Self-Directed Support Services for Persons with Developmental Disabilities Act. Her request was denied pursuant to a division policy that expressly prohibited the use of SDS program funds to pay for services furnished by a “parent/stepparent, spouse, guardian or relative residing in the service recipient’s residence.” The policy included an exception that permitted a relative living in the residence to act as an emergency DSP, but the exception was inapplicable to “legally responsible relatives,” such as M.L. The division concluded that because M.L. was C.L.’s mother and legal guardian, the policy prohibited payment to her from C.L.’s SDS budget. The panel affirmed, finding that policy and decision denying M.L.’s request for payment were consistent with the act and reasonably designed to advance the division’s legitimate interest in providing funding only to fiduciaries who had no personal financial interest in the funds due under the SDS program, and although M.L. offered numerous policy arguments for a change in the division’s decision, she failed to establish that the division’s decision was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.
09-2-9408 Angeloni-Simkin v. All Star One LLC, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (10 pp.) Plaintiff Colleen Angeloni-Simkin appealed from the order dismissing her claims against defendant All Star One LLC under the Consumer Fraud Act. All Star One is a competitive cheerleading gym that is owned and operated by defendant Karen Brenner. In May 2012, plaintiff’s daughter tried out for a position on one of the cheerleading teams that trained at the gym. If her daughter was selected for a team, plaintiff would be required to pay for the cost of the child’s training and for the competitive events in which her team would participate. After the tryout, Brenner placed plaintiff’s daughter on a team. On June 5, 2012, plaintiff attended a mandatory parent meeting that was conducted by Brenner. In February 2013, plaintiff sent a series of emails to Brenner complaining about the costs of the program, and asserting that Brenner ran her business in an unorganized manner. Later that month, Brenner asked that plaintiff’s daughter no longer participate as a team member. By that time, plaintiff had paid defendants $500 in competition fees, the entire $250 in choreography fees and a $25 USASF fee. In support of her CFA claim, plaintiff testified that Brenner made three misrepresentations to her at the June 5, 2012, parent meeting, and in the enrollment materials provided at that time. Plaintiff testified that Brenner told the parents that the $25 USASF fee would be paid to the USASF to register each child so they could participate in competitions. However, Brenner did not enroll plaintiff’s daughter with the USASF. Plaintiff also alleged that Brenner misrepresented that all of the choreography fees would be paid directly to the choreographers hired to work with the teams. Plaintiff claimed that Brenner used some of these fees for other purposes. Finally, plaintiff testified that Brenner told the parents that the cost of each competition was $75, but some of them did not cost that much. The appellate panel affirmed the court’s decision finding no basis for plaintiff’s assertion that Brenner misrepresented any charges or mishandled any fees and that plaintiff did not establish that defendants violated the CFA.
