- 2 -

Fire Dep't v. Padron

OATH Index No. 1283/06 (Mar. 20, 2006)

This was an AWOL default decided on the papers. Evidence established that respondent has been continuously absent from the Department without leave since January 19, 2005.

______

NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS

In the Matter of

FIRE DEPARTMENT

Petitioner

-against-

RICHARD PADRON

Respondent

______

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DONNA R. MERRIS, Administrative Law Judge

This disciplinary proceeding was referred by petitioner, the Fire Department, pursuant to section 15-113 of the Administrative Code. Respondent, Richard Padron, an Emergency Medical Technician, is charged with being absent without authorization (AWOL) since January 19, 2005 (ALJ Ex. 1). The hearing was conducted before me on March 20, 2006. Upon respondent's failure to appear, proper proof of service of the charges and notice of the hearing (Pet. Ex. 1) was submitted. Such evidence established the jurisdictional prerequisites for finding respondent in default.

Petitioner submitted an affidavit from the Civilian Personnel Manager for the New York City Fire Department (Pet. Ex. 2). The affidavit establishes that respondent has been absent without official leave since January 19, 2005. Respondent was granted an approved leave of absence from which he was scheduled to return to his assignment at Battalion 17 on March 1, 2003. On January 4, 2005, respondent was sent a follow-up letter. He failed to respondent to the instructions in the letter and has been considered to be AWOL since January 19, 2005.

Accordingly, I find that respondent engaged in the charged misconduct.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

1. Respondent was properly served with the charges and notice of hearing.

2. Respondent has been absent without leave from January 19, 2005 to the present.

3. Respondent has not resolved his employment status.

RECOMMENDATION

Respondent has been absent from work without authorization for an extended period of time. Respondent's unauthorized absence is a fundamental form of misconduct which substantially impedes the Department's ability to fulfill its mission. The only appropriate penalty for such misconduct is termination, and I so recommend.

Donna R. Merris

Administrative Law Judge

March 20, 2006

SUBMITTED TO:

NICHOLAS SCOPPETTA

Commissioner

APPEARANCES:

MATTHEW GELLER, ESQ.

Attorney for Petitioner

No Appearance By or For Respondent