01-2-6871 Burns v. Heyrich , App. Div. (per curiam) (3 pp.) Angela Burns filed a complaint with the New Jersey State Board of Architects, reporting that an architect she retained, John Heyrich, performed incompetently, engaged in professional misconduct and employed improper billing practices. The board found “no violations of [the] statutes and regulations,” “concluded that there is insufficient cause to support the filing of formal disciplinary charges,” advised that it had “cautioned Mr. Heyrich regarding his communication methods when working on future projects,” determined that “there is no cause for further action,” and “closed” the matter. Burns appeals and contends that the board’s procedures did not afford her a fair hearing, the board did not answer the questions she raised, and the board should be required to set forth its reasons. In Marques v. New Jersey State Bd. of Medical Examiners , the court held that the complainant did not have “a right to judicial review” of the Board of Medical Examiners’ response because he was not a party to a proceeding before the professional board or “affected adversely by its action (or non-action).” Following the reasoning in Marques , the appellate panel dismisses the appeal. [Decided Feb. 22, 2010.]
ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION
03-2-6872 Mogull v. Pototschnig , App. Div. (per curiam) (6 pp.) The Pototschnig defendants appeal from the denial of their cross-motion for trial de novo filed in opposition to motions to confirm arbitration awards in their favor filed by plaintiff Mogull and the Lawrence defendants. The cross-motion was filed 11 days after the expiration of the 30-day period permitted by Rule 4:21A-6(b)(1). Finding that the trial court’s determination that there were no extraordinary circumstances warranting an extension of time was consistent with the standards set forth in Hartsfield v. Fantini and Accilien v. Consol. Rail Corp. , the panel affirms. [Decided Feb. 22, 2010.]
