payment to a patron as if the bet had been won. As previously indicated, the Act requires the Commission to “conduct all hearings pertaining to civil violations of’ the Act, N.J.S.A. 5:12-63b, and to receive “complaints from the public relating to the conduct of gaming.” N.J.S.A. 5:12-63f. The Commission’s use of the Patron Complaint Report, and the Com mission’s response to plaintiffs complaints demonstrate that the Commission is aware of its responsibility in this regard and is fulfilling it. Although the Commission did not afford plaintiff a trial-type hearing regarding his complaint, it may be that plaintiff was not entitled to one considering the nature and circumstances of his allegations. See Bally Mfg. Corp. v. N.J. Casino Control Comm’n, 85 N.J. 325, 333, 426 A.2d 1000 (1981) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, in the event of a factual dispute
holding that evidentiary hearing not necessary where proposed administrative action is based on undisputed material facts holding that no evidentiary hearing is necessary on an ineffective assistance claim where the evidence petitioner sought to introduce would not affect resolution of the issue holding that the defendant was entitled to a pretrial evidentiary hearing on his claim of immunity based on selfdefense holding that an evidentiary hearing was not required on a postconviction motion because the movant did not allege facts sufficient to establish each of the necessary elements of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on an allegation of failure to investigate and call witnesses holding that an evidentiary hearing is necessary only if the party requesting the hearing raises a significant disputed factual issue