SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0825-14T2

IN THE MATTER OF 

BASEM ZAGHLOUL

CITY OF NEWARK 

POLICE DEPARTMENT.

Submitted December 14, 2016 – Decided

Before Judges Alvarez and Accurso.

On appeal from the Civil Service Commission, 

Docket No. 2012-2210.

Fusco & Macaluso Partners, LLC, attorneys for 

appellant Basem Zaghloul (Amie E. DiCola, on 

the brief).

Willie L. Parker, Corporation Counsel, 

attorney for respondent City of Newark 

(Corinne E. Rivers, Assistant Corporation 

Counsel, on the brief).

Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, 

attorney for respondent Civil Service 

Commission (Pamela N. Ullman, Deputy Attorney 

General, on the statement in lieu of brief).

PER CURIAM

Basem Zaghloul, a Newark police officer, appeals from the 

October 1, 2014 final decision of the Civil Service Commission 

(Commission) imposing a ten-day suspension. We affirm.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

March 10, 2017
2 A-0825-14T2

A preliminary notice of disciplinary action (PNDA) dated 

October 24, 2011, charged Zaghloul with the following violations: 

charge one, violations of Newark Police Department Rules and 

Regulations, Chapter 3:1.1 and N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(6), conduct 

unbecoming a public employee; charge two, insubordination in 

violation of Newark Police Department Rules and Regulations, 

Chapter 18:8 and N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(2); charge three, a 

violation of Newark Police Department Rules and Regulations, 

Chapter 5:4.1, obedience to orders; charge four, violation of 

Newark Police Department Rules and Regulations, Chapter 5:1.2, use 

of foul language; and charge five, violation of Newark Police 

Department Rules and Regulations, Chapter 3:1.2-4, demonstration 

of respect. 

The charges arose from an October 12, 2011 incident when 

Zaghloul stopped by his office, while on vacation, to drop off a 

check for a fundraiser. Detective Stacey Pickett and Detective 

Antonia Rosa happened to be in the midst of reviewing forms 

Zaghloul had recently completed and were discussing errors he had 

made. Zaghloul became angry when the women told him about their 

concerns and, during the conversation which ensued, he referred 

to Pickett as "baby" and "sunshine." When Pickett told Zaghloul 

to address her as either "Stacey" or "Pickett," Zaghloul became 

irate. The discussion rapidly deteriorated until he began to yell 
3 A-0825-14T2

profanities at Pickett, telling her "I don't give an F about this 

work. I don't give an F about you. F you." 

Sergeant Beatrice Golden, the supervisor, entered Pickett's 

office shortly after the confrontation began. The argument could 

be heard in areas accessible to the public, not just to the police. 

Pickett and Rosa testified that Zaghloul ignored Golden's order 

when she told him to leave the building. On his way out, Zaghloul 

either kicked or pulled a chair over onto the floor and went into 

the deputy chief's office. 

The final notice of disciplinary action (FNDA) imposed a tenday suspension on the charges. Zaghloul appealed, and the matter 

was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for a 

hearing under the Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 

to -15, and the Uniform Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C.

1:1-1.1 to -21.6.

At the hearing, a number of documents were introduced through 

the testimony of Sergeant Julio Benavente. He conducted the

internal affairs investigation, including the taking of

statements. He said that Zaghloul had been reassigned to patrol

duty, and that the deputy chief had told him he was transferred 

because of the incident. 

Unfortunately, although the OAL hearing began on October 22, 

2012, it did not resume until over a year later on November 18, 
4 A-0825-14T2

2013. On that date, counsel for the City of Newark (City) stated 

that she had noticed two additional witnesses, Deputy Chief Israel 

Caraballo and Golden. Even though the ALJ waited for over an 

hour, neither appeared. 

Zaghloul's attorney then moved to dismiss the matter because 

in his view "the City hasn't completed [its] case." The ALJ asked 

Zaghloul's attorney if he planned to proffer Zaghloul as a witness,

and his attorney responded that "he should not be forced into 

testifying . . . ." The attorney argued that it was unfair that 

the State had not produced the two witnesses as they were 

"crucial." The ALJ pointed out that he also had the opportunity 

to subpoena them, and that even if Caraballo and Golden did not 

appear, the City had the option of resting on the testimony of the 

witnesses it had produced. Hence, the ALJ denied the motion to 

dismiss. She also said there was no reason to continue the matter, 

although Zaghloul's attorney had not requested a postponement. 

The ALJ closed the record and directed that counsel simultaneously 

submit their summations in writing.

The ALJ held that the appointing authority had met its burden 

of proof by a preponderance of the credible evidence. In support

of the decision, she recounted Benavente's testimony regarding 

Pickett and Rosa's incident reports, which included the initial 

descriptions of the argument between Zaghloul and Pickett, and 
5 A-0825-14T2

their description of Golden's order to Zaghloul to leave the 

building, which he ignored.

The ALJ credited Rosa and Pickett's testimony that Zaghloul 

began to yell profanities and wave his arms in an angry manner

when they began to talk to him about his work. Both witnesses 

said Golden ordered Zaghloul to leave the building, and he instead 

knocked a chair over and walked into the deputy chief's office. 

The ALJ specifically rejected Zaghloul's argument that he did 

not have the opportunity to "put in a defense" or to "testify" 

because of Caraballo and Golden's failure to appear. No 

interlocutory appeals were taken, nor any subpoenas served by 

Zaghloul on any officers. He could have testified, but chose not 

to. In considering the appropriate sanction, she noted that no 

mitigating factors had been presented which warranted a reduction 

in the penalty. 

Zaghloul filed exceptions to the ALJ's decision. On October 

1, 2014, the Commission "accepted and adopted the [f]indings of 

[f]act and [c]onclusion." 

On appeal, Zaghloul raises the following two points:

POINT ONE

THE COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE CIVIL SERVICE 

COMMISSION'S FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION 

BECAUSE [THE ALJ'S] DECISION WAS MANIFESTLY 

MISTAKEN AND NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD AS 

[] ZAGHLOUL HAD A RIGHT TO RELY ON THE CITY 

OF NEWARK'S SUBPOENAS, THE CITY OF NEWARK 
6 A-0825-14T2

WOULD NOT HAVE SUFFERED PREJUDICE IF THERE WAS 

A SHORT ADJOURNMENT OF THE HEARING, AND [THE 

ALJ'S] ACTIONS TO THE CONTRARY WERE ARBITRARY 

AND CAPRICIOUS.

POINT TWO

THE COURT SHOULD REVERSE THE CIVIL SERVICE 

COMMISSION'S FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION 

BECAUSE THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE CIVIL 

SERVICE COMMISSION WAS DISPROPORTIONATE IN 

LIGHT OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCE[S] AS []

ZAGHLOUL WAS ALREADY DEMOTED AND TRANSFERRED 

FOR HIS ACTIONS ON OCTOBER 12, 2011 WHEN HE 

WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY CHARGED.

I.

Appellate courts have a "limited role" in reviewing 

administrative agency decisions. In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 

194 (2011). An agency's judgment may only be reversed if it was 

"arbitrary, capricious, [] unreasonable, or [] not supported by 

substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." Ibid.

(second alteration in original) (quoting Henry v. Rahway State 

Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980)). "The application of those 

principles is not limited to whether a violation warranting 

discipline has been proven; this 'deferential standard applies to 

the review of disciplinary sanctions as well.'" Id. at 195 

(quoting In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 28 (2007)).

II.

Pickett and Rosa's testimony was straightforward. Zaghloul 

lost his temper when told not to refer to Pickett by anything 
7 A-0825-14T2

other than her name, and when Pickett and Rosa criticized his 

work. He used foul language, engaged in threatening and 

inappropriate behavior, including knocking over a chair as he left 

the room and stormed into his superior's office, disregarding the 

supervising officer's order to leave the building. Uncontroverted

credible evidence proved the charges. 

The decision of the ALJ, adopted by the Commission, enjoys a 

presumption of reasonableness. In light of the testimony, it was 

not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. It was supported by 

substantial, credible evidence in the record as a whole. See

Stallworth, supra, 208 N.J. at 194. 

We further note that on the last day of the hearing, counsel 

did not request that the ALJ carry the matter so he might subpoena 

Caraballo and Golden. Zaghloul had the option to issue his own 

subpoenas for those witnesses if he viewed them as critical to his 

defense and could have done so after the first day of the hearing. 

Obviously, Zaghloul had the opportunity to testify, but proceeded 

instead on the theory that the police department's proofs were 

inadequate. That he now regrets the strategic choices he made 

does not make the Commissioner's decision erroneous.

III.

Benavente mentioned that Zaghloul had been assigned to patrol

duty and that the deputy chief said it happened because of the 
8 A-0825-14T2

incident. No evidence was introduced that the transfer was action 

taken against him. Although hearsay is admissible in an OAL 

proceeding, we know nothing about the particulars of the transfer. 

See N.J.A.C. 1:1-15.5(b) ("Notwithstanding the admissibility of 

hearsay evidence [in administrative proceedings] some legally 

competent evidence must exist to support each ultimate finding of 

fact . . ."). Without that information, Zaghloul's argument that 

he has been punished twice for the same offense is untenable. The 

details regarding his reassignment are simply unknown. He had 

worked in the office where the incident occurred only a short 

time, and we cannot speculate as to the conditions of that 

assignment, or the actual circumstances surrounding his return to 

patrol detail. The connection Zaghloul makes between the 

reassignment and punishment lacks record support.

It is commonplace that a police officer is a "special kind 

of public employee" who "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." In re Carter, 191 

N.J. 474, 486 (2007) (quoting Twp. of Moorestown v. Armstrong, 89 

N.J. Super. 560, 566 (App. Div. 1965), certif. denied, 47 N.J. 80 

(1966)). That high standard is one a police officer voluntarily 

undertakes upon acceptance of his employment in the service of the 
9 A-0825-14T2

public. In re Phillips, 117 N.J. 567, 577 (1990) (citing In re 

Emmons, 63 N.J. Super. 136, 142 (App. Div. 1960)). 

In disciplinary actions involving police officers, "courts 

should take care not to substitute their own views of whether a 

particular penalty is correct for those of the body charged with 

making that decision." Carter, supra, 191 N.J. at 486. 

Thus, we do not find fault with the Commission's decision 

that the ten-day suspension was proper. In light of Zaghloul's 

conduct on the day in question, the Commission's decision is not 

arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious. 

Affirmed.