Apr 1, 2026

Circumstantial evidence considered by the hearing officer in a Civil Service Law Section 75 disciplinary action

New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] Michael D.Turilli recommended termination of employment for a correction officer [Respondent] he found had engaged in undue familiarity by facilitating the transfer of contraband between detainees. 

Citing OATH Index No. 1593/20 (Sept. 28, 2020), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Dec. 16, 2020), aff’d, NYC Civ. Serv. Comm’n Case No. 2020-0810, in which the then presiding ALJ held that “A finding based entirely on circumstantial evidence may be established in a Civil Service disciplinary proceeding so long as the circumstantial evidence supports the conclusion that ‘the inference drawn is the only one that is fair and reasonable'”, in the instant disciplinary action Judge Turilli noted that there was circumstantial evidence of:

a. Respondent’s surreptitious retrieval and delivery of the items captured on video;

b. Respondent's concealment of his actions on official logbooks; and

c. An audio recording of conversations between the detainees involved.

The ALJ concluded that Respondent knew that the box and the envelope had come from a detainee in the restricted housing area and that Respondent knowingly transported the contraband to another housing area. In addition, Judge Turilli said that Respondent’s denial of knowledge was uncorroborated, self-serving, and not credible. 

Judge Turilli recommended that the appointing authority terminate Respondent's employment, finding that neither Respondent’s disciplinary history nor the lack of evidence regarding the contents of the box and envelope warranted a lesser penalty. 

Click HERE to access Judge Turilli's decision posted on the Internet.