Unpublished Opinions for the Week of November 7, 2016

01-2-1698 Animal Prot. League v. N.J. Fish and Game Council, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (14 pp.) Animal welfare organizations challenged the validity of a regulation that allowed the use of enclosed foothold traps to capture small fur-bearing animals. They argued that the council exceeded its authority in promulgating the regulation and that the regulation conflicted with the plain language of N.J.S.A. 23:4-22.1 to -22.8 that banned the use of steel-jaw leghold-type traps. The court found that the council’s determination fell within its specialized area of expertise as defined by statute, which empowered the council to promulgate regulations for the manner and means of taking fur-bearing animals, and relied on a Division of Fish and Wildlife report based on scientific studies. The regulation did not conflict with statutory language banning steel leghold traps because the new leghold trapping system did not operate as “jaws.”

01-2-1699 Johnson v. Borough of Oceanport, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (4 pp.) Appellant appealed from the GRC’s denial of his request to reconsider its decision that he knowingly and willfully violated the OPRA and ordering him to pay a civil penalty. Appellant was a city councilman when requester made several OPRA requests to the borough seeking appellant’s borough-related email. Requester did not receive the records he sought and filed a complaint with the GRC in 2007. In 2009, GRC adopted the ALJ’s decision that appellant willfully failed to respond to the custodian’s requests for the responsive records and ordered a civil penalty. Appellant paid the fine and did not appeal. In 2011, a different ALJ held a hearing on requester’s second complaint that he was denied appellant’s email. The GRC adopted the ALJ’s decision that the failure was not willful and not unreasonable. In 2014, appellant filed a request for reconsideration, contending that the second decision contradicted and was irreconcilable with the first decision. GRC denied the request as outside the time limit for reconsideration. The court agreed that the request for reconsideration was grossly out of time.