IN THE MATTER OF ANTONIO J. SANTOS

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-02457-13T1

IN THE MATTER OF

ANTONIO J. SANTOS,

POLICE OFFICER (S9999M),

City of Jersey City.

___________________________________

July 21, 2015

Submitted June 15, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Fuentes and Koblitz.

On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service Commission, Docket No. 2013-3205.

Cammarata, Nulty & Garrigan, L.L.C., attorneys for appellant Antonio J. Santos (Thomas J. Cammarata, on the brief).

John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent Civil Service Commission (PamelaN. Ullman,Deputy Attorney General, on the statement in lieu of brief).

Jeremy Farrell, Corporation Counsel, attorney for respondent City of Jersey City (Vincent Signorile, Assistant Corporation Counsel, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Antonio J. Santos appeals from the Civil Service Commission's (Commission) final administrative determination issued December 18, 2013, upholding the decision of the Division of Classification and Personnel Management (CPM) finding that Jersey City had presented a sufficient basis to remove Santos' name from the eligible list for police officers on the basis of an unsatisfactory background report. Given our limited standard of review, we affirm.

Santos had earlier been appointed as a County Correction Officer in Hudson County. Santos received a passing score on the open competitive examination for the title of police officer, but the background report reflected that he committed tax fraud by improperly declaring a child as a dependent on his 2011 tax return, had gang affiliations, and was untruthful regarding his residency arrangements. The appointing authority noted that when it went to his Jersey City address, Santos claimed to be sharing a bedroom with his sixteen-year-old sister.

Santos had previously been removed from the Correction Officer Recruit list, Department of Corrections (DOC), due to a July 31, 2008 arrest for underage possession of alcohol,1 when he was wearing colored beads that appeared to be connected to the Trinitarios gang. After he was arrested, four men wearing similarly colored beads approached him to make sure he was all right. He also gave two false years of birth. He did not appeal the removal from the DOC list.

After removal of his name from the police officer eligible list, Santos appealed to the CPM. Santos argued to the CPM that he relied on his tax preparer's advice to list the child on his tax return, and had paid the additional tax after the Internal Revenue had inquired. He said the beads on his person when he was arrested in 2008 were Dominican rosary beads, that he did not know the four males who approached him and that he did in fact live with his family in Jersey City.

In response, the appointing authority noted that the 2011 tax return indicated that it was self-prepared, and that he originally told it that the child reported on the tax return was his stepson. The Commission also found that Santos stated on his application to become a Correction Officer Recruit that he left his employment with Sears in January 2009 due to "misuse of employee discount." However, on his application for this title, he stated he was "laid off" from Sears.

Our review of the Commission's decision is limited. Karins v. City of Atl. City, 152 N.J. 532, 540 (1998) (citation omitted). We will not upset a determination by the Commission unless it is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or lacks fair support in the record. Ibid. (citation omitted). A "'strong presumption of reasonableness attaches'" to a decision of the Commission, In re Carroll, 339 N.J. Super. 429, 437 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 170 N.J. 85 (2001), as we "defer to an agency's expertise and superior knowledge of a particular field[,]" Outland v. Board of Trustees of the Teachers' Pension & Annuity Fund, 326 N.J. Super. 395, 400 (App. Div. 1999). "If the original findings are supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole, we must accept them." Ibid. (citation omitted).

N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(a)1, in conjunction with N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1(a)6, allows the Commission to remove a name from an employment list when the individual has "made a false statement of any material fact or attempted any deception or fraud in any part of the selection or appointment process." N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b), in conjunction with N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(d), provides that Santos has the burden of proof to show that Jersey City's decision to remove his name from the eligible list was in error.

Santos argues on appeal that the removal of his name from the list was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable because he mistakenly claimed the child on his tax return, and the 2008 criminal arrest was an isolated incident, the charges were reduced, Santos was only twenty years old at the time and has been rehabilitated since. He submitted glowing letters of reference. Although the record does not support a request for a hearing, Santos further argues that, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.1, he was entitled to a hearing given the "material and controlling dispute of facts" surrounding the 2011 tax reporting and 2008 arrest. We disagree with both arguments and affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the thorough December 18, 2012 final decision of the Commission.

We add only the following. Santos conceded the facts surrounding his 2008 arrest, although contesting the interpretation of some of those facts. He did not appeal his removal from the DOC list for an unsatisfactory background check. He also conceded his more recent misreporting on the 2011 tax return, and recently gave discrepant explanations concerning his separation from Sears on his application for Correction Officer Recruit employment and his application for this title.

Affirmed.

1 Santos indicates that this arrest resulted in a conviction for an ordinance violation for drinking in public.