In the Matter of M.M.
This text of In the Matter of M.M. (In the Matter of M.M.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3241-22
IN THE MATTER OF M.M., Claimant/Victim. ________________________
Submitted December 3, 2024 – Decided January 8, 2025
Before Judges Smith and Vanek.
On appeal from the Victims of Crime Compensation Review Board, VCCO No. 113819.
M.M., appellant pro se.
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Sookie Bae-Park, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Olga E. Bradford, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Claimant M.M. appeals from a final determination of the New Jersey
Victims of Crime Compensation Review Board (Board) denying her
compensation. On appeal, M.M. argues that the Board was arbitrary and
capricious when it rejected her claim. We affirm. The salient facts derive from the motion record. On June 27, 2019, M.M.
witnessed Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents at Newark
International Airport directing some passengers through an infrared machine
and others through a metal detector during the security screening process. When
she asked an agent to explain any criteria used by TSA to direct passengers to
the appropriate screening machine, she learned that individuals with larger
breasts were being directed to the infrared machine based on concerns that they
could be hiding contraband. M.M. contends that the agent then pointed at her
chest and laughed.
On October 3, 2021, M.M. filed a claim with the Victims of Crime
Compensation Office (VCCO) seeking compensation for relocation expenses 1
related to the incident with the TSA agent. In her claim, M.M. alleged that the
TSA agent's words and conduct constituted actionable harassment. On October
7, 2021, the VCCO denied M.M.'s claim based on its determination that "no
compensable crime occurred pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:4B-11."
1 Relocation expenses are described on the VCCO claim application form as follows: "The VCCO may consider relocation expenses where there is a need to protect the health and safety of the victim and/or his/her/their family. The Office may consider expenses such as the security deposit payable directly to the landlord, temporary shelter, moving services, monthly rental and mortgage cost differential, first month's rent if relocation occurred within one year of filing the application and/or personal expense items deemed reasonable and necessary." A-3241-22 2 M.M. appealed the VCCO's decision to the Board, arguing that "the
actions of TSA included lewd, indecent, and/or obscene acts referenced in
N.J.S.A. 52:4B-11."
After a hearing, the Board affirmed the VCCO's decision. It found that,
under N.J.S.A. 52:4B-11, the incident did not consist of a lewd, indecent or
obscene act and did not rise to a compensable crime. Based on these findings,
the Board adopted the VCCO's decision denying compensation as final.
M.M. appeals the Board's final decision.
"Judicial review of quasi-judicial agency determinations is limited."
Parsells v. Bd. of Educ., 254 N.J. 152, 162 (2023) (citing Allstars Auto. Grp.,
Inc. v. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n, 234 N.J. 150, 157 (2018)). "We review
agency decisions under an arbitrary and capricious standard." Ibid. (citing
Zimmerman v. Sussex Cnty. Educ. Servs. Comm'n, 237 N.J. 465, 475 (2019));
see also Puntasecca v. Violent Crimes Comp. Bd., 214 N.J. Super. 368, 371–72
(App. Div. 1986) ("a determination by the Violent Crimes Compensation Board
which has correctly applied the applicable law will not be reversed unless
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable"). However, we review matters of
statutory interpretation de novo. Savage v. Twp. of Neptune, 257 N.J. 204, 215
(2024).
A-3241-22 3 M.M. argues that the Board's final decision should be reversed because
she was the victim of an "offense" enumerated in the Criminal Injuries
Compensation Act of 1971 2 (CICA). We are not persuaded.
Under CICA, a victim may seek compensation for financial losses caused
by statutory offenses. N.J.S.A. 52:4B-10 (citing N.J.S.A. 52:4B-11). If the
VCCO rejects the application, the claimant may appeal the VCCO's decision to
the Board. N.J.S.A. 52:4B-3.2(c)(1). If a claimant does not present a criminal
conviction to the Board,3 the Board "must make [its] own determination of
criminality . . . and resulting injury, supported by a preponderance of credible
evidence." Puntasecca, 214 N.J. Super. at 372–73 (citing In re Saferstein, 160
N.J. Super. 393, 397 (App. Div. 1978)). Claimants have "the burden of proof .
. . of all the elements entitling [them] to be compensated, [and] that burden is
met by a preponderance of the credible evidence . . . ." In re Saferstein, 160 N.J.
Super. at 397.
M.M. failed to meet her burden to show anyone committed an enumerated
offense under N.J.S.A. 52:4B-11. She claimed the TSA agent's conduct
2 N.J.S.A. 52:4B-1 to -33. 3 "If any person has been convicted of any offense with respect to an act or omission on which a claim under [CICA] is based, proof of that conviction shall be taken as conclusive evidence that the offense has been committed, unless an appeal or any proceeding with regard thereto is pending." N.J.S.A. 52:4B-7(f). A-3241-22 4 constituted harassment and a "lewd, indecent, and/or obscene act." The Board
rejected this argument, finding the TSA agent's words and actions did not rise
to the level of an enumerated offense. We conclude that the Board was not
arbitrary and capricious, and its final decision was supported by the record. 4
M.M.'s remaining arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in
a written opinion. See R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
4 We do not condone the TSA agent's conduct, assuming M.M.'s allegations are true. We simply conclude, as did the Board, that such conduct is not an enumerated offense under N.J.S.A. 52:4B-11 and is therefore not compensable. A-3241-22 5
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In the Matter of M.M., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-mm-njsuperctappdiv-2025.