NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-5208-16T1
A.R.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
MERCER COUNTY BOARD
OF SOCIAL SERVICES,
Respondent-Respondent.
___________________________
Submitted September 24, 2019 – Decided September 30, 2019
Before Judges Fisher and Rose.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Human
Services, Division of Family Development, Agency
Docket No. C129715011.
A.R., appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Mark D. McNally, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In May 2017, A.R. applied to the Mercer County Board of Social Services
for emergency housing assistance pursuant to N.J.S.A. 44:10-51, and N.J.A.C.
10:90-6.1 to -6.10. His application was denied. A.R. appealed, and the matter
was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law as a contested case. An
administrative law judge conducted a hearing in July 2017 and determined that
A.R. exhausted his lifetime allotment of emergency assistance and was
otherwise ineligible for relief through any existing program. The Department
of Human Services adopted the ALJ's determination as its final decision.
A.R. appeals that final agency decision to this court, arguing he was
improperly denied emergency assistance. The record, however, establishes
there was no dispute that A.R.'s twelve-month lifetime eligibility limit had been
exhausted, N.J.A.C. 10:90-6.4(a); in fact, A.R. had already received forty
months of emergency assistance. And, while regulations authorize further relief
when a county welfare agency determines a recipient has taken reasonable steps
to resolve the situation that prompted the emergency, N.J.A.C. 10:90-6.4(b), the
agency found no such ground for relief. We find insufficient merit in A.R.'s
arguments that the agency abused its discretion or misapprehended the
applicable laws and regulations to warrant further discussion in a written
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
A-5208-16T1
2
Affirmed.
A-5208-16T1
3