In the Matter of Commission Proceeding on Revocation
of License of Pasquale Pontoriero,
____ N.J. Super. _____ (App. Div. 2015, the New Jersey Appellate Division on January 7, 2015, although affirming the
license revocation of Pasquale Pontoriero, to work as a longshoreman hiring
agent, the Appellate Division nevertheless held that the Waterfront Commission
erred in that case holding that a longshoreman’s associate with a known
organized crime figure is ipso facto inimical
to the Waterfront Act.
For a full copy of the decision to to:
For a full copy of the decision to to:
In this case the Administrative Law Judge for the Waterfront
Commission adopted a strict liability standard and revoked the Waterfront registration
of Mr. Pontoriero because of Pontoriero’s alleged association with known
organized crime figure Tino Fiumera and Steven DePiro. In that case the Administrative Law Judge and
the Waterfront Commission held that regardless of the facts or circumstances
that if a longshoreman, checker, or maintenance personnel associate with a
known organized crime figure that it is automatic revocation of his or her
license.
In rejecting the Waterfront’s strict liability standard in Pontoriero
the Appellate Division held that the commission must analyze the factors found
in the New Jersey casino control case, In
re Staluppi, 94 N.J.A.R. 2d, 31 (1993). The factors are: (1) The nature and sensitivity of the
licensee’s position; (2) The time elapsed since the licensee’s last interaction
with the associate; (3) The duration and frequency of the association; (4) The
purpose and nature of the association; (5) Whether the association was
attenuated through third-parties; (6) The associate’s character and reputation;
(7) The licensee’s knowledge or reasonable efforts to determine the associate’s
character and reputation; (8) If there is more than one associate, the number
of associates, and the relationship amongst them; (9) Termination of the
association, if any; (10) The reason for any such termination; and, (11) Any
other relevant facts or circumstances.
Apply these factors to the Pontoriero case the appellate division held
that since Mr. Pontoriero was a hiring agent, a highly sensitive to corruption
and that Pontoriero had invoked the his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent
when asked would he favor hiring a Genovese family associate over a
non-Genovese associate. Under these
facts it was reasonable for the Commission to hold that a reasonable observer
could conclude that Fiumara and DePiro held inappropriate influence over Mr.
Pontoriero, and hence, the revocation of his license by the Commission was
proper. It was undisputed on the record that Fiumara and
DePiro were members of the Genovese crime family.
In the final analysis this is a good case and helpful to the
license workers at the New Jersey
and New York docks whom decide to
litigate their case in New Jersey
courts. Further, the case is helpful because the New
Jersey courts for the first time expressly defined
the term “inimical associate” as it applies to the Waterfront Commission
Act. The definition that was previously
used by the Commission in all of their cases pre-Pontoriero has now been
rejected. The definition of strict
liability used by the Waterfront Commission in pre-Pontoriero cases was
overly broad and permitted the Waterfront Commission to act in an arbitrary and
capricious manner, and thus, unfairly treated longshoreman, checkers and
maintenance personnel, when proceedings were brought against them by the
Waterfront for associating with an organized crime figure. Now under the Pontoriero case it will
be much hard for the Waterfront to revoke a license for “inimical association”,
with a organized crime figure.
This is a public service blog provided by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr.,
Esq., and is not intended to give any specific legal advice regarding any
specific case now before the Waterfront Commission or any case in the future.
If you have a
case before the Waterfront Commission you are invited to contact the Law Office
of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., an experienced New Jersey-New
York Waterfront lawyer who has represented numerous International Longshoreman Members, and longshoremen, checkers and
maintenance personnel before the Waterfront Commission, for a consultation to
discuss your case.
P.O. Box 261
277 North Broad Street
Elizabeth (Union
County), New
Jersey 07207
(908) 354-7006
New Jersey New York Waterfront Attorney-Lawyer for the
hardworking ILA members, longshoreman, checkers, maintenance men, who will protect your rights and fight
and help you retain your job.
No comments:
Post a Comment