MIGUEL HIDALGO, CSC Docket No. 2024-2527
NJ Civil Service Commission decision of April 30, 2025, CSC Docket No. 2024-2527: discipline, penalty upheld. Miguel Hidalgo, Sheriff’s Officer, Hudson County Sheriff’s Office, removal, effective May 2, 2024, on charges of incompetency, inefficiency or failure to perform duties, insubordination, con
Commission decisions · Meeting of April 30, 2025
Miguel Hidalgo, Sheriff’s Officer, Hudson County Sheriff’s Office, removal, effective May 2, 2024, on charges of incompetency, inefficiency or failure to perform duties, insubordination, conduct unbecoming a public employee, neglect of duty and other sufficient cause.
- Matter
- Discipline
- Decided
- April 30, 2025, item A-5
- Outcome
- Penalty upheld
- ALJ's recommendation
- Uphold the removal.
- What the Commission did with it
- Adopted the ALJ's recommendation
- Penalty appealed
- removal
- Title
- SHERIFF'S OFFICER
- Employer
- Hudson County
- Chair at the time
- Allison Chris Myers, Acting Chairperson
- Official decision
- CSC's PDF
Action recorded in the minutes: The Civil Service Commission affirmed the recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge.
The decision
BackgroundThe appeal of Miguel Hidalgo, Sheriffs Officer, Hudson County Sheriffs Office, removal, effective May 2, 2024, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Andrea Perry Villani (ALJ), who rendered her initial decision on April 1, 2025. No exceptions were filed.
AnalysisHaving considered the record and the ALJ's initial decision, and having made an independent evaluation ofthe record, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on April 30, 2025, adopted the ALJ's Findings ofFacts and Conclusions of Law and her recommendation to uphold the removal.
The Commission makes the following comments. The ALJ's decision is based significantly on her assessment of the witnesses' testimony. In this regard, she explicitly found the appellant's version of the incident not credible. In this regard, the Commission acknowledges that the ALJ, who has the benefit of hearing and seeing the witnesses, is generally in a better position to determine the credibility and veracity of the witnesses. See Matter of J. W.D., 149 N.J. 108 (1997). "[T]rial courts' credibility findings ... are often influenced by matters such as observations of the character and demeanor of the witnesses and common human experience that are not transmitted by the record." See also, In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644 (1999) (quoting State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999)). Additionally, such credibility findings need not be explicitly enunciated if the record as a whole makes the findings clear. Id. at 659 (citing Locurto, supra). The Commission appropriately gives due deference to such determinations. However, in its de novo review of the record, the Commission has the authority to reverse or modify an AL.J's decision ifit is not supported by sufficient credible evidence or was otherwise arbitrary. See N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c); Cavalieri u. Public Employees Retirement System, 368 N.J. Super. 527 (App. Div. 2004). The Commission finds no persuasive evidence in the record to demonstrate that the ALJ's
Decisions this one cites
- Matter of J. W.D. 149 N.J. 108
- In re Taylor 158 N.J. 644
- State v. Locurto 157 N.J. 463, 474
- Cavalieri u. Public Employees Retirement System 368 N.J. Super. 527
About this page
Not an official copy. The decision of record is CSC's PDF. The text above was extracted from it and may differ in layout or, rarely, in a character.
Names appear as the Commission published them in its public minutes and decisions, initials where it used initials. This site does not offer a search by a person's name.
The labels are ours. The kind of matter and the outcome are our reading of the minutes; the ACTION text the Commission recorded is quoted verbatim above. A decision applies the rules to its own facts and is not a prediction for any other matter, and nothing here is legal advice.
To report an error on this page, use the contact form.