ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me on the motion of Petitioner, James L. Williams for a new trial.
The motion was filed on February 14, 1996. The Order of the Administrative Law Judge denying his
application was filed on January 6, 1995. The basis of the motion is that another person was granted
an off-premises beer and wine permit for a location in the New Brooklyn community in Orangeburg,
South Carolina approximately .7 miles from the location denied to Williams. According to
Petitioner's affidavit, the permit was granted to that person on January 19, 1996.
The ALJD Rules of Procedure do not address a motion for a new trial based upon after
discovered evidence. However, the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60 (b) provides
relief from a final judgment, order or proceeding based upon "newly discovered evidence which by
due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b)." The
motion is required to be made within one year after the judgment, order or proceeding was entered
into. The one year limit is a non-discretionary mandate. Coleman v. Dunlap, 303 S.C. 511, 402
S.E.2d 181, 183 (Ct. App. 1991), affirmed 306 S.C. 491, 413 S.E.2d 15 (1992). The time period
has expired.
Based upon Rule 60(b) and the case law there is no relief available for Williams. His recourse
is to reapply for a beer and wine permit with the Department of Revenue and Taxation and provide
it with the information of the change in circumstances surrounding his application.
The motion is DENIED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________
ALISON RENEE LEE
Administrative Law Judge
February _____, 1996
Columbia, South Carolina. |
