Circumstantial evidence relied upon to sustain a finding that an employee used his or her employers resources for private purposed in violation of law, rule or regulation
Oberman v New York City Conflicts of Interest Bd., 2017 NY Slip Op 02366, Appellate Division, First Department
The New York City Conflicts of Interest Board, based on "strong circumstantial evidence" including records of numerous calls involving Igor Oberman's work telephone and donations to his political campaign, concluded that Oberman had used his public employer's resources for private purposes in violation of New York City Charter §2604(b)(2) and 53 RCNY § 1-13(a) and (b) and imposed a civil penalty of $7,500.
The Appellate Division dismissed Oberman's appeal, finding that the Board's determination was "based on substantial evidence" and there was no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the Administrative Law Judge.
The court then opined that "The penalty is not shockingly disproportionate to the offense in light of the extent of [Oberman's] misconduct, the warnings he had received against such misconduct, his failure to accept responsibility, and the high ethical standards to which he was held as an attorney."
The decision is posted on the Internet at: