On appeal from the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, Agency No. 12851.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Cuff and Fisher.
Due to appellant's atrocious driving record,*fn1 the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC) served notices of proposed suspensions, which, if sustained, would result in a 2340-day suspension of appellant's driving privileges. Appellant retained counsel and requested a hearing.
On the day of the scheduled administrative hearing, the parties entered into a consent order that: (1) suspended appellant's driving privileges for 1195 days; (2) required a one-year probationary period following restoration; (3) imposed a $250 per year surcharge for a three-year period; and (4) dismissed the remaining charges.
Appellant appealed the consent order, arguing he did not receive a fair hearing because the stipulation of settlement was not preceded by a voluntary waiver of his right to a hearing and because he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. We find insufficient merit in those arguments to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D).*fn2 We add only the following brief comments.
In his first argument, appellant claims he was "forced to accept" the stipulation of settlement. The record does not support that claim. Instead, the transcript of the hearing reveals only that appellant, under oath, acknowledged in response to the questions of the administrative law judge (ALJ) that he freely and voluntarily entered into the settlement. Appellant's own sworn testimony at the hearing demonstrates the frivolity of his current argument that he was coerced:
THE COURT: . . . Now, Mr. Jivani, you know what you face here today, we've had lengthy discussions, and you heard me read the nine scheduled suspension notices; is that correct?
THE COURT: And you're here today with counsel, . . . is that correct?
THE COURT: And you've conferred with him about this matter and he has represented you throughout and you have ...