October 25, 2007
IN THE MATTER OF GUY P. GARRUBBO
On appeal from the Motor Vehicle Commission, Case File No. G0675 30977 06622.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted October 15, 2007
Before Judges Collester and C.S. Fisher.
Appellant Guy P. Garrubbo contends that the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC) abused its discretion in suspending his driving privileges for 180 days. We reject his arguments and affirm.
The record reveals appellant's extraordinarily poor driving record. He collected a considerable number of points from the late 1970's until the circumstances in question, including: four points in 1979 for speeding and disregarding a stop sign; eighteen points in 1980 for speeding, improper passing, disregarding a stop sign, and improper operation on a highway; two points in 1981 for speeding; six points in 1982 for speeding and careless driving; two points in 1983 for speeding; four points in 1985 for speeding; four points in 1988 for speeding; four points in 1989 for driving while under the influence and speeding; four points in 1996 for driving while his privileges were suspended and speeding; six points in 1998 for careless driving, speeding, and failure to obey a traffic signal; two points in 1999 for speeding; two points in 2001 for careless driving; six points in 2002 for speeding; and fourteen points in 2003 for improper passing, failure to observe a traffic signal, improper entering or leaving a highway, failure to give a proper signal, and speeding. His driving privileges were suspended in 1981, 1984, 1985, 1991, 1993, 1994, twice in 1997, three times in 1998, 1999, 2000, twice in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004.*fn1
Appellant also committed various other motor vehicle violations that did not accrue points.
As a result of the accumulation of excessive points, and the conviction of five motor vehicle violations during a fourteen-month period, each of which resulted in proposed license suspensions of 180 days each -- which collectively amounted to a potential suspension of 1,410 days -- appellant requested a hearing. The five suspension notices were consolidated into one matter, which was referred to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing.
After considering the entire record, an administrative law judge recommended a 180-day suspension, and the MVC's final agency decision adopted this recommendation. Appellant filed an appeal with this court, arguing that the MVC misapplied N.J.S.A. 39:5-30.8. We find insufficient merit in appellant's arguments to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D).