Dep’t of Education v. Negron OATH Index No. 806/07 (Nov. 30, 2006)

Respondent Custodian Engineer convicted of crimes of moral turpitude. Termination recommended. ______

NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS

In the Matter of DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Petitioner - against - JULIO NEGRON Respondent ______

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ALESSANDRA F. ZORGNIOTTI, Administrative Law Judge This is a disciplinary proceeding referred by petitioner, the Department of Education, pursuant to section 75 of the Civil Service Law. Respondent, Julio Negron, a Custodian Engineer I, is charged with engaging in conduct unbecoming in that he was arrested and convicted after a jury trial of attempted murder in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and assault in the first degree (ALJ Ex. 1). A hearing on the charges was scheduled to be conducted before me on November 17, 2006. Upon respondent’s failure to appear, proper proof of service of the charges and the notice of hearing were submitted (Pet. Exs. 1 & 2). Such evidence established the jurisdictional prerequisite for finding respondent in default. Petitioner submitted a certified certificate of disposition from Supreme Court, Queens County showing that on March 29, 2006, respondent was convicted of attempted murder in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the 2 second and third degrees, and assault in the first degree and that on April 26, 2006, he was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment (Pets. Ex. 3 & 4). Respondent is currently incarcerated and will not be eligible for release until June 29, 2016 (Pet. Ex. 5). Generally, a civil service employee’s actions are cognizable as misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding upon a showing that there is a nexus between the misconduct and respondent’s employment. See Dep’t of Correction v. Muza, OATH Index No. 236/99 (Dec. 23, 1998), aff’d, NYC Civ. Serv. Comm’n Item No. CD 00-26-SA (Apr. 10, 2000). In addition, City employees convicted of crimes of “moral turpitude” may be disciplined and dismissed in accordance with Mayoral Executive Order No. 105 section 5(b) (1986), which provides: Officers and employees of the City convicted of a crime relating to their office or employment, involving moral turpitude or which bears upon their fitness or ability to perform their duties or responsibilities, [they] shall be removed from such . . . employment, absent compelling mitigating circumstances. . . .

See also Human Resources Admin. v. Turner, OATH Index No. 2212/01, at 5 (Nov. 21, 2001), aff’d, NYC Civ. Serv. Comm’n Item No. CD02-48-SA (June 14, 2002). Moral turpitude has been defined as “an act or behavior which gravely violates the moral sentiment or accepted moral standards of the community.” Dep’t of Transportation v. Woods, OATH Index No. 266/89, at 8 (Sept. 22, 1989). There can be no doubt that respondent’s acts involving attempted murder, assault, reckless endangerment, and possession of a handgun constitute crimes of moral turpitude and relate directly to his fitness to hold the position of a Custodian Engineer working around children in a public school. No substantial, much less compelling, mitigating circumstances are apparent and the only appropriate penalty for such misconduct is termination.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Respondent was properly served with the charges and notice of hearing.

2. Respondent was convicted of attempted murder in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and assault in the first degree, which are crimes involving moral turpitude and which bear on his fitness to perform his duties. 3

RECOMMENDATION Respondent has been found guilty of crimes of moral turpitude. The only appropriate penalty for such misconduct is termination, and I so recommend.

Alessandra F. Zorgniotti Administrative Law Judge November 30, 2006

SUBMITTED TO:

Chancellor JOEL I. KLEIN

APPEARANCES:

EDWARD RODRIGUEZ, ESQ. Attorney for Petitioner

No appearance for Respondent