Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Knoble v. Waterfront Commission
Citations: 132 N.J. Super. 151; 333 A.2d 22; 1974 N.J. Super. LEXIS 436
Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division; December 30, 1974; New Jersey; State Appellate Court
Appeals have been filed against orders from the Waterfront Commission that revoked and denied the licenses of port watchmen John J. Knoble and Sergio Introna due to misconduct involving false payroll reporting for Richard H. Roed, a pier guard. An investigation revealed Roed was absent for 136 hours between June 28 and October 16, 1971, yet received $444.50 in payment for work he did not perform. Time discrepancies were identified through Roed’s other employment records and the Commission's logbook. The Commission concluded that Knoble and Introna misappropriated funds through false representations, violating N.J.S.A. 32:23-93, and lacked the requisite good character and integrity under N.J.S.A. 32:23-41, warranting license revocation. The defendants argue that their actions do not constitute a lack of good character as defined by the Waterfront Commission Act, asserting that the law targets serious criminal activity and does not apply to employment-related conduct without criminal charges. They maintain that the statute's intent was to exclude known criminals rather than impose severe disciplinary measures for employment violations. The Commission's authority to revoke licenses is supported by related legislative findings indicating a need for higher standards in the regulation of port watchmen to combat prevalent crime and disorder in the docks. Licensing requirements dictate that individuals must meet standards regarding intelligence, physical condition, age, and moral character. The statutory framework governing the New York waterfront applies to security officers and port watchmen, allowing for disciplinary action based on conduct reflecting poor character or integrity. Standards for granting licenses also apply to revocation proceedings, supported by precedent cases involving misconduct like payroll padding. The appellants' actions were deemed indicative of a lack of good character, sufficient to warrant disciplinary proceedings. Despite their conduct potentially constituting property misappropriation, the determination of lack of character sufficed for the ruling. The Commission's revocation of licenses was challenged as excessively harsh. Notably, the appellants, Knoble and Introna, had long, unblemished records and had never been convicted of crimes, with only minor infractions on their records. They acted with no intent for personal gain, instead assisting a relative. Given the seriousness of the misconduct, while it indicated a lack of integrity, the circumstances suggested that revocation was disproportionately severe. The decision to revoke and deny licenses was vacated; instead, the appellants' licenses were suspended for one year.