NEW JERSEYMOTORVEHICLE COMMISSION v. << (2014)

Appellant Joseph Gardi appeals the July 18, 2012 order of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC) denying his

request for a hearing and suspending his driving privileges for twenty-five days.   We affirm.

Appellant, a licensed New Jersey driver, was issued a motor vehicle “warning in person” on December 22, 2010, and in

 accordancewithN.J.S.A. 39:5–30.10,was placed on aone-year

period of probation.   Less than four months later, on April 18,

2011, appellant was charged with failure to observe a traffic control device in New York State, a motor vehicle offense that,

 ifcommitted in New Jersey,would beviolativeofN.J.S.A.39:4-

81;  appellant was convicted of the charge.

The New York conviction was posted to appellant's New Jersey driving record on April 9, 2012.   The violation having occurred during the period of his driver license probation, and pursuant to the Interstate Driver License Compact (Interstate Compact),1on April 10, 2012, the MVC issued appellant a Notice of Scheduled Suspension stating its intent to suspend his New Jersey driving privileges for ninety days in accordance with

 N.J.S.A. 39:5–30,N.J.S.A.39:5-30.10andN.J.A.C. 13:19–10.6.

Appellant requested a hearing on the proposed suspension on

April 19, 2012.   He did not dispute that he had a New Jersey driver license at the time of the offense and that he was

 1 The Interstate Compact, N.J.S.A. 39:5D–1 to –14, requires that New Jersey treat out-of-state conduct as if occurring in New Jersey.

convicted of failure to observe a traffic control device in New

York. Because he failed to set forth any disputed material facts or legal issues, the MVC, in accordance with N.J.A.C.

13:19–1.2(d), denied appellant's request for a hearing in a final agency decision of July 18, 2012.   However, based on a review of appellant's driver history record and considering his need for his driving privilege, the MVC directed that the proposed suspension term of ninety days be reduced to twenty-five days, effective August 13, 2012.

 Thisappealfollows.

An evidentiary hearing is not required where there are no disputed issues of material fact, N.J. Div. of Motor Vehicles v.

 Pepe,379N.J.Super.411,419(App.Div.2005),andthe law

mandates that the MVC suspend or revoke a license without

 exercisinganydiscretion,id.at 415–16;N.J.S.A. 39:5D–4;

 N.J.S.A. 52:14B-11;N.J.A.C. 13:19–1.13.On this score,

 N.J.A.C. 13:19–1.2(d)providesthat ahearingrequestmust

“specify all disputed material facts which the licensee or his or her attorney intends to raise at such hearing[,]” and also “set forth all legal issues” intended to be raised, as well as “all arguments on those issues which the licensee wishes the [MVC] to consider.”   A hearing request is denied for failure to comply with these requirements.  N.J.A.C. 13:19–1.2(e).

Here, appellant's hearing request contained neither disputed facts nor legal issues.   It is undisputed that appellant was convicted of a motor vehicle offense in New York during a period of his driver license probation in New Jersey.   Because of that fact, the MVC was mandated by law to suspend

 appellant'slicense.N.J.S.A.39:5–30.10;N.J.A.C. 13:19–10.6.

In this regard, the applicable regulation provides:

(a) Persons whose licenses are restored after a suspension imposed under N.J.A.C.

13:19–10.2 or after a suspension imposed under this section, persons who are officially warned after an administrative hearing, and persons who successfully complete a Commission Driver Improvement Program or Probationary Driver Program may retain their licenses upon the express condition and understanding that any subsequent violation of the Motor Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New Jersey committed within one year of the restoration, official warning, or warning following successful completion of a Driver Improvement or Probationary Driver Program shall, except for good cause, result in suspension of driving privileges for the following periods:

1.  When the subsequent violation occurs within six months of the date of the restoration, official warning or warning following completion of a Driver Improvement or Probationary Driver Program — 90 days[.]

 [N.J.A.C.13:19-10.6.]2

On appeal, appellant provides no legal basis for

challenging the MVC's denial of his hearing request, nor does he present any facts to be developed at such a hearing that would warrant a different determination.   On the contrary, appellant claims only that a suspension will be burdensome.   Yet, personal hardship does not overcome a regulatory-mandated suspension.   Simply put, the MVC's decision to suspend appellant's driving privileges for twenty-five days and to deny him an evidentiary hearing on undisputed facts and a legal mandate is neither arbitrary nor capricious and is supported by substantial

 credible evidence inthe record.In reHeller,73N.J.292, 309

(1977).

 Affirmed.

 2The MVC reduced appellant's suspension of driving privilege to twenty-five days, because the suspension was intended to be rehabilitative rather than punitive in nature.

PER CURIAM