Full Text
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2470-24
L.B.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
ATLANTIC COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF
FAMILY AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT,
Respondent-Respondent.
____________________________
Argued September 17, 2026 – Decided September 25, 2026
Before Judges DeAlmeida and Augostini.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Human
Services, Agency Docket No. C056588001.
L.B., appellant, argued the cause on appellant's behalf.
Mark D. McNally, Deputy Attorney General, argued
the cause for respondent (Jennifer Davenport, Attorney
General, attorney; Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Mark D. McNally, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Petitioner L.B. appeals from a May 13, 2025 final agency decision of the
Department of Human Services (DHS) ordering the recoupment of benefits he
received under the Work First New Jersey/General Assistance (GA) program
and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) from February
2023 to December 2023. We vacate the decision and remand to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) for a new hearing.
In January 2024, the Atlantic County Department of Family and
Community Development (County) was informed L.B. was self-employed as a
taxi driver and earned income that made him ineligible for a portion of the GA
and SNAP benefits he received in 2023. After the County informed L.B. he was
required to reimburse the benefits for which he was not eligible, he requested a
fair hearing.
The County transmitted the matter to the OAL as a contested case. Before
a hearing was held, the County twice accepted documents from L.B. relating to
income and expenses associated with his self-employment. On both occasions
the County recalculated the amount of overpaid benefits subject to recoupment.
On March 21, 2025, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a plenary
hearing at which she heard testimony and admitted evidence. The ALJ
subsequently issued an initial decision affirming the County's recoupment
A-2470-24
2
determination. On May 13, 2025, the DHS issued a final decision adopting the
ALJ's initial decision.
On appeal, L.B. argues the transcript of the OAL hearing contains
numerous gaps which render it effectively unintelligible. He argues the
defective transcript is: (1) a denial of due process because the OAL failed to
ensure the hearing was properly recorded; (2) an obstacle to the formation and
presentation of his arguments; and (3) insufficient to permit effective appellate
review. He argues we should either: (1) reverse the agency's decision; (2)
vacate the agency's decision and remand the matter for a new hearing; or (3)
remand the matter to compel the agency to provide either a corrected transcript
or audio recording of the hearing at no cost to L.B.
We are persuaded the record is incomplete. The transcript of the OAL
proceeding, which is based on an apparently poor audio recording, is replete
with missing passages. In the fifty-two-page transcript, the phrase "(Out of
microphone range)" in place of testimony appears ninety times.
L.B. contends the ALJ mistakenly rejected receipts for expenses that
should have been deducted from his income for purposes of determining his
eligibility for GA and SNAP benefits. The DHS accepted the ALJ's evidentiary
determinations "[b]ased on the record" created at the hearing. Without a
A-2470-24
3
complete transcript of the hearing, we are unable to determine if the ALJ's
decision, which was adopted by the agency, contains sufficient support for the
determination L.B. is liable for the specified amount of overpaid benefits.
We are not persuaded reversal of the agency's decision is warranted. Nor
do we conclude reconstruction of the hearing record would be a worthwhile
endeavor. Given the extent of the deficiencies in the transcript, we vacate the
May 13, 2025 decision, and remand this matter to the OAL for a new hearing.
Although L.B.'s brief requests the matter be assigned to a new ALJ, at oral
argument, he conceded he does not contend he was treated unfairly by the ALJ
who conducted the original hearing. We, therefore, see no basis on which to
require this matter be assigned to a new ALJ on remand. The remand
proceedings shall be completed within sixty days.
Vacated and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-2470-24
4