Transcription
THE CITY OF NEW YORKCONFLICTS OF INTEREST BOARDxIn the Matter ofCOIB Case No. 2017-362KARL ASHANTIOATH Index No. 697/19Respondent.xFINAL FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDERUpon consideration of all the evidence presented in the above-captioned matter, and ofthe full record, and all papers submitted to, and rulings of, the Office of Administrative Trialsand Hearings (“OATH”), including the annexed Report and Recommendation of OATHAdministrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Astrid B. Gloade dated July 8, 2019 (the “Report”), in thismatter, and upon consideration of the comment to the Report submitted by Respondent, theConflicts of Interest Board (the “Board”) hereby adopts in full the findings of fact andconclusions of law contained in the Report. The Report recommends that the Board impose afine of 8,500, which recommendation the Board adopts.Without limiting the foregoing, and in summary of its findings and conclusions, theBoard notes the following:The Report finds that Respondent, a former senior attorney at the New York City LawDepartment (the “Law Department”), violated Chapter 68 of the New York City Charter by: (1)representing his wife in a lawsuit against New York City, in violation of City Charter §2604(b)(7); (2) submitting a letter on Law Department letterhead in connection with that lawsuit,in violation of City Charter § 2604(b)(2), pursuant to Board Rules § 1-13(b); and (3) identifyinghimself as a Law Department attorney to the Chief Human Resource Officer at his wife’s formerCity employer to obtain an advantage in settling the matter prior to the lawsuit, in violation ofCity Charter § 2604(b)(3).1
In his comment to the Report, Respondent makes no new arguments to challenge thefactual findings or legal conclusions of the ALJ and instead repeats arguments that he made attrial regarding his conduct and the appropriate penalty for his violations. The Board commentson two of Respondent’s arguments.Respondent claimed at trial and repeats in his comment to the Report that he did notviolate City Charter § 2604(b)(3) by identifying himself as a Law Department attorney whilecommunicating with the Chief Human Resource Officer of his wife’s former City employerbecause the Chief Human Resource Officer did not perceive Respondent to be using his Cityposition to seek a benefit in settling the dispute prior to litigation. Respondent’s argumentmisperceives the appropriate legal standard to find a violation of City Charter § 2604(b)(3).Rather, as the Report correctly concluded, “the standard is not whether respondent’s invocationof his official position was perceived by someone else as an effort to obtain a benefit, butwhether respondent intended to use his position to obtain a ‘privilege or other private or personaladvantage’ for himself or his wife.” Report at 7, citing COIB v. Ross, OATH Index No. 538/98at 11, COIB Case No. 97-076 (1997). The Report further applied this standard correctly byconcluding that “the only reasonable inference” drawn from Respondent’s reference to hisemployment at the Law Department was “to advance his position during negotiations about hiswife’s compensation.” Id. This reference indeed “had the desired effect: it gave the impressionthat as an attorney with the Law Department, respondent was knowledgeable about the legalissues involved in his wife’s claim.” Id. at 8.Respondent also argued at trial and reiterated in his comment to the Report that he wasignorant of the conflicts of interest law and that, as a result, his penalty should reflect thisignorance rather than a willful violation of it. This argument is likewise unpersuasive. As theBoard has previously stated, “ignorance of the law is not a defense to an enforcement case.”COIB v. Capetanakis, OATH Index No. 604/01, COIB Case No. 99-157 (2001). Moreover, theReport found that Respondent was not ignorant, having been notified of a conflict by the LawDepartment attorney representing the City on the case. Report at 3. Nevertheless, Respondentcontinued to litigate the case against the City for approximately three months.Having found the above-stated violations of the City Charter and having consulted withthe head of Respondent’s former agency as required by Charter Section 2603(h)(3), the Boarddetermines that the penalty shall be a fine of 8,500.WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to Charter Section 2606(b), thatRespondent be assessed a civil penalty of 8,500 to be paid to the Conflicts of Interest Boardwithin 30 days of service of this Order.2
Respondent has the right to appeal this Order to the Supreme Court of the State of NewYork by filing a petition pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.The Conflicts of Interest BoardBy: Richard Briffault, ChairFernando A. Bohorquez, Jr.Anthony CrowellJeffrey D. FriedlanderErika ThomasDated: September 19, 2019Attachmentcc:Karl Ashanti, Esq.Administrative Law Judge Astrid B. GloadeOffice of Administrative Trials and Hearings100 Church StreetNew York, New York 100073
KARL ASHANTI . OATH Index No. 697/19 . Respondent. _x . FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER . Upon consideration of all the evidence presented in -captionedthe above matter, and of the full record, all papers submitted toand , and rulings of, the Office of Administrative Trials
