Court Opinion

ID: 9901739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 15:06:28.005312+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:38.882081
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-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
      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.

                                                                           A-0184-22
                                       2
      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)).

                                                                           A-0184-22
                                           3
      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.

                                                                           A-0184-22
                                       4