Case Name: MECHANICS NATIONAL BANK OF BURLINGTON COUNTY, A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT, v. JAMES C. BRADY, JR., COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BANKING, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND FIDELITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1972-01-19
Citations: 121 N.J. Super. 62
Docket Number: 
Parties: MECHANICS NATIONAL BANK OF BURLINGTON COUNTY, A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT, v. JAMES C. BRADY, JR., COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BANKING, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND FIDELITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 121
Pages: 62–64

Head Matter:
MECHANICS NATIONAL BANK OF BURLINGTON COUNTY, A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT, v. JAMES C. BRADY, JR., COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BANKING, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND FIDELITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, RESPONDENTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued January 10, 1972
Decided January 19, 1972.
Before Judges Sullivan, Leonard and Carton.
Mr. William F. Tompkins argued the cause for appellant (Messrs. Lum, Biunno & Tompkins, attorneys; Mr. William F. Dowd, on the Brief).
Mr. George F. Kugler, Jr., Attorney General, attorney for respondent James C. Brady, Jr., filed a Statement in Lieu of Brief (Mr. T. Robert Zochowski, Deputy Attorney General, of Counsel).
Mr. Edward Suski, Jr., argued the cause for respondent Eidelity Bank and Trust Company (Messrs. Wilinski, Coruzzi & Suski, attorneys).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We affirm. Mechanics' contention that it had home office protection within the meaning of N. J. S. A. 17:9A-19 at the time the Commissioner approved Eidelity's branch office application is without merit. As of the date of this approval Mechanics had not yet passed the necessary shareholder's amendment to its Articles of Association and no formal certificate authorizing it to relocate its home office had been issued by the Comptroller of the Currency. As a fact these prerequisites were not accomplished until several months thereafter.
We find that Mechanics suffered no denial of due process, there being substantial compliance with N. J. S. A.
52:14B-9 and with the rules adopted by the Department. Further, it was not prejudiced by the Hearer's denial of its request for an adjournment.
Finally, we conclude that there is substantial credible evidence in the record to support the Commissioner's factual findings and that there is a reasonable basis for his decision and order.
Affirmed.