of administrative agency determinations has the support of a special constitutional provision.” In re Senior Appeals Exam’rs, 60 N.J. 356, 363, 290 A.2d 129 (1972). Pursuant to this constitutional grant, the Supreme Court adopted Rule 2:2-3(a)(2), which “contemplated that ‘every proceeding to review the action or inaction of a state administrative agency would be by appeal to the Appellate Division.’ ” Pascucci, supra, 71 N.J. at 52, 362 A.2d 566 (quoting Cent. R.R. Co. of N.J. v. Neeld, 26 N.J. 172, 185, 139 A.2d 110, cert. den., 357 U.S. 928, 78 S.Ct. 1373, 2 L.Ed.2d 1371 (1958)). Thus, the rule mandates the exclusive allocation to the Appellate Division of review of both “ ); Lacey Mun. Utils. Auth. v. N.J. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 369 N.J.Super. 261, 273, 848 A.2d 843 (App.Div.2004) (<HOLDING>); Bullet Hole, Inc. v. Dunbar, 335 N.J.Super.
holding that the attorney generals decision not to provide representation to an employee is reviewable by the appellate division not by the law division where the actions against the employee are pending holding that a determination of a new jersey spill compensation fund arbitrator is reviewable by the appellate division holding that a report of findings by the new jersey division of civil rights did not qualify for any hearsay exception in a discrimination case brought under the lad holding that the new jersey sports and exposition authority constituted as a body corporate and politic within the department of community affairs njsa 5104a is a state agency whose decisions are initially reviewable in the appellate division recognizing israel had no interest in denying its citizens the substantive advantages of new jersey defamation law in new jersey residents claims for defamation published in new jersey