SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-0184-22 

K.S., 

 Petitioner-Appellant, 

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF 

HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION 

OF FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, 

 Respondent-Respondent. 

_____________________________

Submitted November 13, 2023 – Decided November 22, 2023 

Before Judges Berdote Byrne and Bishop-Thompson. 

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Human 

Services, Division of Family Development, Agency 

Docket No. C402092020. 

K.S., appellant pro se. 

Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Elizabeth M. Tingley, Deputy 

Attorney General, on the brief). 

PER CURIAM 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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.
2 A-0184-22

 Plaintiff, K.S., appeals from a final agency decision of the Department of 

Human Services, Division of Family Development (DFD), temporarily 

suspending her benefits for six months. Because K.S. has resumed receiving 

benefits, we dismiss this appeal as moot. 

I.

In May 2022, plaintiff was evicted from the room she was renting for 

violations of her tenancy. Following her eviction, plaintiff sought shelter 

placement from the Union County Division of Social Services (UCDSS). 

UCDSS placed plaintiff at a shelter. Plaintiff was subsequently terminated from 

the shelter for violation of shelter rules. UCDSS placed plaintiff at another 

shelter and explained to her if she was terminated at this shelter, her emergency 

assistance (EA) benefits would be suspended for six months. Plaintiff 

acknowledged she understood. Plaintiff was again terminated, and UCDSS 

suspended plaintiff's EA benefits from June 10, 2022 to December 12, 2022. 

Plaintiff requested a fair hearing on the decision to suspend her EA 

benefits and the matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law 

(OAL). While the OAL hearing was pending, plaintiff's EA benefits continued. 

During that time, plaintiff was placed at two more shelters and subsequently 

terminated from both. 
3 A-0184-22

An administrative law judge (ALJ) conducted a hearing and heard 

testimony from five DFD witnesses and plaintiff. In July 2022, the ALJ issued 

an initial decision upholding UCDSS's decision to suspend plaintiff's EA 

benefits for a period of six months. On August 30, 2022, DFD issued a final 

agency decision adopting the ALJ's factual findings and legal conclusions, 

affirming the six-month suspension of plaintiff's EA benefits. Pursuant to the 

final agency decision, plaintiff's six-month period of ineligibility began to run 

as of August 30, 2022, the date of the decision, because she received EA benefits 

pending the outcome of the fair hearing. Plaintiff appealed. 

II. 

"An issue is moot when the decision sought in a matter, when rendered, 

can have no practical effect on the existing controversy." N.J. Div. of Youth 

and Family Serv. v. J.C., 423 N.J. Super. 259, 263 (App. Div. 2011) (internal 

citation and quotation marks omitted). An issue that has become moot "prior to 

judicial resolution ordinarily will be dismissed." Ibid. "[A]n appeal will not be 

moot when 'a party suffers from the adverse consequences...caused by [the 

prior] proceeding.'" Ibid. (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth and Family Serv. v. A.P., 

408 N.J. Super. 252, 262 (App. Div 2009)). 
4 A-0184-22

 Plaintiff's appeal of the DFD's final agency decision to suspend her EA 

benefits for a period of six months is moot. Plaintiff's six-month period of 

ineligibility began on August 30, 2022, the date in which the final agency 

decision was rendered. After this period of ineligibility expired, plaintiff 

reapplied for and received EA benefits. Plaintiff alleges no adverse 

consequences stemming from the temporary suspension of her EA benefits. 

We conclude because plaintiff's period of ineligibility has expired and she 

has since resumed receiving EA benefits, her appeal of the agency decision 

upholding the temporary suspension of her benefits is moot.

 Dismissed.