Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor v. Farid Amado ( 2024 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2255-21
WATERFRONT COMMISSION
OF NEW YORK HARBOR,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
FARID AMADO,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
Submitted March 13, 2024 – Decided November 22, 2024
Before Judges Vernoia and Gummer.
On appeal from the Waterfront Commission of New
York Harbor, RL-5395.
Peter W. Till, attorney for appellant.
Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor,
attorneys for respondent (Phoebe S. Sorial, General
Counsel, on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
VERNOIA, J.A.D.
Farid Amado appeals from the Waterfront Commission of New York
Harbor's final agency decision revoking his longshoreman registration. Amado
contends: the evidence does not support the Commission's determination that
his relationship with two known members of an organized crime group is
inimical to the policies of the Waterfront Commission Act (the Act), N.J.S.A.
32:23-1 to -230; the administrative law judge (ALJ) made arbitrary, capricious,
and unreasonable findings that the Commission erroneously adopted; and the
Commission erred by relying on the concept of "willful blindness" to support its
revocation of Amado's registration. 1 Unpersuaded by Amado's arguments, we
affirm.
1
The Act was repealed in part and amended in 2018, L. 2017, c. 324. Despite
the changes to the Act under the 2018 repeal and amendments, the ALJ, the
Commission, and the parties have relied on and cite to the applicable pre-
amendment provisions of the Act. We do so as well. As the ALJ explained in
his December 19, 2021 decision, the revisions to the Act under L. 2017, c. 324,
were not effective until Governor Phil Murphy took certain actions specified in
the revised Act. Those actions were not complete prior to the issuance of the
Commission's final agency decision. See generally New York v. New Jersey,
598 U.S. 218, 220-23 (2023) (describing the adoption of L. 2017, c. 324, New
Jersey's efforts to withdraw from the Commission, and the delays attendant to
New Jersey's withdrawal from the Commission). We therefore apply the pre-
2018 version of the Act in our disposition of the issues presented on appeal.
The parties do not argue we should do otherwise.
A-2255-21
2
I.
In 1953, New York and New Jersey created the Commission "to deal with
sundry evils of the waterfront of the New York Harbor." Knoble v. Waterfront
Comm'n of N.Y. Harbor, 67 N.J. 427, 430 (1975) (quoting State v. Murphy, 36
N.J. 172, 185 (1961)). "One of the principal purposes of the . . . Commission
was to get rid of" "an unwholesome concentration of criminals on the
waterfront." In re Application of Kaiser, 94 N.J. Super. 95, 99 (App. Div. 1967).
Accordingly, at all times pertinent to this appeal, the Commission was tasked
with enforcing the Act "to combat corruption and organized crime on the New
Jersey and New York waterfronts." In re Pontoriero, 439 N.J. Super. 24, 29
(App. Div. 2015) (citing N.J.S.A. 32:23-2; Knoble, 67 N.J. at 430).
Amado began his career at the waterfront in 1991 as a checker 2 but left
the position after four years. During a 1998 meeting at which Amado sought a
longshoreman position, Albert Cernadas "walked in." Amado knew Cernadas
because they lived "500 feet apart," and he also knew Cernadas's family. Amado
2
"'Checker' shall mean a longshoreman who is employed to engage in direct
and immediate checking of waterborne freight or of the custodial accounting
therefor or in the recording or tabulation of the hours worked at piers or other
waterfront terminals . . . ." Kaiser, 94 N.J. Super. at 98 (quoting N.J.S.A. 32:23-
85(5)).
A-2255-21
3
told Cernadas he was interested in a longshoreman position, Cernadas asked for
Amado's information, and Amado obtained temporary registration as a
longshoreman on December 23, 1998, and permanent registration on April 5,
2006.3
On February 20, 2020, the Commission's senior counsel interviewed
Amado. Following the administration of an oath to Amado, counsel advised
Amado the interview concerned "potential violations . . . of the" Act. Counsel
also advised that if Adamo "commit[ted] fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in
connection with the interview [his] [longshoreman] registration may be
revoked[.]" Counsel then questioned Amado extensively about issues pertaining
to his employment as a registered longshoreman.
The following month, the Commission issued to Amado a notice of
hearing that included nine counts of alleged misconduct and explained the
purpose of the hearing was to consider "whether the Commission, in the exercise
of its discretion, should revoke, cancel, or suspend [Amado's] registration as a
3
A longshoreman "shall also include" in addition to the definition of a checker,
"a natural person, other than a hiring agent, who is employed for work at a pier
or other waterfront terminal" to perform labor, move waterborne freight, or other
"services involving, or incidental to, the movement of freight at a waterfront
terminal." N.J.S.A. 32:23-85(6).
A-2255-21
4
longshoreman." The notice stated the Commission would consider at the
hearing whether Amado had associated with Cernadas and Manual Rodriguez,
"under circumstances where such association create[d] a reasonable belief that
[Amado's] participation in" the activities for which he was "required to be
licensed or registered under" the Act "would be inimical to the policies of the
Act. The notice alleged Cernadas and Rodriguez were members of the Genovese
organized-crime family, "career offenders," and had been convicted of
"racketeering activity."
The notice further explained the Commission would consider at the
hearing whether Amado had provided false testimony during his interview with
the Commission's senior counsel by stating he had "no clue" why Rodriguez had
gone to prison. The notice also stated the Commission would consider whether
Amado's prior disciplinary history during his employment as a longshoreman,
combined with his ongoing associations with Cernadas and Rodriguez, rendered
his "presence at the piers or other waterfront terminals in the Port of New York
a danger to the public peace or safety" such that it would have "permitted [his]
disqualification from inclusion in the" registry of longshoreman "upon original
application."
A-2255-21
5
An administrative law judge held a hearing at which the Commission
introduced ninety-three exhibits in evidence and presented the testimony of a
Commission licensing manager, who also served as an intelligence analyst. At
the hearing, Amado called his wife, Sylvia Amado, as a witness, and he testified
on his own behalf.
The evidence presented at the hearing established that in 2005 Cernadas
pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of New York
to two counts of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud. The court sentenced
Cernadas to a two-year probationary term.
In a related civil case brought by the United States against Cernadas and
multiple codefendants, Cernadas agreed to entry of a consent judgment. The
judgment ordered Cernadas, who had served as president of Local 1235 of the
International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO (ILA) at the New York
Harbor, to forfeit and resign from any position he held with the ILA. The order
further permanently enjoined him "from engaging in conduct which constitutes
or furthers an act of racketeering activity," participating in the affairs of any
labor organization or pension or welfare fund, and "knowingly associating,
directly or indirectly, with any member or associate of any criminal group,
including "'La Cosa Nostra.'"
A-2255-21
6
In 2014, Cernadas pleaded guilty in United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey to one count of racketeering conspiracy. The indictment
charging defendant with that crime alleged he was one of four individuals
"employed by and associated with the Genovese crime family" who had
conspired to violate a provision of the United States Code "through a pattern of
racketeering activity." In January 2015, the court entered a judgment of
conviction against Cernadas, sentencing him to a three-year probationary term.
Rodriguez was convicted in 1992 of second-degree aggravated assault and
fourth-degree promoting gambling. The court sentenced Rodriguez to an
aggregate nine-year term of imprisonment.
A 1998 indictment filed in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey identified Rodriguez as an individual "employed by and
associated with an enterprise, that is, the Queli Faction of the Genovese [c]rime
[f]amily." Rodriguez later pleaded guilty to a count in the indictment charging
he and other alleged members of the crime family had conspired "to participate
in the use of extortionate means," including "express and implicit threats of
violence, to collect and attempt to collect from various individuals extensions
of credit." The court sentenced Rodriguez to a twenty-eight-month term of
imprisonment.
A-2255-21
7
In 2016, a New Jersey State Grand Jury indicted Rodriguez and nine
others, charging they had engaged in racketeering and other offenses. Rodriguez
later pleaded guilty to second-degree money laundering and transportation and
possession of property known to be derived from criminal activity. Three years
later, on October 17, 2019, the court sentenced Rodriguez to a four-year prison
term.
The Commission also presented evidence establishing that over many
years Cernadas and Rodriguez had been identified as members of the Genovese
organized crime family. The Commission introduced the transcript of its senior
counsel's interview of Adamo, during which Adamo had admitted knowing and
having contact and communications with Cernadas and Rodriguez. More
particularly, Adamo admitted having known Rodriguez since they were children
because they had grown up in the same neighborhood. When asked to describe
his relationship with Rodriguez, Adamo stated Rodriguez was a "friend."
Adamo further testified Rodriguez had attended a 2019 funeral mass
following the death of Adamo's brother and that he was aware Rodriguez had
been sentenced to prison in 2019. He also described Rodriguez as a "bubble -
gum mobster" and admitted he had sent Rodriguez a Facebook message in 2019
offering to help Rodriguez's family while Rodriguez served his prison sentence.
A-2255-21
8
Adamo recalled he had received a Facebook message from Rodriguez three
years earlier stating that Adamo should have contacted him while looking for a
house in Florida because Rodriguez's parents had moved there.
The Commission also presented numerous Facebook messages Adamo
had sent to Rodriguez over the years, with many of them sent in 2019 before
Rodriguez's prison sentence began. Adamo admitted sending the messages,
which included holiday greetings, congratulations concerning Rodriguez's son,
compliments on pictures Rodriguez had posted, and blessings to Rodriguez and
his family.
During his interview, Adamo acknowledged Rodriguez had gone to
prison, but when asked for what Rodriguez had gone to prison, Adamo stated he
had "no clue" and did not know. He also denied following up to determine the
reason Adamo had gone to prison, explaining that "they" were going to give
Rodriguez a "going-away" party before he went to prison, but he did not go to
the party and had not been invited. Other evidence presented during the hearing,
including Adamo's testimony, his statements during the interview, and Facebook
messages reflect that he had understood the Commission's senior counsel's
question about his knowledge of the reason Rodriguez went to prison pertained
to Rodriguez's prison sentence that began in 2019.
A-2255-21
9
Adamo's interview with the Commission's senior counsel also included
Adamo's admissions about his contacts and communications with Cernadas.
Adamo admitted Cernadas had assisted him in obtaining his longshoreman's
registration 1998 because he had lived near Cernadas and had grown up with
Cernadas's daughters.
Adamo was also aware of Cernadas's criminal background. He
acknowledged that in 2005 had signed and sent a letter to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York concerning Cernadas's then-
impending sentencing. The letter described Cernadas as an "honest and
straightforward person" who was "always willing to give . . . good advice" and
is available "to listen if you have any problems." Adamo expressed gratitude to
Cernadas for all he had done for Adamo and his family and stated he and his
family "would be very grateful if [the court] would be lenient in sentencing"
Cernadas.
Adamo also had requested that Cernadas become a friend on Facebook,
and Cernadas accepted. In a November 2014 Facebook post, Cernadas displayed
a photo of a damaged car, and Adamo responded with a message, "Hope you are
ok." Three weeks later, Cernadas pleaded guilty to the racketeering-conspiracy
charge in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
A-2255-21
10
In 2015, after learning Cernadas had been ill, Amado traveled to
Cernadas's home "to make sure he was all right, feeling good and everything."
At that time, Cernadas was serving the probationary sentence the United States
District Court had imposed for his racketeering-conspiracy conviction.
Adamo's Facebook friendship with Cernadas continued at least through
his February 2020 interview with the Commission's senior counsel. Also, a few
days before the interview, Adamo saw Cernadas at a barbeque and "ran up to
him," "hugged him," "kissed him," "picked him up," "put him in the middle of
the dance floor," and told Cernadas that he wished they "still had [Cernadas]
down the port." 4
The Commission also presented evidence establishing that Adamo had a
disciplinary history during his employment as a longshoreman. The evidence
showed that: in 2009 and 2010 Adamo had been barred from employment as a
longshoreman with Maher Terminals, LLC, for being verbally abusive to a
supervisor; in 2011, Maher Terminals, LLC, permanently barred Adamo from
employment based on Adamo's reckless operation of a vehicle while spewing
obscenities to its longshoremen passengers, some of whom had reported
4
Adamo also explained that his nephew is married to Cernadas's daughter and
the barbeque had been held to celebrate his nephew's birthday.
A-2255-21
11
personal injuries resulting from the incident; in September 2011, the New York
Shipping Association imposed a six-month ban on Adamo's employment as a
longshoreman by any employer; and in August 2015, APM Terminals had
imposed a forty-five day ban on Adamos's employment with it as a
longshoreman as the result of his involvement in a verbal altercation with a
supervisor.
Following the submission of written summations, the ALJ issued a
detailed written opinion summarizing the charges against Amado, and noting the
charges fell in three areas: Adamo's association with persons identified by law
enforcement as associates or members of an organized crime group, career
offenders, or a persons who had been convicted of racketeering; engaging in
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation during his sworn interview with the
Commission's senior counsel; and Adamo's prior disciplinary history and
associations with Cernadas and Rodriguez had rendered Adamo's presence at
the piers or other waterfront terminals a danger to the public peace or safety
such that he would have been disqualified for a longshoreman's registration upon
original application.
The ALJ found our decision in In re Pontoriero established the standard
for determining a Commission's claim a longshoreman's registration should be
A-2255-21
12
revoked or suspended under N.J.S.A. 32:23-93(6), for an association with a
person identified by law enforcement "as a member or associate of an organized
crime group," or under N.J.S.A. 32:23-93(7), for a "knowing association with a
person who has been convicted of racketeering activity." 439 N.J. Super. 24(App. Div. 2015). The ALJ noted that under the principles established in
Pontoriero, the Commission was not required to prove Adamo had actual or
constructive notice that Cernadas or Rodiquez fell within the categories of
individuals with whom he was not permitted to associate as a registered
longshoreman. See Pontoriero, 439 N.J. Super. at 39-40. Instead, the ALJ
explained the Commission could satisfy the "knowledge" requirements under
N.J.S.A. 32:23-93(6) and (7), by excluding that Adamo's association with
Cernadas and Rodriguez was by "happenstance, inadvertent, or unplanned
encounters." Id. at 40.
The ALJ further explained that for the Commission to establish Adamo
engaged in fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation during his interview with its
senior counsel, the Commission must prove Adamo made a false statement of
fact intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly, or made a knowing
misrepresentation or knowing concealment of a fact to induce another to act to
A-2255-21
13
their detriment. The ALJ also noted the Commission was required to prove the
charges by a preponderance of the evidence.
The ALJ determined the Commission's witness had an impressive
background as an intelligence analyst and had testified as a "quality, forthright
witness." The ALJ rejected Sylvia Adamo's testimony her husband was a person
of truthful character, finding she had a "clear bias and . . . obvious motive in
trying to save her husband's lucrative job."
The ALJ further determined Adamo was not a credible witness. The ALJ
found Adamo had "willfully testified falsely" at his interview with the
Commission's senior counsel and during his testimony at the hearing. The ALJ
cited Adamo's hearing testimony and concluded he had "falsely denied
knowledge of incriminating information" concerning prior criminal charges
against Cernadas and had been evasive responding to questions about them. The
ALJ also found Adamo had testified inconsistently about his interactions with
Cernadas at the barbeque, noting that during the interview Adamo testified he
had hugged and kissed Cernadas at the barbeque but then denied he had done so
at the hearing.
The ALJ detailed Adamo's in-person contacts and Facebook
communications with Cernadas and Rodriguez over the years and determined
A-2255-21
14
Adamo had associated with both "as a friend, companion, or ally." The ALJ
also found Adamo held a significant position as a longshoreman as evidenced
by his job responsibilities—noting he moved cargo that is x-rayed by United
States Customs—and his substantial salary of more than $250,000 per year. The
ALJ further found Adamo's interactions with Cernadas and Rodriguez had
continued on Facebook "as late as February 2020," when he was interviewed;
Adamo had interacted with Rodriguez over Facebook and offered to help
Rodriguez's family in 2019 just prior to Rodriguez's incarceration for
racketeering-conspiracy; and Adamo had interacted with Cernadas at the
barbeque in 2020, telling Cernadas he wished Cernadas "was still on the port."
The ALJ further explained that Adamo's long associations with Cernadas
and Rodriguez "weighed highly in favor" of finding the associations were
inimical to the policies of the Act. The ALJ determined "the timing, frequency,
and quality of the associations, when juxtaposed with the ups and downs of"
Adamo's career supported an "impression" that the associations had influenced
his career on the waterfront. The ALJ agreed with the Commission that when
Adamo became Facebook friends with two organized crime figures and publicly
posted messages of support for them, he "essentially boasted of his
relationship[s]" with the intent of making the relationships known to the public.
A-2255-21
15
The ALJ further found Adamo's relationships with Cernadas and
Rodriguez were direct and not attenuated through third-parties and that
Cernadas's and Rodriguez's "notoriety as Genovese [c]rime [f]amily members is
undeniable." The ALJ reasoned that Adamo's long-term and public associations
with two members of an organized crime family that has historically controlled
the New Jersey waterfront further weighed in favor of a finding the associations
were inimical to the policies underlying the Act.
The ALJ agreed with the Commission that Adamo's employment record
as a longshoreman "has been marred by a history of workplace disciplinary
violations and an abiding relationship with organized crime associates." The
Commission noted the public nature of the associations "creates a perception of
corruption" that is inimical to the Act.
The ALJ also determined the Commission had proven Adamo committed
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation during his interview by the Commission's
senior counsel. The ALJ found Adamo had testified falsely during the interview
when he said he had "no clue" why Rodriguez going to prison. The ALJ
reasoned that Rodriguez's notoriety, Adamo's interest in Rodriguez's personal
life as expressed in their Facebook exchanges, and "all of the other evidence"
A-2255-21
16
rendered incredible and false his statement he had "no clue" why Rodriguez was
going to prison.
The ALJ further concluded that Adamo's undisputed disciplinary history
as a longshoreman, when coupled with his associations with Cernadas and
Rodriguez, established that Adamo presents a current danger to the public peace
and safety at the waterfront.
The ALJ also determined revocation of Adamo's longshoreman
registration was the appropriate sanction for his violations. The ALJ agreed
with the Commission that Adamo's actions and associations undermined the
Commission's efforts to ensure public safety by reducing corruption and that a
reprimand or suspension would not adequately address the "lingering risk or
perception of corruption caused by" Adamo's association with two members of
the Genovese crime family.
The Commission conducted a hearing on the ALJ's decision and
recommended revocation sanction at which Adamo appeared with his counsel.
Following oral argument and a statement by Adamo, the Commission voted to
revoke Adamo's longshoreman registration.
In a January 18, 2022 written decision, the Commission made findings of
fact supporting its determination Adamo had associated with Cernadas and
A-2255-21
17
Rodriguez, who the Commission determined are members or associates of an
organized crime group, are career offenders, and have been convicted of
racketeering activity. The Commission further found Adamo had engaged in
fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation during his interview by falsely testifying he
had "no clue" why Rodriguez had been sentenced to prison in 2019. The
Commission also determined Adamo's disciplinary history and associations with
Cernadas and Rodriguez rendered his presence at the waterfront a danger to the
public peace or safety that would have disqualified his registration as a
longshoreman upon original application.
Based on those findings, the Commission ordered the immediate
revocation of Adamo's registration. This appealed followed.
Adamo raises the following arguments for our consideration:
I. THE WATERFRONT COMMISSION'S FAILURE
TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ALLEGED ACTIVITY
OF [AMADO] WAS INIMICAL TO THE POLICIES
OF THE WATERFRONT COMMISSION ACT
CONSTITUTES REVERSIBLE ERROR.
II. THE DETERMINATIONS BY THE
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE OFFICER WERE
ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, AND
UNREASONABLE, THEREBY WARRANTING A
REVERSAL OF THE WATERFRONT
COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION.
A-2255-21
18
III. FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS PRECLUDES AN
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY SUCH AS THE
WATERFRONT COMMISSION TO DEPRIVE ITS
EMPLOYEES OF THEIR LIVELIHOODS BASED
UPON THE CONCEPT OF WILLFUL BLINDNESS.
II.
Our standard review of an agency decision is limited. Matter of Ambroise,
258 N.J. 180, 197 (2024). We reverse an agency decision only if we find the
decision is "arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable or . . . not supported by
substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." Ibid. (quoting In re
Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011)). An agency's decision is arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable if: it "violates express or implied legislative
policies, that is, did the agency follow the law"; the record does not "contain
substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its
action"; or "in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly
erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a
showing of the relevant factors." Id. at 197-98 (quoting In re Carter, 191 N.J.
474, 482 (2007)).
Our "deferential standard" of review also applies to the consideration "of
disciplinary sanctions." Id. at 198 (quoting In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 28
(2007)). We will not substitute our judgment for the agency's even where "we
A-2255-21
19
may have reached a different result." Ibid. We therefore will not reverse a
disciplinary sanction unless "the 'punishment is so disproportionate to the
offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one's sense of
fairness.'" Ibid. (quoting Stallworth, 208 N.J. at 195).
"The burden of demonstrating that the agency's action was arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable rests upon the [party] challenging the administrative
action." In re Arenas, 385 N.J. Super. 440, 443-44 (App. Div. 2006). "[T]he
test is not whether an appellate court would come to the same conclusion if the
original determination was its to make, but rather whether the factfinder could
reasonably so conclude upon the proofs." Brady v. Bd. of Rev., 152 N.J. 197,
210 (1997) (quoting Charatan v. Bd. of Rev., 200 N.J. Super. 74, 79 (App. Div.
1985)).
In relevant part, N.J.S.A. 32:23-93(6) and (7) provide that a
longshoreman's license or registration may be revoked or suspended for
association with an individual who is part of an organized crime group, or has
been convicted of a racketeering activity, if that association would create a
reasonable belief the association is inimical to the policies of the Act. N.J.S.A.
32:23-93(6) and (7). "Association" under the Act "encompasses the ordinary
meaning of the term: to keep company, as a friend, companion or ally—and
A-2255-21
20
encompasses both social and economic relationships." Pontoriero, 439 N.J.
Super. at 38.
An association is inimical to the policies of the Act when it is "adverse to
the public confidence and trust in the credibility, integrity and stability of the
waterfront and in the strict regulatory process of the Act." Id. at 38-39. "The
alleged association need only 'create a reasonable belief' that the
[longshoreman's] continued participation is inimical to the . . . Act, and the
[longshoreman's] participation is inimical if it is adverse to public confidence
and trust." Id. at 40 (quoting N.J.S.A. 32:23-93(6) and (7)). The Commission
establishes an inimical association under N.J.S.A. 32:23-93(6) or (7) by proving
that "a reasonably objective observer could believe that the criminal associate
could influence the licensee in his or her role as a worker regulated by the Act."
Id. at 42.
In Pontoriero, we adopted a set of eleven non-dispositive factors that are
relevant to a determination as to whether an association is inimical to the Act.
Id. at 42. The factors include:
(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;
A-2255-21
21
(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 reasons for any such termination; and
(11) Any other relevant facts or circumstances.
[Ibid.]
Here, the ALJ considered the Pontoriero factors, made detailed findings
of fact as to each, and concluded they weighed in favor of a finding that Adamo's
associations with Cernadas and Rodriguez are inimical to the policies of the Act.
The Commission adopted the ALJ's findings and similarly concluded Adamo's
associations with two well-known members of the Genovese crime family were
inimical to the Act. The ALJ's findings are amply supported by sufficient
credible evidence. We therefore defer to them. Ambroise, 258 N.J. at 197; see
also McClain v. Bd. of Rev., Dep't of Lab., 237 N.J. 445, 456 (2019) (explaining
A-2255-21
22
in an appeal from an agency decision, the reviewing court "defer[s] to
factfindings that are supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record").
Adamo argues the evidence supports a different and more favorable
weighing of the factors that requires a conclusion his associations with Cernadas
and Rodriguez are not inimical to the policies of the Act. He argues his
associations are different than those we found in Pontoriero were inimical to the
Act. He contends that his Facebook communications and other interactions with
Cernadas and Rodriguez were innocent and the product of familial and personal
relationships that "were merely the byproduct of the random history of
residence" in the same neighborhood "community where [they] had all come to
know . . . each other."
He also claims the associations were not nefarious but were innocent and
unrelated to his employment. He further argues the Commission's determination
he was not a credible witness and had lied during his interview with the
Commission's senior counsel is not supported by the evidence. He contends the
contradictions in his statements and testimony upon which the ALJ had relied in
support of its credibility determination are explained by his lack of education,
his failure to understand the questions posed, and other evidence.
A-2255-21
23
We reject Adamo's contentions because they are based on the premise that
we should interpret the evidence in a manner different than the Commission.
We are not permitted to do so. See Carter, 191 N.J. at 483 (explaining we may
not substitute our judgment for an agency's even if we would have decided a
case differently). We decide only whether the Commission's findings of fact are
supported by "sufficient credible evidence in the record as a whole." Stallworth,
208 N.J. at 194. And, based on our review of the record, it is indisputable that
although Adamo contends the evidence should be interpreted differently, the
ALJ and Commission's findings are fully supported by sufficient credible
evidence.5
5
Adamo also argues the ALJ erred by relying on the concept of willful blindness
as a basis for the determinations Adamo was not a credible witness and his
interview-statement he had "no clue" why Rodriguez was prison was false. See
generally Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 769-70
(2011) (explaining the concept of willful blindness). The argument is not
supported by the record. Although he made reference to the concept of willful
blindness in his decision, the ALJ explained his determinations Adamo was not
a credible witness and had provided a false statement during his interview "were
made without the necessity of reliance upon" the willful blindness "doctrine."
We are similarly unpersuaded by Adamo's claim he is entitled to reversal
because the ALJ relied in part on newspaper articles documenting Cernadas's
and Rodriguez's involvement with the Genovese crime family. Most simply
stated, other evidence, including the testimony of the Commission's witness and
the numerous court records and decisions admitted in evidence, clearly
established Cernadas's and Rodriguez's involvement with the organized crime
group as well as their convictions for racketeering activity that supported the
A-2255-21
24
Adamo also fails to demonstrate the Commission's decision "violates
express or implied legislative policies" of the Act or that the Commission
"clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made
on a showing of the relevant factors." Ambroise, at 197-98 (quoting Carter, 191
N.J. at 482). That is, Adamo makes no showing the Commission's decision is
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. See ibid.The ALJ reviewed, applied, and made detailed findings concerning the
Pontoriero factors and the evidence the ALJ and Commission determined to be
credible supported their determinations Adamo had longstanding, public,
associations with two individuals who were known members or associates of an
organized crime group and who otherwise had convictions for racketeering
activity and that those associations were inimical to the policies under the Act.
Those well-supported findings do not permit a conclusion the Commission's
decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. See Carter, 191 N.J. at 483(explaining a reviewing court generally "defer[s] to an agency's expertise and
knowledge of a particularly field" (quoting Greenwood v. State Police Training
Ctr., 127 N.J. 500, 513 (1992))).
Commission's determination Adamo's associations with them violated N.J.S.A.
32:23-93(6) and (7).
A-2255-21
25
For the same reasons, we discern no basis to reverse the Commission's
determinations Adamo falsely stated during his February 2020 interview that he
had no clue why Rodriguez was going to prison or that his associations Cernadas
and Rodriguez, when coupled with his prior disciplinary history during his
employment as longshoreman, rendered his presence at the waterfront a danger
to the public peace or safety such that he would have been disqualified from
inclusion in the longshoremen's registry upon original application. Again, the
Commission's findings of fact supporting those determinations are supported by
sufficient credible evidence, we defer to the ALJ's "adverse credibility
determination[s]" because "we obliged to 'give due regard to the opportunity of
the one who heard the witness to judge their credibility,'" Burlington Cnty. Bd.
of Soc. Servs. v. G.W., 425 N.J. Super. 42, 47 (App. Div. 2012) (internal
citations omitted), and Adamo has not otherwise sustained his burden of
establishing the Commission's determination is arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable, Arenas, 385 N.J. Super. at 443-44.
Adamo also argues the Commission erred by imposing revocation of his
longshoreman's registration as the sanction. Although he maintains the
Commission erred in finding the violations in the first instance, he contends that
A-2255-21
26
even accepting its findings, the Commission should have imposed only a
suspension of his registration.
A reviewing court shall not disturb a sanction imposed by an agency
unless "such punishment is 'so disproportionate to the offense . . . as to be
shocking to one's sense of fairness.'" Carter, 191 N.J. at 484-85 (quoting In re
Polk License Revocation, 90 N.J. 550, 578 (1982)). Given the policies
underlying the Act, Adamo's long-term association with two individuals who
are members of an organized crime family with a history of criminal
involvement at the waterfront, and who have also been convicted of racketeering
activity, we discern no basis to reverse the sanction imposed by the Commission.
Most simply stated, the Commission's revocation of Adamo's longshoreman's
registration does not shock our sense of fairness given all the attendant
circumstances established by the evidence and as found by the ALJ and the
Commission. See generally Pontoriero, 439 N.J. Super. 29-30 (affirming
revocation of a license issued under the Act to a hiring agent based on his
associations with two members of the Genovese crime family because the
associations "demonstrate a lack of good character and integrity, and allowing
him to continue working . . . would undermine public confidence in the integrity
and stability of the operation of the waterfront").
A-2255-21
27
To the extent we have not expressly addressed any other arguments made
on Adamo's behalf, we have considered them and find they are without sufficient
merit to warrant discussion in this opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-2255-21
28