Opinion
Argued January 10, 1972 —
Decided January 19, 1972.
Appeal from order of Commissioner of Banking.
Before Judges SULLIVAN, LEONARD and CARTON.
Mr. William F. Tompkins argued the cause for appellant ( Messrs. Lum, Biunno Tompkins, attorneys; Mr. William F. Dowd, on the Brief).
Mr. George F. Kugler, Jr., Attorney General, attorney for respondent James C. Brady, Jr., filed a Statement in Lieu of Brief ( Mr. T. Robert Zochowski, Deputy Attorney General, of Counsel).
Mr. Edward Suski, Jr., argued the cause for respondent Fidelity Bank and Trust Company ( Messrs. Wilinski, Coruzzi Suski, attorneys).
We affirm. Mechanics' contention that it had home office protection within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 17:9A-19 at the time the Commissioner approved Fidelity's branch office application is without merit. As of the date of this approval Mechanics had not yet passed the necessary shareholder's amendment to its Articles of Association and no formal certificate authorizing it to relocate its home office had been issued by the Comptroller of the Currency. As a fact these prerequisites were not accomplished until several months thereafter.
We find that Mechanics suffered no denial of due process, there being substantial compliance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-9 and with the rules adopted by the Department. Further, it was not prejudiced by the Hearer's denial of its request for an adjournment.
Finally, we conclude that there is substantial credible evidence in the record to support the Commissioner's factual findings and that there is a reasonable basis for his decision and order.
Affirmed.