On appeal from the Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Housing Inspection, Docket No. BHI-312-05/0705-06605-C.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted February 25, 2008
Before Judges Graves and Alvarez.
275 Prospect Towers Association, Inc. (Prospect Towers), a condominium association created under the Condominium Act, N.J.S.A. 46:8B-1 to -38, appeals a final decision of the Commissioner of the Department of Community Affairs. Prospect Towers manages a 192-unit building located at 275 Prospect Street in East Orange (the building). The Commissioner's decision, which adopted as final an Initial Decision issued by an administrative law judge (ALJ), requires Prospect Towers to provide carbon monoxide alarms in all dwelling units within the building, pursuant to the Hotel and Multiple Dwelling Law, N.J.S.A. 55:13A-1 to -28. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
On March 31, 2005, the Bureau of Housing Inspection, operating within the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), issued a report regarding a number of violations in the exterior areas, common areas, and individual units of the building. Forty-two of the stated violations were for failure to provide carbon monoxide alarms in individual units. Prospect Towers contested the violations and requested a hearing. The DCA transmitted the matter to the Office of Administrative Law. The parties thereafter filed cross-motions for summary decision. Oral argument was conducted before the ALJ, whose opinion issued on December 4, 2006. The violations included relatively insignificant items such as the condition of painted walls within individual units, which the State conceded it is not pursuing. The non-safety, non-common element violations, as well as the $6625 penalty which has been calculated but not assessed, are in limbo pending resolution of this appeal. The only question addressed by counsel at oral argument before the ALJ, and therefore the only issue the ALJ considered in his written decision, is whether carbon monoxide alarms were included in the legal definition of common elements, and were, as a result, the responsibility of the condominium association concurrently with individual unit owners.
Appellate courts have a limited role in reviewing decisions of administrative agencies. State-Operated Sch. Dist. of Newark v. Gaines, 309 N.J. Super. 327, 331 (App. Div.) (citing Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980)), certif. denied, 156 N.J. 381 (1998); Campbell v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562 (1963). We should not independently assess the evidence. In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999) (citing State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999)). Instead, we are required to accord a strong presumption of reasonableness to the decision of an administrative agency. State-Operated Sch. Dist., supra, 309 N.J. Super. at 331 (citing Smith v. Riccci, 89 N.J. 514, 525, appeal dismissed sub nom, Smith v. Brandt, 459 U.S. 962, 103 S.Ct. 286, 74 L.Ed. 2d 272 (1982)). Determinations of administrative agencies must be given great deference. In re Freshwater Wetlands Prot. Act Rules, 180 N.J. 478, 488-89 (2004) (citing In re Distrib'n of Liquid Assets Upon Dissolution of the Union County Reg'l High Sch. Dist. No. 1, 168 N.J. 1, 10-11 (2001)).
Indeed, an agency's decision should only be reversed when "it is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or it is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." Henry, supra, 81 N.J. at 579-80 (citing Campbell, supra, 39 N.J. at 562). Our review is restricted to four inquiries:
"(1) whether the agency's decision offends the State or Federal Constitution;
(2) whether the agency's action violates express or implied legislative policies;
(3) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and
(4) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors." [In re Taylor, supra, 158 N.J. at 656 (quoting Brady v. Bd. of Rev., 152 N.J. 197, 210-11 (1997)).]
Governed by these principles, we are persuaded that the agency's final decision is supported by substantial credible evidence and is founded in law.
The purpose of the Hotel and Multiple Dwelling Law is to protect the health and welfare of the public by ensuring they have decent, standard and safe living accommodations. Terrey v. Sheridan Gardens, Inc., 163 N.J. Super. 404, 407 (App. Div. 1978). In furtherance of that legislative purpose, carbon monoxide alarms are required in multiple dwelling buildings pursuant to N.J.A.C. 5:10-28.1 and N.J.A.C. 5:10-1.6(a). The question is whether the requirement imposes an obligation ...