James Corcoran, CSC Docket No. 2024-338

BackgroundThe appeal of James Corcoran, Police Lieutenant, Fair Lawn, Police Department, removal, effective August 15, 2028, on charges, was heard by Administrative Law Judge Daniel J. Brown (ALJ), who rendered his initial decision on May 22, 2024. Exceptions were filed on behalf of the appellant and a reply to exceptions was filed on behalf of the appointing authority.

AnalysisHaving considered the record and the ALJ’s initial decision, and having made an independent evaluation of the record, including a thorough review of the exceptions and reply, as well as relevant portions of the video in evidence, the Civil Service Commission (Commission), at its meeting on July 3, 2024 did not adopt the ALJ’s recommendation to uphold the removal. Rather the Commission reversed the removal.

In the ALJ’s initial decision, he dismissed portions of the charges dealing with the appellant’s alleged physical mishandling of a detainee. Upon its de novo review of the record, the Commission finds nothing in the record evidencing that dismissal was improper. Additionally, the ALJ found that:

Detective Jonnese Arrington of the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office investigated the internal affairs complaint. Detective Arrington testified that during her investigation, appellant provided statements which the investigator found to be false. Appellant told Detective Arrington that

D.U. was being uncooperative, belligerent, and banging on the cell door and that this caused appellant to enter the processing room. However, the video footage showed that prior to appellant entering the processing room, D.U. was not acting in an uncooperative or belligerent manner.

Instead, D.U. appeared to be dozing off until appellant entered the processing room. At that point, appellant and D.U. engaged in a verbal argument. Additionally, appellant stated during the investigation of the internal affairs complaint stated that he removed the shoelaces from

D.U.’s sneakers prior to giving the sneakers to D.U. The video showed that D.U. was given his sneakers with shoelaces in them while D.U. was in the holding cell. Appellant also admitted this fact during his testimony.

As such, he upheld the charges of falsification. Upon its review, the Commission cannot agree. Its review of the record, including the relevant portions of the videos, indicates that the ALJ’s finding that the appellant provided false information that the detainee “was being uncooperative, belligerent, and banging on the cell door and that this caused appellant to enter the processing room,” since the detainee appeared to be “dozing” at that time is not supported. In this regard, the relevant portions of the video show, albeit without audio, that at approximately 3:36 the handcuffed detainee is brought into the holding room and the door is closed. Between that time and approximately 3:42 he remains there until an officer enters, leaving the door open, uncuffs the detainee and takes his possessions. During this time, the detainee appears to be talking to the officer, gesturing and somewhat animatedly interacting with the officer. For most of the time after the officer leaves, with the door remaining open, the detainee paces around the room as well as sits, gestures with his arms and appears to be getting increasingly agitated as he appears to continue to converse with or talk at officers out of view. Just after 3:55, the detainee leaves the holding room and returns less than two minutes later with a ripped shirt and a bloodied lip. It is also noted that there is no video evidence in the record to refute that the appellant did not enter the adjacent processing room at some point during the above described periods and witnessed some or all of the detainee’s behavior in the holding room prior to the altercation. Thus, it seems more likely than not that whenever the appellant entered the processing room before the altercation, he witnessed the detainee acting in this manner, which certainly is not “dozing,” but more accurately described as, at least, animated.! As such, the Commission cannot uphold the charges against the appellant that he offered false information when he stated that the detainee “was being uncooperative, belligerent, and banging on the cell door and that this caused appellant to enter the processing room.”

Moreover, while both the video evidence and the appellant’s admission support that he did not remove the detainee’s shoelaces initially, given the circumstances, the Commission does not find that statement to support the charge of falsification. The appellant’s statement was provided to the investigator many months after the incident and while, clearly, every detail is important, the fact that the appellant did not accurately indicate that the detainee was initially given back his sneakers and only subsequently were the laces removed, does not seem to have been a critical part of the incident. While it may be that the giving back of the sneakers with the laces

' The detainee does appear “dozing” for large stretches of the video in evidence, but ail of this occurs after the altercation.

was a violation of some policy or procedure, the record does not evidence that the appellant was charged with such infraction. Rather, the fact that the appellant inaccurately reported that detail, which, given that the thrust of the investigation was apparently regarding the alleged use of force against the detainee, and not focused on the status of his sneakers, the appellant misreporting this detail many months later does not persuade the Commission that such inaccuracy rises to the level of a false statement that requires disciplinary sanction. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the charges underlying that statement are not sustained.

Additionally, the Commission notes that it rejects the appellant’s exceptions filed in this matter regarding N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147. The Commission finds that the ALJ properly analyzed and applied N..J.S.A. 40A:14-147 in this matter and, had the Commission not dismissed the charges as per above, there would be no basis to dismiss any of the charges based on N.J.S.A. 40A:14-147,

Finally, the Commission notes that the appointing authority argues in its reply that the removal should be upheld since the appellant has been designated as a “Brady” officer based on his lack of candor and thus, cannot successfully perform his duties. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); See also, In the Matter of Victor Vasquez, et al., Docket No. A-3428-20 (App. Div. May 28, 2024). In this regard, the Commission disagrees as it has reversed the charges regarding the appellant's alleged false statements.?

Since the removal has been reversed, the appellant is entitled to be reinstated with mitigated back pay, benefits, and seniority pursuant to N.d.A.C. 4A:2-2.10 from the first date of separation without pay until the date of actual reinstatement. Further, as the appellant has also prevailed, he is entitled to reasonable counsel fees pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.12.

This decision resolves the merits of the dispute between the parties concerning the disciplinary charges and the penalty imposed by the appointing authority. However, per the Appellate Division’s decision, Dolores Phillips v. Department of Corrections, Docket No. A-5581-01T2F (App. Div. Feb. 26, 2003), the Commission’s decision will not become final until any outstanding issues concerning back pay or counsel fees are finally resolved. In the interim, as the court states in Phillips, supra, if it has not already done so, upon receipt of this decision, the appointing authority shall immediately reinstate the appellant to his permanent position.

ORDER

The Civil Service Commission finds that the action of the appointing authority in removing the appellant was not justified. The Commission therefore reverses the removal and grants the appeal of James Corcoran.

2 The Commission makes no determination as to the status of the appellant's “Brady” designation going forward.

The Commission orders that the appellant be granted back pay, benefits, and seniority from the appellant’s first date of separation without pay to the actual date of reinstatement. The amount of back pay awarded is to be reduced and mitigated as provided for in N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10. Proof of income earned, and an affidavit of mitigation shall be submitted by or on behalf of the appellant to the appointing authority within 30 days of issuance of this decision.

The Commission further orders that counsel fees be awarded to the attorney for the appellant pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.12. An affidavit of services in support of reasonable counsel fees shall be submitted by or on behalf of the appellant to the appointing authority within 30 days of issuance of this decision.

Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.10 and N.J.A.C. 4A:2.12, the parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any dispute as to the amount of back pay and counsel fees. However, under no circumstances should the appellant’s reinstatement be delayed pending resolution of any potential back pay or counsel fee dispute.

The parties must inform the Commission, in writing, if there is any dispute as to back pay or counsel fees within 60 days of issuance of this decision. In the absence of such notice, the Commission will assume that all outstanding issues have been amicably resolved by the parties and this decision shall become a final administrative determination pursuant to R. 2:2-3(a)(2). After such time, any further review of this matter shall be pursued in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.