SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0048-19T4

IN THE MATTER OF

ISAIAH MATEO, POLICE

OFFICER (S9999U),

HOBOKEN.

_______________________

Argued November 16, 2020 – Decided

Before Judges Gooden Brown and DeAlmeida.

On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service 

Commission, Docket No. 2019-2566.

Catherine M. Elston argued the cause for appellant (C. 

Elston & Associates, LLC, attorneys; Catherine M. 

Elston, of counsel and on the briefs). 

Alyssa L. Bongiovanni, Assistant Corporation Counsel,

argued the cause for respondent City of Hoboken

(Hoboken City Law Department, attorneys; Alyssa L. 

Bongiovanni, of counsel and on the brief).

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent Civil Service Commission (Jonathan S. 

Sussman, Deputy Attorney General, on the statement in 

lieu of brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

December 18, 2020
2

A-0048-19T4

Isaiah Mateo appeals from the August 5, 2019 final agency decision of the 

Civil Service Commission (Commission) upholding a determination to remove 

his name from the civil service eligibility list for police officers based on its 

conclusion that he made false statements on his application to the City of 

Hoboken Police Department. We affirm.

Mateo achieved a passing score in the 2016 open competitive examination 

for the title of police officer and was ranked on the subsequent list of eligible 

candidates. As a result, in September 2017, Mateo, then twenty-one-years-old,

submitted an application for a police officer position with the Hoboken Police 

Department which consisted of a thirty-seven-page personal history 

questionnaire. The questionnaire cautioned that "any deliberate omission or 

falsification of information can result in . . . disqualification from consideration 

for employment" and included Mateo's certification "that each and every answer 

[was] full, true and correct in every respect." 

Following receipt of the questionnaire, Sergeant Charles Kucz of the 

Hoboken Police Department Applicant Investigation Unit submitted a 

memorandum to Lieutenant Scott Hochstadter dated November 16, 2018, 

detailing the results of the investigation into Mateo's questionnaire. The 

memorandum noted the following omissions in the questionnaire:
3

A-0048-19T4

A check of the [New Jersey (NJ)] Automated 

Traffic System (ATS) pertaining to [Mateo] was 

completed yielding a summons received on [December 

18, 2015,] in Ridgefield Park, NJ for an equipment 

violation "Safety Glass Requirement[.]" This was not 

disclosed on the applicant['s] Personal History 

Questionnaire. An updated ATS check was conducted 

on [November 14, 2018,] which revealed two 

summonses issued on [August 31, 2018] in Hoboken, 

NJ for "Improper Use of a Cellular Phone" and "Failure 

to Wear Seatbelt[.]" Both summonses have since been 

disposed of.

. . . .

A check of the Hoboken Police Department 

Records Bureau as well as the former IMPACT 

database revealed [Mateo] was arrested by the 

undersigned on [September 10, 2010,] for Possession 

of CDS Marijuana [fifty] grams or less (Juvenile 

Delinquency) as a [fourteen-year-old]. The applicant 

disclosed this police interaction in his response to 

question [seventy-eight] on the Personal History 

Questionnaire indicating "no charge" in the "violation 

charged" space provided.

. . . .

On [November 14, 2017], a disciplinary records 

request was sent to Drew University. On [December 4, 

2017], a response was received from Lynn Vogel who 

[was] identified as an Administrative Assistant for 

Drew Universit[y's] Campus Life and Student Affairs 

Office. The response indicated that [Mateo was] in 

good academic standing, however, [he] had been found 

responsible for several student conduct violations from 

August of 2014[,] through November 30, 2017[,] 

including the following:
4

A-0048-19T4

10/02/2015- Violation of Campus Housing 

regulations (prohibited appliance)

11/24/2015- Underage Alcohol; Violation 

of Campus Housing Regulations

02/07/2016- Alcohol General; Guest

Policy

03/10/2016- Damage/Vandalism (Door 

Lock)

05/12/2016- Improper Check Out

09/04/2016- Alcohol General; Underage 

Alcohol

09/14/2016- Alcohol General; Violation of 

Public Law (Public Urination)

The above listed student conduct violations, per the 

response from Drew University, were sanctioned by 

progressive discipline which included fines, 

community service, parental notification and 

disciplinary probation. It should be noted that the 

applicant did not disclose these student conduct 

violations on his Personal History Questionnaire; 

specifically[,] question [thirty-two] which asks: List 

any problems with school and/or college (absenteeism, 

tardiness, poor grades, other discipline problems).

Subsequently, the Commission sent Mateo a Certification Disposition 

Notice dated February 21, 2019, informing him that "[his] name [had] been 

removed from [the eligibility] list because documentation indicate[d he]

falsified [his] application for th[e] position." (changed from all capitals). The 

notice specified that an appeal could be filed by "writing to the . . . Commission" 

within "[twenty] days from the date of th[e] notice" indicating "why th[e] action 
5

A-0048-19T4

[was] not warranted." Mateo retained counsel, who requested in letters to the 

Commission dated March 11 and 13, 2019, "all documentation relied upon by 

Hoboken" in removing Mateo's name from the eligibility list. Mateo's counsel 

also requested twenty days from receipt of the documents to file an appeal. 

The Commission responded in a letter dated April 16, 2019, providing 

Mateo's counsel with Kucz' November 16, 2018 memorandum to Hochstadter; 

Kucz' November 14, 2017 records request to Drew University and the

University's response; pages thirteen and fourteen of Mateo's questionnaire; a 

NJ ATS print out of the 2015 equipment violation summons; and the arrest 

report detailing Mateo's 2010 juvenile arrest for possession of under fifty grams 

of marijuana. The Commission's April 16, 2019 letter explained that the 

documentation provided indicated, "among other things," that Mateo "failed to 

disclose multiple motor vehicle summonses including improper use of a cellular 

phone and failure to wear a seatbelt."

In the letter, the Commission concluded that "[g]iven that [p]olice 

[o]fficers hold highly visible and sensitive positions within the community," and 

"certain motor vehicle infractions reflect a disregard for the law and are 

incompatible with the duties of a law enforcement officer[,]" there was "no basis 

to restore [Mateo's] name to the . . . eligible list" because "the record 
6

A-0048-19T4

demonstrate[d] that . . . Mateo failed to disclose material information on his 

employment application." Thus, the letter noted that the Commission 

"consider[ed] the matter closed."

Thereafter, Mateo's counsel requested that the matter be reopened and 

requested an extension to file an appeal. Counsel also notified the Commission 

that she had not received "relevant pages" of the questionnaire "referenced in 

the documentation as a basis for removal." In a letter dated June 6, 2019, the 

Commission granted Mateo's extension request and directed the City of 

Hoboken to provide Mateo by June 26, 2019, copies of all materials sent to the 

Commission to support the removal. The letter also provided deadlines for the 

submission of responses by both parties and stated that absent a request for 

"additional time[,]" the record would be closed on July 16, 2019, after which the 

Commission would "review the matter on the existing record." The City of 

Hoboken supplied the requested documents on June 11, 2019, and Mateo filed a 

formal appeal accompanied by supporting certifications and reference letters on 

June 25, 2019. 

In his supporting certification, Mateo addressed his juvenile arrest, motor 

vehicle violations, and college disciplinary infractions. Regarding the juvenile 

arrest, Mateo asserted that although he "list[ed] th[e] incident on [his]
7

A-0048-19T4

application[,]" he "wrote N/A on the 'charge' lines" because he did not recall any 

"formal 'charge'" or "going to court for the incident." Instead, he "recall[ed] 

being brought into police headquarters and released to [his] parents." Moreover, 

prior to submitting the application, when he called the City "to confirm the 

information [he] recalled from the juvenile incident[,]" he was told the records 

"could not [be] locate[d]." Mateo also pointed out that "[w]hile [he] did not 

recall the specific charge [of] 'possession of marijuana', [he] did state on the 

application, in response to another question, that [he] smoked marijuana when 

[he] was [fourteen] years old." Mateo explained that because he "admitted [his] 

use of marijuana at age [fourteen] in response to one question[, he] had no reason 

to omit it on another." 

Regarding the motor vehicle summonses, Mateo stated the omissions 

"were not intentional." He explained that he "simply forgot" receiving " [t]he 

'[s]afety [g]lass' violation" two years prior because "it did not result in points on 

[his] license." As to the two violations he received in 2018, they "occurred after

[his] application was turned in" and he "did not recall the application stating any 

procedure to update or supplement the information provided once the 

application was turned in[.]" However, "from [his] conversations with various 

Hoboken officers regarding the employment process, [he] knew there would be 
8

A-0048-19T4

an opportunity to disclose the tickets if and when [he] was called for the 

position" and, in fact, "advised" Hochstadter about the tickets during a 

September 2018 informational meeting with approximately fifteen other 

candidates during which "the background process [was] explained." 

As to omitting his college discipline record, Mateo stated it "was an 

oversight on [his] part." Mateo explained that over the course of only one week, 

in the process of gathering a plethora of documents "that needed to be submitted 

with the application[,]" he had "skipped" the question "pertaining to school 

discipline" because he "did [not] recall the specific information requested" at 

the time. "When [he] returned to complete the question[,] . . . for a reason [he 

did not] recall, [his] focus was on high school discipline," not "college 

discipline." Mateo stated that from his conversations "about the application 

process" with various police officers and others over the years, he "was fully 

aware of the ramifications for putting false information on the application, 

including being removed for consideration." He reiterated that his omissions 

"were not intentional." Further, "all the information" he "omitted was included 

on documentation that [he] authorized the City to obtain, including [his] college 

records, [his] driving records, and [his] criminal records." 
9

A-0048-19T4

In his certification, Mateo also detailed his personal background as a 

college graduate, who received a partial "academic scholarship" and "played 

college baseball all four years" while "work[ing] throughout college." He listed 

his employment history as a recreational baseball and softball umpire, a 

basketball camp teacher, a driver for Hoboken Medical Transportation where he 

"transport[ed] senior citizens[,]" and "a busboy for a busy restaurant." He also 

highlighted his volunteer service with "various youth sports camps[,]" and the 

"Hoboken Fire Department['s] charity events" to showcase his "love" for "the 

City, and [his] love [of] helping people." Additionally, Mateo's reference letters 

included character references from a Hoboken Fire Department Captain, a 

Hoboken Fire Department Battalion Chief, a Secaucus police officer, and an 

Executive Director of the Hoboken Housing Authority where Mateo resided 

with his family for many years.

In a comprehensive final decision issued on August 5, 2019, the 

Commission "denied" Mateo's appeal. In the decision, the Commission 

thoroughly reviewed Mateo's background, his explanations in mitigation of his 

omissions, and his arguments objecting to the removal of his name from the 

eligibility list. Relying on N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(a)(1), N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1(a)(6), 

and N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1(a)(9), the Commission determined Mateo failed to meet 
10 A-0048-19T4

"his burden of proof" as required under N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b) and N.J.A.C. 4A:4-

4.7(d), and the City of Hoboken showed "sufficient cause for removing his name 

from the Police Officer (S9999U), Hoboken eligible list." Specifically, the 

Commission explained that the City of Hoboken "had a valid reason for 

removing [Mateo's] name from the list" because "the record indicates that 

[Mateo] has a continuous history of negative interactions with authority, 

particularly from October 2015 through August 2018." 

The Commission "noted that while many of these negative interactions 

were with his college, some of these incidents involved illegal activity such as 

underage drinking and public urination." The Commission acknowledged 

Mateo's concession that the omission of "the 2015 . . . motor vehicle violation 

and all of the college conduct charges" were "not intentional" but were 

"unintentional oversight[s]." However, according to the Commission, "even if 

there was no intent to deceive, . . . [Mateo's] failure to disclose his complete 

driving history and college conduct violations was material" to the position 

sought. "At minimum, the [City of Hoboken] needed this information to have a 

complete understanding of his background in order to properly evaluate his 

candidacy."
11 A-0048-19T4

In rejecting Mateo's explanations for his omissions, the Commission

stated, "candidates are responsible for the accuracy of their applications." 

Further, signing a release that authorized the appointing 

authority to conduct a background investigation which 

revealed incidents that [Mateo] did not disclose did not 

relieve him of his obligation to submit a complete and 

accurate background. In reference to his claim that he 

did not falsify his application because there were no 

specific instructions about updating an already 

completed application, since [Mateo] knew the 

appointing authority asked about past incidents, 

common sense dictates that [Mateo] should have known 

to immediately contact the appointing authority to 

explain incidents which took place after he submitted 

his application and waiting for the background 

investigation to advise of the infractions was 

insufficient. Regardless, the Commission has the 

authority to consider these post-application violations, 

and, . . . has found them to be part of a continuing 

pattern of problematic conduct by [Mateo].

In evaluating Mateo's "continuing pattern of problematic conduct" in 

relation to his character and judgment for the position, the Commission 

determined Mateo "currently lacks the judgment and background to be a [p]olice 

[o]fficer." 

In this regard, it is recognized that a municipal [p]olice 

[o]fficer is a law enforcement employee who must 

enforce and promote adherence . . . to the law. 

Municipal [p]olice [o]fficers hold highly visible and 

sensitive positions within the community and . . . the 

standard for an applicant includes good character and 

an image of the utmost confidence and trust. It must be 
12 A-0048-19T4

recognized that a municipal [p]olice [o]ffice[r] is a 

special kind of employee. His primary duty is to 

enforce and uphold the law. He carries a service 

revolver on his person and is constantly called upon to 

exercise tact, restraint[,] and good judgment in his 

relationship with the public. He represents law and 

order to the citizenry and must present an image of 

personal integrity and dependability in order to have the 

respect of the public. See Moorestown v. Armstrong, 

89 N.J. Super. 560, 566 (App. Div. 1965) . . . . See also

In re Phillips, 117 N.J. 567 (1990). Moreover, as these 

incidents, except for the juvenile offense, took place 

either shortly before the August 31, 2016 closing date 

or after the closing date, there has been insufficient 

time for [Mateo] to demonstrate rehabilitation.

This appeal followed.

On appeal, Mateo raises the following points for our consideration: 1

I. AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE . . . 

COMMISSION'S FINDING THAT [MATEO] 

"FALSIFIED" HIS APPLICATION IS ARBITRARY, 

CAPRICIOUS, AND UNREASONABLE.

II. THE . . . COMMISSION'S ALTERATION AND 

BROADENING OF THE BASES FOR [MATEO'S] 

REMOVAL, SET FORTH FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 

ITS FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION AND 

AFTER [MATEO] FILED HIS APPEAL 

DOCUMENTS, IS A VIOLATION OF 

FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AND THE SQUARE 

CORNER[S] DOCTRINE.

1

 We have eliminated the point heading describing the standard of review and 

renumbered the remaining points accordingly.
13 A-0048-19T4

III. AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE REMOVAL OF 

[MATEO] FROM THE HIRING LIST BASED ON HIS 

DRIVING RECORD, JUVENILE ARREST, OR 

COLLEGE DISCIPLINE IS ARBITRARY, 

CAPRICIOUS AND UNREASONABLE.

IV. RESPONDENT'S ACCUSATION OF 

"FALSIFICATION," WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO 

CONFRONT HIS ACCUSER AND HAVE A 

HEARING BEFORE A NEUTRAL HEARING 

OFFICER, DEPRIVES [MATEO] OF HIS 

CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED LIBERTY 

INTEREST.

Our role in reviewing the decision of an administrative agency is, of 

course, limited. In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 482 (2007). We attach "a strong 

presumption of reasonableness . . . to the actions of the administrative 

agencies[,]" In re Carroll, 339 N.J. Super. 429, 437 (App. Div. 2001) (internal 

quotation marks and citations omitted), and "give great deference to an agency's 

interpretation of statutes within its scope of authority and its adoption of rules 

implementing the laws for which it is responsible," Hargrove v. Sleepy's, LLC, 

220 N.J. 289, 302 (2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

"However, we are not bound by the agency's interpretation of a statute or 

resolution of a question of law." Carroll, 339 N.J. Super. at 437 (citing In re 

Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999)). 
14 A-0048-19T4

Nonetheless, we will not upset the determination of an administrative 

agency absent a showing it was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. In re 

Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011). 

Under the arbitrary and capricious standard, the scope 

of judicial review is restricted to four inquiries:

(1) whether the agency's decision offends 

the State or Federal Constitution; (2) 

whether the agency's action violates 

express or implied legislative policies; (3) 

whether the record contains substantial 

evidence to support the findings on which 

the agency based its action; and (4) 

whether 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.

[Karins v. Atl. City, 152 N.J. 532, 540 (1998) (quoting 

George Harms Constr. Co. v. New Jersey Tpk. Auth., 

137 N.J. 8, 27 (1994)).]

We will also yield to an agency's expertise even where the evidence 

supports more than one conclusion. "Where there is substantial evidence in the 

record to support more than one . . . conclusion, 'it is the agency's choice which 

governs.'" Murray v. State Health Benefits Comm'n, 337 N.J. Super. 435, 442 

(App. Div. 2001) (quoting In re Vineland Chem. Co., 243 N.J. Super. 285, 307 

(App Div. 1990)). "In such a situation, we cannot substitute our judgment for 
15 A-0048-19T4

that of the agency, even if we would have decided the case differently . . . ." Id.

at 443.

Applying those standards here, we find no basis to reverse the 

Commission's decision. Pursuant to its regulations, the Commission is 

authorized to remove an individual from an eligible list based on his or her 

background and its adverse relationship to the nature of the position sought. 

N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(a)(1), in conjunction with N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1, allows the 

removal of "[t]he name of an eligible" from an employment list when the 

applicant "[h]as made a false statement of any material fact or attempted any 

deception or fraud in any part of the selection or appointment process[,]" 

N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1(a)(6), or for "[o]ther sufficient reasons." N.J.A.C. 4A:4-

6.1(a)(9). Under N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.7(d), "[a]n eligible may appeal his or her 

removal from an eligible list" but, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.3(b), "shall have 

the burden of proof." 

The Commission's interpretation of N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1(a)(6) shows that 

falsification does not require proof of intent to deceive or conceal as Mateo 

contends. In the regulation, by use of the disjunctive "or" after "a false statement 

of any material fact[,]" it is clear that there are two exclusive grounds upon 

which a person can be removed from the eligibility list – when the applicant 
16 A-0048-19T4

"[h]as made a false statement of any material fact" or for "attempted . . . 

deception or fraud . . . ." N.J.A.C. 4A:4-6.1(a)(6). See Gallenthin Realty Dev., 

Inc. v. Borough of Paulsboro, 191 N.J. 344, 368 (2007) (recognizing that "or" is 

read typically as a disjunctive and only in the conjunctive to reasonably 

effectuate legislative intent) (citation omitted); see also Headen v. Jersey City 

Bd. of Educ., 212 N.J. 437, 451 (2012) (applying the same rules of construction 

for statutory interpretation to interpretation of regulations) (citation omitted). 

Here, the record amply supports the decision reached by the City of 

Hoboken, which was upheld by the Commission, that Mateo made false 

statements on his application by omitting information material to the position of 

a police officer. We agree with the Commission that "[t]he primary inquiry in 

such a case is whether the candidate withheld information that was material to 

the position sought, not whether there was any intent to deceive on the part of 

the applicant." The Commission considered but ultimately rejected Mateo's 

explanations to mitigate the omission of his negative encounters with authority 

and concluded that not enough time had passed to show that he had been 

rehabilitated. Given the nature of the position sought, the resulting removal of 

his name from the eligible list was justified. 
17 A-0048-19T4

We also reject Mateo's claim that the Commission's April 16, 2019 letter

closing the matter, and its August 5, 2019 final decision denying the appeal 

constituted a "broadening of the bases of removal" that "violates the equitable 

'square corners doctrine.'" "In numerous circumstances, the courts have said 

that the government must 'turn square corners' in its dealings with others, and 

'comport itself with compunction and integrity.'" Sellers v. Bd. of Trs. of the 

Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 399 N.J. Super. 51, 59 (App. Div. 2008) (quoting 

F.M.C. Stores Co. v. Borough of Morris Plains, 100 N.J. 418, 426-27 (1985)). 

That doctrine has no application here. Mateo received written notice of the 

proposed removal and, with the assistance of counsel, was afforded a full 

opportunity to contest the action. In his administrative appeal, he addressed and 

explicitly responded to all the bases cited for his removal, which arguments were 

considered by the Commission in its final decision. 

Likewise, we reject Mateo's contention that the removal of his name from 

the eligibility list based on false statements on his application implicates 

constitutional due process claims. The law is well settled that "[n]o right accrues 

to a candidate whose name is placed on an eligible list." In re Foglio, 207 N.J. 

38, 44 (2011) (quoting In re Crowley, 193 N.J. Super. 197, 210 (App. Div. 

1984)). "The only benefit inuring to such a person is that so long as that list 
18 A-0048-19T4

remains in force, no appointment can be made except from that list[,]" ibid., and 

"'the best that can be said' of a candidate on an eligible list is that he has 'a right 

to be considered for appointment.'" Id. at 44-45 (quoting Nunan v. N.J. Dep't of 

Pers., 244 N.J. Super. 494, 497 (App. Div.1990)).

We agree with the Commission that Mateo failed to carry his burden to 

establish that the removal of his name from the eligibility list was unwarranted. 

Because Mateo did not dispute the material facts, only the Commission's 

evaluation of the weight accorded the undisputed facts, we find no error in the 

Commission's decision to hear the matter on the written record. See N.J.A.C. 

4A:2-1.1(d) ("Except where a hearing is required by law [or these rules], or 

where the Civil Service Commission finds that a material and controlling dispute 

of fact exists that can only be resolved by a hearing, an appeal will be reviewed 

on a written record."); In re Wiggins, 242 N.J. Super. 342, 345 (App. Div. 1990)

("The determination whether such a situation exists [to warrant a hearing] is one 

committed to the discretion of the [Commission], and its decision will be 

affirmed unless it goes beyond the range of sound judgment."). Moreover, 

Mateo never requested an evidentiary hearing.

In sum, Mateo has failed to show that the Commission's decision is not 

supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D), or is 
19 A-0048-19T4

otherwise arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. To the extent any argument 

raised by Mateo has not been explicitly addressed in this opinion, it is because 

the argument lacks sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. 

R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

Affirmed.