2012 Conference Executive Record Report.pdf - YMCA of Greater ...

Team 7 v 9
MARK RUTKOWSKI, Appellant, v.
THE YMCA, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First
Department, New York
March 10, 2012, Argued
March 10, 2012, Decided
COUNSEL: Vimbai Ushe and Erin
Loftus, for Appellant.
Katie Roxstrom and Kathryn Rowan, for
Respondent.
JUDGES: Dewitt, Domagola, Parakkatu,
Blaszczyk, Furia
OPINION BY: Last
OPINION
We the Appellate Court of the State of New
York find in favor of the respondent, the
YMCA. The respondent properly established
that Mark acted against the interests of the
YMCA when redirecting the company’s
$20,000. The respondent also proved that it is
not shocking to one’s sense of fairness to take
Mr. Rutkowski’s pension as his actions
constituted moral turpitude.
Fundamental to this case is, understanding the
definition of moral turpitude which is being
“motivated by malice or selfishness” as cited in
Robert Muraik v. Anthony M. Landi. The
respondent proved that Mark’s actions were of
moral turpitude as he stole a substantial sum of
money from the YMCA to improve his own
image. The YMCA’s Youth & Govt. program
was Mark’s brain child and this court finds that
this was one of Mr. Rutkowski’s ‘pet projects’ in
that in making the Youth and Govt. program
look better was in his best interest. Therefore we
hold that in this sense he was acting not with
malice, but with selfishness alone in his
reallocating the YMCA’s resources. Although
the transported money did benefit an extra
hundred students, Mark only did this to maintain
the longevity of the program and his own job.
When regarding mitigating factors, counsel
proved that past factors have no control upon
present situations. Specifically, Mark’s generally
flawless career of 40 years except for the
Bowerman Speedo Incident of 2003 should not
be considered by the court as committing fraud
outweighs such deeds.
Next, the respondent clearly expressed that it is
not shocking to one’s sense of fairness to take
away Mr. Rutkowski’s pension. In the case of
Goudy v. Schaffer, William Goudy was able to
keep his job and pension though he had 42
specifications of incompetence and misconduct.
Counsel effectively proved that Mark has no
resemblance to Mr. Goudy as incompetence and
misconduct is in no way similar to lying to one’s
employers while committing fraud. Council
proved that by allowing Mark to keep his
pension, the YMCA would be setting a
precedent to condone moral turpitude as long as
the outcome works in the company’s favor.
Respondent stressed that to respect YMCA
values such as honesty the organization must not
give any benefits to Mark.
With such evidence provided, we agree in the
lower court’s decision to terminate Mark’s
career and pension
46