IN RE: ARNOLD BORRERO (2011)

Appellant Arnold Borrero appeals from a final decision of the Civil Service Commission, which upheld his removal from his position as a police officer of the City of Newark based on his conviction for simple assault, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:12–1(a).   The evidence upon which that conviction was based is set forth on pages three through five of our unpublished opinion affirming that conviction.  State v. Borrero, No. A–5784–06 (Dec. 5, 2008).   We are today also filing an unpublished opinion affirming the denial of defendant's petition for post-conviction relief from that conviction.  State v. Borrero, No. A–5168–09.

In affirming Newark's removal of appellant, the Commission stated:

The appellant was convicted of simple assault for leaning on Ms. Lesende through an open window of her car, grabbing and pulling her hair, and punching her, after he had stopped her vehicle while he was off-duty.   This type of behavior for a Police Officer is particularly disturbing since Police Officers hold highly visible and sensitive positions within the community and are therefore, subject to a higher standard of conduct and responsibility than what is required of other public employees․

The appellant's actions in assaulting an unarmed woman in her car, while off-duty, and in full view of the public, does not convey an “image of personal integrity and dependability” nor does it demonstrate an ability to “exercise tact, restraint and good judgment.” ․

[A] review of the appellant's disciplinary record evidences a 10–day suspension in 2001, a 30–day suspension in 2000;  and a 20–day suspension in 2002․  [B]ased on the appellant's disciplinary record, which included three serious infractions for which major discipline was imposed, and the egregiousness of the appellant's current conduct, removal is appropriate.

We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the Commission's final decision.   We also note, as the Commission implicitly found, that appellant lied at the hearing before the Administrative Law Judge concerning the extent of his history of disciplinary infractions.

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM