20 N.Y.2d 54 (1967)

Deliberately providing false information under oath to a government agency can result in adverse action, even if the information is immaterial or the individual had a privilege to withhold it.

Summary

Peter Bell, a longshoreman, was questioned by the Waterfront Commission about past associations with alleged subversive groups. He denied or couldn’t recall involvement. The Commission revoked his registration for fraud and misrepresentation, citing his false statements. The court found sufficient evidence of Bell’s deceit, even if the questions pertained to activities from his youth. The court emphasized that lying to a government agency is a valid basis for adverse action, regardless of the information’s materiality. While acknowledging potential constitutional concerns about the Commission’s power regarding subversive activities, the court upheld the revocation based on the principle that one cannot benefit from deceiving a regulatory body.

Facts

Peter Bell, a longshoreman since 1952, applied to become a checker in 1960.
From 1961, he was interviewed under oath by the Waterfront Commission about alleged subversive activities during the late 1940s, when he was a teenager.
He denied or claimed he could not recall involvement with the Young Progressives of America (YPA) and the American Youth for Democracy (AYD).
Herbert Romerstein testified that Bell was an active member of AYD, even attending meetings for county officers.

Procedural History

The Waterfront Commission revoked Bell’s registration as a longshoreman and denied his application to be a checker, finding him guilty of fraud and misrepresentation.
Bell filed an Article 78 proceeding in the Supreme Court to annul the Commission’s order.
The Appellate Division confirmed the Commission’s determination.
Bell appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the Waterfront Commission was justified in revoking Bell’s longshoreman registration based on false statements made during interviews regarding past associations, even if those associations occurred during his youth and might have been subject to a privilege against self-incrimination.
Whether the permanent revocation of Bell’s registration was an excessively harsh penalty given the circumstances.

Holding

Yes, because deliberately providing false information to a government agency, even if immaterial or privileged, is a sufficient basis for adverse action.
Yes, the penalty was initially justified, but because of the length of time that has passed, any further suspension beyond the date of the Court of Appeals decision would be an abuse of discretion.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the Waterfront Commission Act empowers the agency to revoke the registration of any longshoreman for fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation during any interview or hearing. The court found sufficient evidence that Bell lied about his past associations. The Court emphasized the principle that “deliberately telling a falsehood under oath or practicing deceit in dealing with a government agency is a sufficient predicate for criminal prosecution, adverse regulatory action or administrative discipline even if the misrepresentation was not ‘material’ or the deceiver would have been privileged to withhold the information in the first instance.” The court quoted Communications Comm. v. WOKO, stating,