Opinion ID: 2333373
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the appellate division extension of time for appeal.

Text: Hoboken and Weehawken assert the question involved whether the Superior Court, Appellate Division, erred in entering an order, on Erie's motion, permitting Erie to serve its notices of appeal upon the Division. Appeals from state agency decisions are to be taken within 45 days after the date of the service of the decision of the agency or notice of the action taken. R.R. 1:3-1( b ). The judgments of the Division were filed August 27, 1954 and notice thereof was received by Erie not later than August 30, 1954. Erie served notices of appeal on the attorneys for Weehawken and Hoboken and on the Attorney-General, eo nomine and as attorney for the respondents Director, Division of Taxation, and Division of Tax Appeals. These notices of appeal were filed with the Superior Court, Appellate Division, on October 6, 1954, within the 45-day period prescribed by R.R. 1:3-1( b ), supra. At the time of filing the notices of appeal, the pertinent portion of R.R. 4:88-8, as amended June 28, 1954, effective September 8, 1954 provided:    Such appeal shall be instituted by filing a notice of appeal with the Appellate Division together with an affidavit or acknowledgment of service of copies of the notice of appeal upon the agency, the Attorney General or upon any person in his office designated by him in writing filed with the clerk of the superior court and all other parties to the proceeding or their attorneys. Erie, conceiving that it had erroneously failed to serve the Division as well as the Attorney-General, moved the Superior Court, Appellate Division, for an order ruling that its course of proceeding satisfied the requirements of R.R. 4:88-8, as amended, supra, or in the alternative extending the time for service upon the Division of Tax Appeals, under R.R. 1:27 B (1) ( b ) and R.R. 1:27 B (2). The extension granted by the Superior Court, Appellate Division, was within the additional 30-day period provided by R.R. 1:27 B (2), supra, and it does not appear that the Superior Court, Appellate Division, abused its discretion in applying R.R. 1:27 B (1) ( b ), supra. Erie substantially complied with R.R. 4:88-8 as amended, supra, within the initial 45-day period by serving the Attorney-General as attorney for the respondent Division of Tax Appeals. No prejudice to the Division is shown and the Division appears to waive the alleged defect by virtue of its statement that no brief will be filed in these matters on its behalf. No prejudice to Hoboken and Weehawken could result in the premises inasmuch as they were served within time and Erie's notices of appeal were filed within time. It is observed that the purpose of R.R. 4:88-8, as amended, supra, is to require service of the notice of appeal upon the state agency as well as upon the Attorney-General.