Oral arguments in the appeal of the firing of a Palisades Park patrolman
were presented Friday in Superior Court, Hackensack, where the
officer's attorney claimed parts of the investigation and hearing that led to
the dismissal were improper.
Charles Stark lost his job after a disciplinary hearing
in which town police officials alleged he was conducting an extramarital affair
while on duty, had a domestic dispute with his wife, and lied during an
internal investigation.
The attorney for the borough in the matter, Joseph
Mariniello Sr., said that appropriate procedures were followed throughout the
probe and subsequent hearing.
It is now up to Superior Court Judge Joseph S. Conte to
determine whether Stark's termination in 2011 should stand. Conte told the attorneys
that he would have a written decision in two weeks.
Stark was suspended without pay in February 2010 after
police responded to a 911 call from his wife, Mary, reporting a violent
argument at their house.
The Palisades
Park Borough Council let Stark go in September after Robert Guida, a
retired judge served as hearing officer in the disciplinary hearing,
recommended that he be fired.
Among the evidence submitted during the 23-day hearing
was a recorded phone conversation between Mary Stark and a Cliffside Park officer,
who was a personal friend. In the hour-long call, Mary Stark described the
fight.
Guida wrote in a report that Mary Stark told the officer,
Sgt. James Giunchini, that her husband had threatened her and pushed her to the
ground, causing her to hit her back on a toy car. She also said he raised his
fists near her face in a threatening manner.
Stark's attorney, Albert Wunsch argued Friday that the
tape should not have been admissible, calling it "hearsay." He said
police never questioned Stark's wife about the tape to corroborate its content,
and, when they arrived to the house the day of the call, they found that there
was nothing "amiss" and saw "no marks."
Mariniello disagreed that the tape should be considered
hearsay, and said the conversation heard on the tape was corroborated.
"There's a lot of
facts in the record which support the story that Mary Stark tells," he
said. "That the incident occurred at her house and that she was
assaulted."
Wunsch also criticized the
way internal affairs conducted their interview with Dana Pallotta, Stark's
former girlfriend, who he was accused of visiting at her home while he was on
duty. Wunsch claimed the notes of the interview were destroyed, and that
Pallotta was never given the opportunity to review her account, make any
changes or even sign the statement.
He added that testimony
also showed that other officers engaged in private matters while on-duty.
Mariniello pointed out to
the judge that both Charles Stark and Pallotta admitted to their relationship,
and that a neighbor of Pallotta testified that he saw a police car by her house
several times.
"The person who is at
fault is Officer Stark," he said. "He should not have had a
girlfriend, not gone to see her on duty, not been there at two or three in the
morning, he should not have lied to internal affairs."
Stark, dressed in a suit
and accompanied by his sister and father, declined to comment.