STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SHIRLEY GREEN (04-04-16, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3617-16T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
SHIRLEY GREEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted May 9, 2018 – Decided July 19, 2018
Before Judges Alvarez and Currier.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Cape May County, Municipal
Appeal No. 04-04-16.
Shirley Green, appellant pro se.
Thomas D. Keywood, attorney for respondent.
PER CURIAM
Defendant Shirley Green appeals a November 29, 2016 Law
Division decision, after a trial de novo, re-imposing a $10,000
municipal fine. See R. 7:13-1. Green filed her notice of appeal
to our court on April 26, 2017. An amended notice followed, dated
May 17, 2017. Pursuant to Rule 2:41(a), however, appeals must be
filed within forty-five days of the issuance of an order. Thus,
her appeal is dismissed.
According to the record of the 2015 municipal trial, Green
failed to obtain a permit before installing a concrete pad beneath
a non-conforming trailer on her property, failed to comply with
the stop work notice she was served once Township officials
discovered the omission, and ultimately, failed to correct the
violations after a full-blown municipal court trial and appeal to
the County Construction Board of Appeals. The penalty was imposed
by a municipal court judge after a lengthy separate proceeding in
2017.
Despite being a self-represented litigant, Green is still
subject to the same rules. Even if we were to liberally construe
the appeal as being made from the denial on March 1, 2017, of her
reconsideration application, it is still out of time. Finally,
were we to consider the merits of the appeal of the reconsideration
order despite its untimeliness, the appeal would be denied. We
repeat Green's claims of error for the sake of completeness:
THE PLAINTIFF VIOLATED THE FUNDAMENTAL NOTIONS
OF DUE PROCESS IN FAILING TO AFFORD THE
DEFENDANT REASONABLE NOTICE THAT JUDGE
GARRABRANT INTENDED TO:
A. DECLARE A "MISTRIAL" OF DEFENDANT'S
ONGOING 5 WILEY STREET TRIAL.
2 A-3617-16T4
B. CO-MINGLE DEFENDANT'S 2215 RTE 9 S.,
WHITESBORO, NJ CASE WITH DEFENDANT'S 5
WILEY STREET TRIAL.
C. FAILED TO UPHOLD PROMISE THAT A SEPARATE
TRIAL WOULD BE HELD FOR SPECIAL TICKETS
0506 SC 8102 AND SC 8103. MAILED
09/08/2015.
COURT IMPOSED WRONGFUL $10,000 FINE
D. BASED ON FALSE PHOTOS, FALSE
CERTIFICATION AND
E. BASED ON FALSE VIOLATIONS
F. BASED FALSE TESTIMONY
G. PROSECUTOR FILED FALSE CERTIFICATION
Green's arguments are without merit and do not warrant discussion
in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1).
As the judge who rendered both Law Division decisions noted,
reconsideration is governed by Rule 4:49-2. Such motions must
specify "the matters or controlling decisions which [the movant]
believes the court has overlooked or as to which it has erred."
In other words, reconsideration is granted only when the court's
decision is "palpably incorrect or irrational," or ignores
material evidence. Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274, 288
(App. Div. 2010) (citation omitted). We review those decisions
to determine whether an abuse of discretion has occurred. D'Atria
v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401 ("Reconsideration is a matter
within the sound discretion of the [c]ourt, to be exercised in the
3 A-3617-16T4
interest of justice."). Our review of the record indicates no
such abuse of discretion. Green did not present the judge with
evidence of a fraud by municipal zoning officials. Claims of
fraud are the heart of Green's defense at all the proceedings,
including this appeal.
The Law Division judge observed that when Green attempted to
obtain a permit for the installation of the concrete pad, she was
advised the trailer was a non-conforming use and that she needed
a variance. That seemingly ended her efforts at correcting the
situation. A minimum of eighteen weeks passed before the matter
was heard. Having received an unfavorable decision in the
municipal court trial, Green appealed the matter to the County
Board of Appeals. She agreed to waive the statutory quorum on her
hearing date. When that decision was also unfavorable, Green took
issue with the process, claiming that the County Construction
Board of Appeals action was a nullity. During the contentious
separate proceeding on the amount of the penalty, Green accused
the municipal court judge of being biased against her because she
was paid by the municipality.
When Green appealed to the Law Division, she demanded a change
of venue and alleged the zoning officers had presented fraudulent
proofs in the original proceeding. She merely reiterated the
claims on her argument for reconsideration. Thus, the judge found
4 A-3617-16T4
Green failed to submit any new information, arguments, or law, and
held that the prior decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable. He even took a recess to have Green meet with
township officials in a last-ditch effort to settle the matter
nearly two years after it began. Since the matter did not resolve,
the judge had no choice but to reaffirm the penalty, which the
township had calculated correctly based on N.J.S.A. 52:27D-
138(a)(3). Therefore, the judge did not abuse his discretion in
failing to grant reconsideration.
Appeal dismissed.
5 A-3617-16T4