ILIRJAN BIDA VS. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, SANDYRECOVERY DIVISION(NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS) ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0767-15T4
ILIRJAN BIDA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS,
SANDY RECOVERY DIVISION,
Defendant-Respondent.
__________________________________
Submitted September 14, 2017 – Decided September 25, 2017
Before Judges Nugent and Currier.
On appeal from New Jersey Department of
Community Affairs, Docket No. 0043768.
Ilirjan Bida, appellant pro se.
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent (Melissa Dutton
Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of
counsel; Valentina M. DiPippo, Deputy Attorney
General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Ilirjan Bida appeals from the New Jersey
Department of Community Affairs (DCA), Sandy Recovery Division's
final decision denying his application for funding under the
Department's Landlord Rental Repair Program (LRRP). For the
reasons that follow, we affirm.
When Bida applied for the funds, he owned a house with two
rental units. According to the intake questionnaire he submitted
with his application, both units were occupied, he sought
assistance only for Unit 2, and he had not started to repair either
unit. His statement concerning the units' occupancy and the
incomplete status of repairs for Unit 2 – the unit for which he
was seeking funding – disqualified him from receiving funds. For
that reason, his application was rejected.
According to the LRRP program guidelines, following the
devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy in 2012, the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development provided funding
through the Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Relief
Program for New Jersey's LRRP. NJ Dep't of Cmty. Affairs, Landlord
Rental Repair Program, Program Guidelines, § 1.1 (December 18,
2014) (Guidelines). Relevant to this appeal, eligibility required
that "[r]epairs must have been performed prior to the application
submission date for assistance." Id. at § 1.2.6.1. In addition,
"[l]andlords that apply to the LRRP and that have unit[s] occupied
by a tenant with work not complete shall not be eligible for
funding for the applicable unit[s]." Id. at §1.3.7. Thus, as
2 A-0767-15T4
previously noted, the information Bida provided in his application
rendered him ineligible for funding.
Bida requested the DCA reconsider its decision. The Director
of the DCA, Sandy Recovery Division, considered Bida's request as
an internal appeal and denied it. The Director advised Bida he
could seek review with the Office of Administrative Law (OAL).
The matter was transferred to the OAL as a contested case.
Following a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) upheld
DCA's rejection of Bida's application. After considering
inconsistencies in Bida's testimony with the documentary evidence
admitted at the hearing, the ALJ determined "the rehabilitation
related to Unit 2 was not complete on . . . the date on which Bida
filed the LRRP application . . . ." For that reason, the ALJ
ordered that DCA's denial of Bida's application be affirmed.
Because DCA did not timely modify or reject the ALJ's decision,
the decision is "deemed adopted as the final decision of the head
of the agency." N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c).
Our review of an administrative agency's final decision is
limited. In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999). Generally,
courts "defer to the specialized or technical expertise of the
agency charged with administration of a regulatory system." In
re Virtua-West Jersey Hosp. Voorhees for a Certificate of Need,
194 N.J. 413, 422 (2008). For those reasons, "an appellate court
3 A-0767-15T4
ordinarily should not disturb an administrative agency's
determinations or findings unless there is a clear showing that
(1) the agency did not follow the law; (2) the decision was
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; or (3) the decision was
not supported by substantial evidence." Ibid.Here, the ALJ's initial decision, which became final as the
result of the DCA's inaction, was supported by sufficient credible
evidence on the record as a whole. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). The ALJ
followed the law and his decision was neither arbitrary nor
capricious. Bida's arguments warrant no further discussion. R.
2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
4 A-0767-15T4