Rubin v. Sanford

Decision Date10 November 1964
Docket NumberNo. 64-277,64-277
Citation168 So.2d 774
PartiesSimon E. RUBIN, Sam A. Goldstein, Allen Goldgerg, Henry E. Wolff, Carl Susskind, Paul Seiderman, Stanley Glatter, A. B. Freed, M. C. Hayes and Tom D. Womble, duly qualified and acting as the Personnel Board of the city of Miami Beach, Florida, Appellants, v. Leonard SANFORD, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Joseph A. Wanick, Miami Beach, for appellants.

Irving Cypen Law Offices, Miami Beach, Sam Daniels, Miami, for appellee.

Before CARROLL, TILLMAN PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

HENDRY, Judge.

This is an appeal by members of the Personnel Board of the City of Miami Beach, from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Dade County restoring appellee, Leonard Sanford, to his civil service job of fireman in the city's fire department.

Removal proceedings were instituted by the Fire Chief of Miami Beach against appellee for conduct unbecoming an employee of the city. Specifically, appellee was charged with having been convicted by the criminal court of record of the charge of misleading advertising in connection with the sale of a used car.

A hearing was held before the appellants at which time evidence was produced in support of the charges against appellee. The personnel board dismissed the charges against appellee. The next day, the appellee was relieved from duty on the same charges. A second hearing was held before the personnel board; after this second hearing, the charges were sustained by the board and appellee was discharged.

Thereafter, appellee sought review by certiorari in the circuit court. Upon hearing on the petition, the circuit court ordered appellee's reinstatement. The personnel board contends that the circuit court committed error in ordering appellee's reinstatement. We can not agree.

The personnel board was precluded by the doctrine of res judicata from proceeding with the second disciplinary proceedings. There is little question that administrative proceedings are subject to the doctrine of res judicata, 1 and the courts of this state have similarly so concluded. 2

Finding no error, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, Judge (concurring specially).

I concur in the opinion and judgment in this case, but because it must appear odd that the City of Miami Beach was unable to remove from its employment rolls one who was convicted in the criminal court of record of a crime involving fraud, when the civil service rules of the city provided that was a sufficient ground for remova, 1a it would seem appropriate to explain how that came about.

The matter was instituted by a memorandum from the fire chief to the personnel director requesting that charges be prepared for the removal of the employee for the reason that he had been found guilty in the criminal court of a crime involving fraud. 2a The charges which were prepared pursuant thereto and relied on before the board (and which we are told were the same in both the first and second proceeding before the board) were as follows:

'As a First and Separate Ground for Removal You Are Hereby Charged as Follows: You have been guilty of conduct unbecoming an employee of the city as set forth by Rule X2(b)3 of the personnel rules of the City of Miami Beach.

'Specification: You have been found guilty in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida, of the charge of misleading advertising (an offense set forth and denounced by section 817.41(1) Florida Statutes, 1961 [F.S.A.]) as set forth and evidenced by an order entered by that court in said cause (case number 63-4906) on Oct. 7, 1963 and recorded in the Criminal Court of Record minute book 114, page 574. A true and correct copy of the proceedings in said cause, to wit, the information, the transcript of testimony, and said order is attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference.

'As a Second and Separate Ground for Removal You Are Hereby Charged as Follows: You have violated Rule X, section 2(b)1 in that you have been guilty of a criminal act, to wit, misleading advertising, as set forth in and denounced by section 817.41(1) of Florida Statutes, 1961 [F.S.A.], as evidenced by a true and correct copy of the proceedings had in case number 63-4906 in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida, to wit, the information; transcript of testimony and order entered therein, being attached hereto and made a part hereof.'

On the first hearing the board would not accept the conviction order as proof of the charges and dismissed them, taking the view that the evidence on which the conviction was obtained should be presented and be such as to establish guilt. No appellate review of that ruling was sought. Instead, the city filed the same charges again, 3 and at the second hearing presented the evidence as recorded in the criminal court trial. The board found that evidence sufficient to sustain the charges. On review by certiorari the circuit court disagreed, and held that the proof was inadequate in certain respects set out in the order of reversal.

The difficulty encountered by the city resulted from the fact that removal of the employee was not sought on a direct charge that he had been convicted of the crime involving moral turpitude. Had the charge been so laid, it could have been proved by introducing a certified copy of the judgment of the criminal court disclosing such conviction. See State v. Snyder, 136...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • South Bend Federation of Teachers v. National Ed. Association--South Bend
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 25 Abril 1979
    ...is a reason to settle the issues involved once and for all. Tidewater Oil Co. v. Jackson (10th Cir. 1963) 320 F.2d 157; Rubin v. Sanford (Fla.App.1964), 168 So.2d 774; Woodlawn Area Citizens Association, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners for Prince George's County (1966), 241 Md. 187, 2......
  • Crapo v. Acad. for Five Element Acupuncture, Inc., 1D17-1895
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 8 Julio 2019
    ...1972) (same); Metro. Dade Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs v. Rockmatt Corp. , 231 So. 2d 41, 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970) (same); Rubin v. Sanford , 168 So. 2d 774, 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964) ("There is little question that administrative proceedings are subject to the doctrine of res judicata ,9 and the cou......
  • Rubin v. Sanford, s. 68-238--68-241
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 21 Enero 1969
    ...C. J., and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ. BARKDULL, Judge. These cases have been before this court on previous occasions. See: Rubin v. Sanford, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 774; Rubin v. Shapiro, Fla.App.1965, 170 So.2d 460; Rubin v. Shapiro, Fla.App.1967, 198 So.2d 854; Rubin v. Sanford, Fla.App.1967......
  • Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. Babcock Co.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 9 Marzo 1982
    ...So.2d 33 (Fla.3d DCA 1967). See also Jet Air Freight v. Jet Air Freight Delivery, Inc., 264 So.2d 35 (Fla.3d DCA 1972); Rubin v. Sanford, 168 So.2d 774 (Fla.3d DCA 1964); Carol City Utilities, Inc. v. Miami Gardens Shopping Plaza, Inc., 165 So.2d 199 (Fla.3d DCA Second, and far more importa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT