In the Matter of the Certificates of Harry Guerriere, State Board of Examiners, 12/22/25 (#564-25)

564-25
State Board of Examiners Dkt. No. 1920-112
Agency Dkt. No. 5-3/25A
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of the Certificates of Harry
Guerriere, 	State 	Board 	of 	Examiners, 	New
Jersey Department of Education.
Order of Revocation by the State Board of Examiners, issued January 16, 2025
For the Respondent-Appellant, Philip Feintuch, Esq.
For the Petitioner-Respondent State Board of Examiners, Sadia Ahsanuddin,
Deputy Attorney General (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey)
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and papers filed in connection with Harry
Guerriere’s appeal of the Order of the State Board of Examiners (Board) revoking his Teacher of
Handicapped, Teacher of Driver Education, Teacher of Elementary Education in Grades K-8, and
Speech Language Specialist Equivalency certificates.
In this matter, the Board issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) regarding the revocation
of appellant’s certificates based upon allegations that he received disaster relief funds by falsely
claiming a property as a primary residence. By way of background, appellant and his wife have
been married for more than 20 years. They co-owned a home in Jersey City since 1999, and a
second home in Brigantine since 2002. At the time Superstorm Sandy occurred on October 29,
2012, they lived together at their primary residence in Jersey City and worked full-time in Jersey
City. As of October 29, 2012, their driver’s licenses, vehicle registrations, tax filings, and voter

2
registrations indicated that they lived in Jersey City. 	Their Brigantine home was substantially
damaged by the storm. 	Appellant’s wife applied for grants from the State of New Jersey
Department of Community Affairs to assist with repairing the Brigantine home and identified the
Brigantine home as her primary residence to qualify for relief.
Appellant filed an answer to the OSC arguing that there was no basis for the Board to act
against his certificates. The Board transmitted the matter to the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) for a contested case hearing at which appellant, his wife, and other witnesses testified.
On October 17, 2024, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Initial Decision and concluded
that appellant “was complicit in his wife’s actions of substantially misrepresenting their primary
residence as being in Brigantine . . . when it was in fact in Jersey City at the time of Superstorm
Sandy on October 29, 2012, in order to secure Hurricane Sandy grants from the New Jersey
Department of Community Affairs to which they were not entitled.” Initial Decision at 28. The
ALJ concluded that appellant’s “fraudulent conduct constitutes conduct unbecoming a teacher
as it has a tendency to destroy public respect for public employees and confidence in the
operation of public services.” 	Ibid. 	Accordingly, the ALJ held that having proven appellant
committed conduct unbecoming by a preponderance of credible evidence, the Board was
entitled to revoke appellant’s certificates. Ibid.
Specifically, the ALJ found that following Superstorm Sandy, appellant committed
unbecoming conduct when he (1) signed a document entitled “Resettlement Program Self-
Certification of Income” in connection with a grant application, certified that their gross annual
income was $150,000, and that the information therein was complete and accurate; (2)
completed a Personnel Change Notice with his employer on November 12, 2012, indicating an

3
address change from Jersey City to Brigantine; (3) changed his motor vehicle registration, driver’s
license, and voter registration to reflect the Brigantine address instead of the Jersey City address;
and (4) made these substantial misrepresentations in order to qualify for disaster relief funds to
which he and his wife were not entitled.
In addition, the ALJ found that the testimony of appellant and his wife was not credible.
The ALJ explained that it was not credible that appellant and his wife had no conversation about
the steps they would take to repair the substantial damage to their Brigantine home, and no
conversation about applying for grants to repair the home and what the application process
required. The ALJ also found it was not credible that appellant signed the Resettlement Program
Self-Certification of Income without knowing what he was signing simply because his wife asked
him to do so. The ALJ further found it was not credible that appellant changed his address on all
his vital documents from his Jersey City home to his Brigantine home after Superstorm Sandy
because his wife told him to do so, and that he did not know she was applying for a relief grant
claiming the Brigantine home was their primary residence.
Furthermore, the ALJ found not credible appellant’s testimony that he did not know about
the $10,000 grant check payable to his wife that was deposited into their joint bank account. The
ALJ also found not credible appellant’s testimony that he did not know about the grant until his
wife’s appeal hearing in 2016. 	The ALJ further found that both appellant and his wife are
educated professionals and that it was not credible that they did not understand the definition
of “primary residence” as explained on the grant application document. Instead, the ALJ found
that both appellant and his wife knew that their primary residence at the time of Superstorm
Sandy was their Jersey City home and that to qualify for the relief grant, they both made a

4
substantial misrepresentation by changing their vital documents to reflect their Brigantine
address after the storm in an attempt to establish that their primary residence was in Brigantine
on the date of the storm.
On January 16, 2025, the Board adopted the ALJ’s Initial Decision and revoked appellant’s
certificates. The Board agreed with the ALJ that appellant engaged in unbecoming conduct when
he made substantial misrepresentations to qualify for storm relief funds to which he and his wife
were not entitled. The Board found that appellant’s conduct was “certainly unacceptable and
certainly unbecoming of a teacher” and did “not comport with ‘role model’ behavior.” Order of
Revocation at 7. The Board also agreed with the ALJ that revocation of appellant’s certificates
was the appropriate penalty for his unbecoming conduct. 	It explained that “[s]ubmitting
documents with a substantial misrepresentation, that a particular residence was your primary
residence on a particular date when in fact it was not, in order to gain public relief funds tends
to destroy confidence in the operation of public services.” Id. at 8.
On appeal, appellant maintains as he did below that none of the documentary evidence
presented to the ALJ implicates him in this matter, that the ALJ’s conclusions are speculative, and
that no action should be taken against his certificates. He claims that he did not take part in his
wife’s application for a Superstorm Sandy grant when she alleged that their home in Brigantine
was their primary residence. He asserts that his wife submitted the grant application and signed
his name on related paperwork without his knowledge or consent, except for the Resettlement
Program Self-Certification of Income which he signed himself without knowing it had anything to
do with a grant.

5
Additionally, appellant denies stipulating that the Jersey City home was his principal
residence on October 29, 2012, the date of Superstorm Sandy. He denies ever knowing about
his wife’s actions to obtain a grant until 2016, when he participated in his wife’s appeal to the
New Jersey Department of Community Affairs of the denial of the grant. 	He further claims that
the Personnel Change Notice he submitted to his employer in which he changed his primary
address from Jersey City to Brigantine in November 2012 was not an event intended to affect the
application for any grant. He emphasizes that the grant check deposited into their joint bank
account was payable to his wife, and that his name was not on the check. He further argues that
the cases relied upon by the Board with respect to the revocation of his certificates are readily
distinguishable from the present matter.
In reviewing appeals from decisions of the State Board of Examiners, the Commissioner
may not substitute his judgment for that of the Board so long as the appellant received due
process and the Board’s decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record. The
Commissioner’s role in reviewing appeals is constrained by N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a), which specifies
that “the Commissioner shall ascertain whether the decision is supported by sufficient credible
evidence in the record and shall not disturb the decision unless the appellant has demonstrated
that the State Board of Examiners . . . acted in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary
to law.”
The Commissioner finds that the Board’s decision to revoke appellant’s certificates is
supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record and consistent with precedent given the
serious nature of the underlying unbecoming conduct at issue. “[T]eachers . . . are professional
employees to whom the people have entrusted the care and custody of . . . school children . . . .

6
This heavy duty requires a degree of self-restraint and controlled behavior rarely requisite to
other types of employment.” IMO Tenure Hearing of Sammons, 1972 S.L.D. 302, 321. Teachers
“hold positions demanding public trust, and in such positions they teach, inform, and mold habits
and attitudes, and influence the opinion of their pupils.” IMO Tenure Hearing of Tordo, 1974
S.L.D. 97, 98-99.
The Board may revoke or suspend the certification of any certificate holder for
demonstrated inefficiency, incapacity, conduct unbecoming a teacher, or other just cause.
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.4. “Conduct unbecoming” is an “elastic” concept that includes “conduct which
adversely affects the morale or efficiency” of the public entity or “which has a tendency to
destroy public respect for [public] employees and confidence in the operation of [public]
services.” In re Appeal of Emmons, 63 N.J. Super. 136, 140 (App. Div. 1960). Accord Bound Brook
Bd. of Educ. v. Ciripompa, 228 N.J. 4, 13 (2017). A finding of unbecoming conduct “may be based
merely upon the violation of the implicit standard of good behavior which devolves upon one
who stands in the public eye as an upholder of that which is morally and legally correct.” Bound
Brook Bd. of Educ., 228 N.J. at 14 (quoting Karins v. City of Atlantic City, 152 N.J. 532, 555 (1998)).
Unfitness to hold a position in a school system may be demonstrated through just one incident,
“if sufficiently flagrant.” Redcay v. State Bd. of Educ., 130 N.J.L. 369, 371 (1943), aff’d, 131 N.J.L.
326 (E & A 1944).
The Commissioner agrees with the ALJ and the Board that appellant’s proven unbecoming
conduct evidences a serious lapse in judgment, violates the public’s trust in public employees and
public services, and demonstrates that he is ill-suited to be a role model for students. Moreover,
appellant has not demonstrated that the Board acted in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or

7
contrary to law by revoking his certificates. 	His contentions on appeal are unavailing. 	His
repeated claims that the documentary evidence does not implicate him, that he did not take part
in his wife’s grant application, that he did not know that the Resettlement Program Self-
Certification of Income which he signed had anything to do with a grant, and that he knew
nothing about the grant until 2016 were soundly rejected by the ALJ as not credible.
The ALJ’s credibility determinations, “made after due consideration of the witnesses’
testimony and demeanor during the hearing,” are entitled to deference. 	H.K. v. N.J. Dep’t of
Human Servs., 184 N.J. 367, 384 (2005). See N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c) (“The agency head may not
reject or modify any findings of fact as to issues of credibility of lay witnesses unless it is first
determined from a review of the record that the findings are arbitrary, capricious or
unreasonable or are not supported by sufficient, competent, and credible evidence in the
record.”). The Commissioner finds nothing arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable about the ALJ’s
credibility findings which are well-supported by the testimony and documentary evidence in the
record.
Additionally, while appellant denies on appeal that he stipulated that the Jersey City
home was his principal residence on October 29, 2012, the date of Superstorm Sandy, the record
belies his assertion. Appellant’s counsel signed a joint Stipulation of Facts dated March 11, 2024,
in the record which states in relevant part: “3. The Jersey City home was the Guerrieres’ principal
residence on October 29, 2012, the date of Superstorm Sandy.” And while appellant asserts that
the Personnel Change Notice he submitted to his employer changing his primary address from
Jersey City to Brigantine in November 2012 was not intended to affect the application for any
grant, he offers no other explanation as to why he submitted that paperwork.

8
Because the Board’s decision is supported by sufficient, credible evidence, and appellant
has failed to establish that it was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, the Commissioner has
no grounds to disturb it. N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a). Accordingly, the decision of the State Board of
Examiners revoking appellant’s certificates is affirmed.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	December 22, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	December 22, 2025
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-
9.1. Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days
from the date of mailing of this decision.

IN THE MATTER OF 	: 	NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
THE CERTIFICATES OF 	: 	STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS
HARRY GUERRIERE 	: 	ORDER OF REVOCATION
_______________________ 	: 	DOCKET NO: 1920-112
Guerriere is the holder of a standard Teacher of Handicapped certificate, issued June 1986;
a standard Teacher of Driver Education certificate, issued June 1993; a standard Teacher of
Elementary Education in Grades K-8 certificate, issued in September of 1995; and a Speech
Language Specialist Equivalency certificate, issued in February 2002.
At its meeting of November 1, 2019, the State Board of Examiners (Board) reviewed
information it received from the New Jersey Superior Court - Atlantic County Vicinage and the
Office of Student Protection (“OSP”) regarding Harry Guerriere. In August 2018, Guerriere was
indicted for Theft by Deception – False Impression (3rd degree), N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4a; Conspiracy –
Agree/Engage in Conduct Constituting a Crime (3rd degree), N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2a(1); and Unsworn
Falsification (4 th degree), N.J.S.A. 2C:28-3a. It was alleged that he received disaster relief funds
by falsely claiming a residential property as a primary residence. On July 11, 2019, Guerriere pled
guilty to the downgraded charge of Disorderly Conduct – Offensive Language, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2b,
and was sentenced to fines and penalties.
After reviewing the above information, at its December 13, 2019 meeting, the Board voted
to issue an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Guerriere as to why his certificates should not be
revoked.
On December 19, 2019, the Board sent Guerriere the OSC by regular and certified mail.
The OSC provided that Guerriere must file an Answer within 30 days pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-
4.6(b). 	Guerriere filed an Answer on January 3, 2020. 	See Answer. 	In his answer, Guerriere
admitted that he was criminally charged after he received disaster relief funds by falsely claiming
a property as a primary residence and that he pled guilty to the downgraded charge. Id. at ⁋⁋ 3-4.

2
His separate defenses claim there is no statutory or regulatory basis for action on his certificates.
See Separate Defenses.
As there were material facts in dispute, the Board transmitted the matter to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) for a hearing as a contested case on February 5, 2020. On October 17,
2024, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Catherine A. Tuohy issued an Initial Decision in the case.
In the Matter of the Certificates of Harry Guerriere, OAL Dkt. No. EDE 01759-20 (Initial
Decision, October 17, 2024).
The ALJ acknowledged that the parties stipulated as to particular facts. Specifically, the
parties stipulated that Guerriere and his wife, Dr. Theresa Guerriere, co-owned homes in Jersey
City and Brigantine, New Jersey. Id. at 3. The parties also stipulated that the Jersey City home
was Guerriere’s principal residence on October 29, 2012, the date of Superstorm Sandy. 	Ibid.
And that Guerriere’s wife applied for grants offered by the State of New Jersey for relief from the
effects of Superstorm Sandy on their Brigantine home. Ibid. Further, the parties stipulated that
Guerriere signed a document entitled “Resettlement Program Self-Certification of Income,”
certifying the gross annual income for his household and that the information was complete and
accurate. Ibid. Lastly, the parties stipulated that Guerriere provided testimony before ALJ Todd
Miller in a separate matter of Theresa Guerriere v. Department of Community Affairs, OAL Dkt.
No. CAF 11204-15 (adopted Comm’r Initial Decision, April 1, 2016). Ibid.
The ALJ heard testimony from four witnesses on behalf of the Board, including testimony
from Guerriere and his wife. Id. at 4-20. After reviewing the testimony and the record, the ALJ
found the testimonies of Guerriere and his wife to not be credible. 	Id. at 21. 	Overall, the ALJ
found that Guerriere’s testimony that he was unaware of what his wife was doing was not credible
because Hurricane Sandy was a devasting storm that caused substantial damage, and it was not
credible that there would be no conversation between Guerriere and his wife as to the steps they
would take to repair one of their most significant assets. Ibid.

3
Specifically, the ALJ found that Guerriere’s testimony that he signed the Self-Certification
of Income document without knowing what he was signing just because his wife said to sign it
was not credible. Ibid. The ALJ also found that Guerriere’s testimony that he changed his address
on all of his vital documents from the Jersey City home to the Brigantine home because his wife
told him to do so and he did not know his wife was applying for a relief grant claiming their
primary residence was the Brigantine home was not credible. Ibid. Guerriere’s testimony that he
did not know about the receipt of the $10,000 check that was deposited into their joint account was
also not credible. 	Ibid. 	Further, Guerriere’s testimony that he did not know about his wife’s
application for the grant until the January 2016 hearing in the separate matter was directly
contradicted by his wife’s testimony that she took him with her when she signed the grant
documents in July 2013. Id. at 21-22.
As to her credibility determinations, the ALJ reasoned that “[e]ven if one person in a
marriage handles the paperwork and bill paying, there are generally ongoing discussions between
a married couple regarding issues of mutual importance concerning their finances and property.”
Id. at 22. The ALJ also reasoned that as educated professionals, they should have understood the
definition of “primary” residence given the grant documents themselves specifically explain what
is considered your primary residence and what proofs are necessary to establish that fact. 	Ibid.
Further, the ALJ found that the significant interests and motives of both Guerrier and his wife in
protecting and preserving their certificates, income and pensions led her to disbelieve their
testimony. Ibid.
Based on the testimony presented and her credibility findings, the ALJ made findings of
fact. The ALJ found that at the time of Superstorm Sandy, October 29, 2012, Guerriere and his
wife both worked full time in Jersey City, and continued to do so after the storm, and that every
vital document indicated that Jersey City was their residence at the time of storm. Id. at 22-23.
The ALJ also found that the storm substantially damaged their Brigantine home. Id. at 23. Further,

4
the ALJ found that, after the storm, Guerriere and his wife changed their vital documents to reflect
Brigantine as their primary residence. Ibid.
The ALJ found that the relief applications required the damaged property to be the
applicant’s primary residence as of the date of the storm and that the applications explained
eligibility criteria and provided a definition for “Occupancy as Primary Residence.” Ibid. 	The
ALJ also found that Guerriere’s name and cell number were listed as an alternate contact on the
Renovation, Reconstruction Elevation and Mitigation application, all of the letters of appeal were
made on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Harry Theresa Guerriere, and their tax returns indicated their
primary residence as the Jersey City home. Id. at 24-25. Further, the ALJ acknowledged that ALJ
Miller in the separate matter found that the Guerriere’s primary residence was the Jersey City home
and that it was not until 2013 that they changed most of their vital documents to Brigantine. Id. at
25. Lastly, the ALJ found that Guerriere was aware of and assisted his wife in the application for
Hurricane Sandy relief and assisted her in the appeal, they acted in concert and Guerriere was
complicit in his wife’s actions in misrepresenting their primary residence as being in Brigantine
when it was in fact in Jersey City at the time of Superstorm Sandy on October 29, 2012. Id. at 25-
26. The ALJ determined that Guerriere and his wife made a “substantial misrepresentation[] in
order to qualify for Hurricane Sandy relief funds to which they were not entitled.” Id. at 26.
Based on the above findings of fact, the ALJ concluded that Guerriere engaged in conduct
unbecoming a certificate holder. Id. at 28. The ALJ explained that the Board of Examiners has
repeatedly found that revocation is warranted in cases involving fraud. Id. at 27. After finding
that Guerriere was complicit in his wife’s actions of substantially misrepresenting their primary
residence in order to secure Hurricane Sandy grants to which they were not entitled, the ALJ
reasoned that type of fraudulent conduct has a tendency to destroy public respect for public
employees and confidence in the operation of public services and warrants revocation of his
teaching certificates. Id. at 28.

5
On November 1, 2024, Guerriere filed Exceptions to the ALJ’s Initial Decision. 	In his
exceptions, Guerriere argues that the initial decision is not supported by the testimony of Guerriere
and his wife, that the Board failed to prove that Guerriere was complicit in his wife’s actions, and
that his knowledge of the numerous documents that his wife signed is not complicity. 	See
Exceptions at pp. 3. He reiterated that his and his wife’s testimony indicated that his wife handled
all paperwork, signed checks and handled finances, that his wife was the applicant, not him, and
that he did not participate in the applications and subsequent appeal. Id. at 5. Guerriere also argues
that the changing of vital documents is of no consequence because the change was not retroactive
and that the ALJ’s “gratuitous comment” about their motives in protecting their certificates,
income and pensions was unwarranted. Id. at 3-4. Further, Guerriere argues that the ALJ relied
on conjecture, guesswork and theory when determining that a married couple has general
discussions regarding issues of mutual importance concerning finances and property and
improperly imputed knowledge of wife’s actions to him based upon same. Id. at 4. 	Lastly, he
acknowledges he was “led astray by his wife’s adventure” but argues that his “complacency was
not complicity” and nothing he did rises to level of unbecoming conduct. Id. at 7.
On November 18, 2024, the Deputy Attorney General (DAG) representing the Board filed
Reply Exceptions. The DAG states that the ALJ is responsible for the credibility determinations
and overall assessment of the story in light of its rationality, consistency, whether it hangs together
with other evidence, and that the interest, motive, bias or prejudice of a witness or party may affect
credibility. See Reply Exceptions. The DAG argues that the ALJ discredited some of Guerriere
and his wife’s testimony because the evidence demonstrates that Guerriere was not a passive
spectator, but an active participant. 	Specifically, Guerriere assisted his wife in misrepresenting
their primary residence by changing his address after his wife told him to do so and signing
documents his wife asked him to sign. 	Id. at 14. 	Further, Guerriere testified that he discusses
important financial decisions with his wife and that she consults him, and decisions regarding

6
damage to one of two homes they owned would certainly be an important financial decision. Id.
at 21. Guerriere also confirmed that the certification he swore was accurate was in fact inaccurate.
Ibid. The DAG also argues that there was no reason for Guerriere to change his address afterwards
other than to claim relief funds, especially since the damaged residence in Brigantine was not
livable at that time of the change. Id. at 16. Lastly, the DAG agrees with the ALJ that Guerriere
had motive and bias as he doesn’t want to lose his certificates and/or his pension. Ibid.
The Board must now determine whether to adopt, modify, or reject the Initial Decision in
this matter. At its meeting of December 6, 2024, the Board reviewed the Initial Decision. After
full and fair consideration of the Initial Decision, the Board voted to adopt the Initial Decision.
The Board, in reviewing the matter, does not find the ALJ’s findings to be arbitrary or not
based on sufficient credible evidence. Further, the ALJ’s conclusions are proper under the law.
The Board’s long-standing belief is that teachers must serve as role models for their
students. “Teachers… are professional employees to whom the people have entrusted the care and
custody of … school children. This heavy duty requires a degree of self-restraint and controlled
behavior rarely requisite to other types of employment.” Tenure of Sammons, 1972 S.L.D. 302,
321. A “violation of the implicit standard of good behavior which devolves upon one who stands
in the public eye as an upholder of that which is morally and legally correct” may provide the basis
for a finding of unbecoming conduct. 	Bound Brook Bd. of Educ. v. Ciripompa, 228 N.J. 4, 14
(2017) (quoting Karins v. City of Atlantic City, 152 N.J. 532, 555 (1998)) (internal quotation marks
omitted). 	The “elastic” concept of “conduct unbecoming” includes “conduct which adversely
affects the morale or efficiency” of the public entity or “which has a tendency to destroy public
respect for . . . [public] employees and confidence in the operation of [public] services.” 	In re
Emmons, 63 N.J. Super. 136, 140 (App. Div. 1960) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see
also Bound Brook Bd. of Educ., 228 N.J. at 13.
As noted above, after reviewing the testimony in the record, the ALJ found that Guerriere

7
acted in concert with his wife and was complicit in his wife’s actions of misrepresenting their
primary residence as being in Brigantine as of October 29, 2012, when in fact their primary
residence at that time was in Jersey City. 	And that the misrepresentation was made in order to
qualify for storm relief funds to which they were not entitled. 	Such conduct was certainly
unacceptable and certainly unbecoming of a teacher. The Board agrees that Guerriere’s actions in
assisting his wife with applications on the couple’s behalf for Superstorm Sandy relief funds
wherein they misrepresented which home was their primary residence and thus they were not
eligible for the relief funds were inappropriate and do not comport with “role model” behavior.
Thus, the Board agrees that Guerriere engaged in unbecoming conduct.
The ALJ determined that revocation of his certificates was appropriate for the conduct.
The Board agrees. Guerriere change his vital documents after the storm to reflect Brigantine as
his primary residence and then proceeded with his wife to apply for relief funds for which they
were not eligible. Although the application specifically included a definition of primary residence,
Guerriere and his wife claimed that their home in Brigantine was their primary residence on
October 29, 2012, when in fact Jersey City was their primary residence on that date, making their
claim a clear misrepresentation. 	A primary point of eligibility for the relief funds was that the
damaged home had been your primary residence on the day of the storm. As such, misrepresenting
your primary residence on the day of the storm was a substantial misrepresentation on the
application for relief funds. 	Submitting documents with a substantial misrepresentation, that a
particular residence was your primary residence on a particular date when in fact it was not, in
order to gain public relief funds tends to destroy confidence in the operation of public services.
Thus, the Board finds that revocation of Guerriere’s certificates is warranted in this matter.
Accordingly, on December 6, 2024, the Board voted to adopt the Initial Decision. On this
16th day of January, 2025, the Board formally adopted its written decision to adopt the Initial
Decision in this matter and it is therefore ORDERED that Harry Guerriere’s standard Teacher of

8
Handicapped certificate, standard Teacher of Driver Education certificate, standard Teacher of
Elementary Education in Grades K-8 certificate, and Speech Language Specialist Equivalency
certificate are hereby REVOKED, effective immediately. It is further ordered that Guerriere return
his certificates to the Secretary of the State Board of Examiners, Office of Certification and
Induction, P.O. Box 500, Trenton, NJ 08625-0500 within 30 days of the mailing date of this
decision.
_______________________________
Rani Singh, Secretary
State Board of Examiners
Date of Mailing:
via certified and regular mail
Appeals may be made to the Commissioner of Education pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.A.
18A:6-38.4.