HOFFMAN'S RESTAURANT, LLC VS. THE BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS (L-2665-19, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3395-19

Waypoint 622 (plaintiff) operates a restaurant in Brielle; in Oct. 2018 Fire Prevention Officer Willms issued 17 Uniform Fire Code violations.
Willms reinspected May 30, 2019; none abated and he issued an "Order to Pay Penalty and Abate Violations" proposing a $3,000 penalty.
The Order was mailed June 3, 2019; certified-mail tracking shows delivery and signature at 622 Green Avenue on June 4, 2019 (signature illegible).
Plaintiff communicated with Willms about abatement/repairs in June; counsel hand-delivered an appeal to the Monmouth County Construction Board of Appeals on June 21, 2019, which the Board rejected as untimely.
Plaintiff sued in lieu of prerogative writs and both sides moved for summary judgment; the Law Division denied plaintiff's motion and granted summary judgment to defendants (Board and Willms/Brielle).
Appellate Division affirmed, holding the appeal was untimely, the 15-day limit was jurisdictional, and any technical service defects did not defeat jurisdiction where actual receipt and communications occurred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether service date for certified mail is the mailing date (so appeal timely)	Service is deemed three days after mailing under the regulation, so mailed June 3 → service June 6; appeal was timely	Actual certified-mail delivery occurred June 4, so appeal filed after 15-day deadline and was untimely	Court held service occurred June 4 (actual delivery); plaintiff's timing argument rejected
Whether strict enforcement of the 15-day appeal rule denies due process or should be relaxed	Enforcement is inequitable given communications and technical service issues; sought equitable relaxation	15-day deadline is jurisdictional; no equitable basis to relax here given plaintiff's pre-deadline communications with Willms	Court held the 15-day limit is jurisdictional and its enforcement did not violate due process; no equitable relief warranted
Whether technical defects in service void the Order and deprive tribunal of jurisdiction	Signature illegible and mailing question create defective service that voids Order	Actual receipt, subsequent communications, and awareness of the Order cured any technical defects	Court held technical defects immaterial where actual service and due process occurred; jurisdiction preserved

State, Dep't of Cmty. Affs. v. Wertheimer, 177 N.J. Super. 595 (establishing timeliness rule/jurisdictional nature of administrative appeal period)
State, Dep't of Env't Prot. v. Larchmont Farms, Inc., 266 N.J. Super. 16 (due process requires adequate notice and opportunity for hearing)
Citibank, N.A. v. Russo, 334 N.J. Super. 346 (technical service defects do not defeat jurisdiction when actual service and due process are afforded)
Rosa v. Araujo, 260 N.J. Super. 458 (same principle regarding immateriality of technical service irregularities)