87 A.2d 439 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1952), No. A--157, Carluccio v. Ferber

Docket Nº:A--157
Citation:87 A.2d 439, 18 N.J.Super. 473
Opinion Judge:William J. Brennan, Jr., J.A.D.
Party Name:JOSEPH A. CARLUCCIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MARTIN J. FERBER, DIRECTOR OF MOTOR VEHICLES, AND DOMINICK ANIELLO, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS
Attorney:Mr. Stephen Mongiello argued the cause for appellant. Mr. John J. Kitchen argued the cause for respondent (Mr. Theodore D. Parsons, Attorney-General of New Jersey, attorney).
Judge Panel:McGeehan, Jayne and Wm. J. Brennan, Jr.
Case Date:March 24, 1952
Court:Superior Court of New Jersey
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 439

87 A.2d 439 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1952)

18 N.J.Super. 473

JOSEPH A. CARLUCCIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v.

MARTIN J. FERBER, DIRECTOR OF MOTOR VEHICLES, AND DOMINICK ANIELLO, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS

No. No. A--157

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

March 24, 1952

Argued March 17, 1952.

Mr. Stephen Mongiello argued the cause for appellant.

Mr. John J. Kitchen argued the cause for respondent (Mr. Theodore D. Parsons, Attorney-General of New Jersey, attorney).

McGeehan, Jayne and Wm. J. Brennan, Jr.

OPINION

William J. Brennan, Jr., J.A.D.

[18 N.J.Super. 475] Plaintiff, alleging that he is an honorably discharged veteran of World War I entitled to the protection afforded by the Veterans' Tenure Act (R.S. 38:16-1 et seq.), complains of the termination by defendant Ferber, Director of Motor Vehicles, of his agency for the registering of motor vehicles, issuing registration certificates and licensing of drivers, to which he was designated pursuant to R.S. 39:3-3 (L. 1921, c. 208) by a predecessor in office of Ferber, and of Ferber's designation of defendant, Aniello, to replace him.

Ferber's action was taken by letter of December 7, 1950, advising plaintiff that his "authority to act as agent is hereby

Page 440

revoked as of December 31, 1950." Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the Law Division seeking a judgment restoring him as agent and setting aside Aniello's designation in his place. Upon motion of Ferber the action was dismissed, without prejudice, "for the reason that the Court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter." Ferber's motion was grounded upon the contention that "plaintiff seeks review in his complaint of a decision or action of a state administrative [18 N.J.Super. 476] agency" reviewable not by complaint filed in the Law Division pursuant to Rule 3:81-2 but by appeal to the Appellate Division under Rule 3:81-8. Plaintiff appeals from the order of dismissal which was entered November 14, 1951, and also "from the final decision or action of Martin J. Ferber, administrative agent, dismissing the above plaintiff on December 31, 1950, in accordance with Rule 3:81-8."

Whether plaintiff's challenge to Ferber's action was reviewable in the circumstances by complaint under Rule 3:81-2 or by appeal under Rule 3:81-8 it is not necessary for us to decide. His claim to relief is rested solely upon his...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP