HomeHistoryPolicecommissionersOfficersDirectorsAnnual ReportsLicensingNetscaler Login

US Attorney's Office - Eastern District of NY

US Attorney - SDNY

NJ Attorney General

NY Attorney General

Staten Island, NY DA

Kings County, NY DA

Hudson County, NJ Prosecutor's Office

Essex County, NJ Prosecutor's Office

Union County, NJ Prosecutor's Office

NY County District Attorney's Office


New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division Affirms Waterfront Commission's Denial of Longshoreman's Re-Application.

March 23, 2012

            On March 23, 2012, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the decision of the Waterfront Commission denying the re-application of Christopher McDonald for registration as a maintenance man. McDonald, who had previously worked on the waterfront, was charged with making several misrepresentations during the re-application process, including failing to disclose all of the disciplinary measures previously taken against him and representing that he was unemployed despite working as a longshoremen without being duly registered to do so. At an administrative hearing, the administrative law judge found that McDonald committed multiple instances of fraud, deceit and misrepresentation, and therefore recommended that his re-application be denied. After a review of the entire record of the hearing, multiple examinations under oath and the ALJ’s Report and Recommendations, the Commission denied McDonald’s re-application.

            On appeal, McDonald argued that the Commission’s findings were not supported by credible evidence, and that its sanction of denial was too severe and disproportionate to the misconduct charged. The appellate panel rejected McDonald’s arguments, deferring to the ALJ’s finding that McDonald was not credible in explaining his failure to disclose all the disciplinary measures taken against him and his untruthful statements regarding his employment history. The Court found that, given the number of work infractions committed by McDonald, his affirmative misrepresentations and intentional omissions, the Commission’s decision to deny re-registration was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unduly harsh. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Commission’s denial of Mr. McDonald’s re-application.



A complete copy of the Court’s Opinion is attached. PDF





Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor