Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Minoosh Fathollahi v. New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission

June 3, 2011

MINOOSH FATHOLLAHI, APPELLANT,
v.
NEW JERSEY MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.



On appeal from the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, Department of Transportation.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted May 17, 2011

Before Judges Payne and Baxter.

Appellant Minoosh Fathollahi appeals from an April 15, 2010 order of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC) that suspended her drivers license and automobile registration privileges indefinitely in accordance with the provisions of N.J.S.A. 39:6-35 because she failed to satisfy a Law Division judgment obtained by Eagle Insurance Company (Eagle) as subrogee. We affirm.

I.

On August 16, 2001, appellant rear ended a vehicle owned by Miguel Soraino, and driven by Yecenia Vasquez-Cortez. At the time of the accident, appellant's car was unregistered and uninsured. Soraino's vehicle was insured by Eagle, and pursuant to the uninsured motorist provisions of Soraino's policy, Eagle paid a total of $21,049.51 for the personal injuries sustained by Vasquez-Cortez and for the damage to Soraino's vehicle. Consequently, Eagle filed a subrogation action against appellant, which resulted in a January 4, 2008 default judgment in the amount of $21,049.51. Fathollahi appealed, and we upheld the monetary judgment against her. Eagle Ins. Co. v. Fathollahi, No. A-1644-07 (App. Div. July 23, 2009). She did not seek certification from the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Thereafter, MVC learned that appellant had not satisfied the January 4, 2008 judgment. Accordingly, on April 15, 2010, MVC notified her that her driving and registration privileges had been suspended indefinitely pursuant to both N.J.S.A. 39:5-30 and N.J.S.A. 39:6-35.

On appeal, Fathollahi raises the following claims:

I. DRIVER[S] LICENSES ARE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTED BY DUE PROCESS AS A MATTER OF LAW.

II. THE DECISION OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION ON APRIL 15, 2010 TO SUSPEND APPELLANT'S DRIVER[S] LICENSE INDEFINITELY WAS IMPROPERLY ORDERED AND SHOULD BE REVERSED.

III. NO ATTORNEY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP EXISTS BETWEEN THE OFFICE OF CLARK & DISTEFANO, P.C. AND THE LIQUIDATOR OF EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY.

II.

In Point I, Fathollahi argues that because a drivers license is a property right the revocation of which cannot be accomplished without a hearing, the suspension of her license by MVC was unlawful because MVC did not afford her a hearing. Fathollahi is correct that the drivers license suspension process must comport with due ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.