In July of 2007, former PS/MS 280 Principal Gary LaMotta quietly retired from the city’s Department of Education (DOE) amid accusations that were never fully disclosed to the school or the public in general.  

However, the Norwood News recently obtained a copy of the top school investigator’s findings through a Freedom of Information Law request filed with the DOE. Its contents, portions of which were redacted (“to avoid the unwarranted invasion of privacy,” according to the DOE), tell the story of a successful educator whose alleged abuse of authority led to his removal.

LaMotta, whose Norwood school routinely scored, and still scores, higher on standardized tests than other local schools, was abruptly reassigned on Feb. 5, 2007 to the Region One office pending an internal investigation into what DOE officials characterized as allegations of inappropriate behavior and personal misconduct.

DOE officials at the time said the results of the investigation would be made public as soon as it was completed. But LaMotta’s retirement in July put an end to the investigation because he was no longer considered a DOE employee, said DOE spokesperson Marge Feinberg, and the findings were never released.

Meanwhile, rumors about the circumstances surrounding LaMotta’s removal continued to circulate.  

According to the report filed by Richard Condon, the Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District, an investigation was launched following a conversation between LaMotta and Joel DiBartolomeo, then a Local Instructional Superintendant or “LIS,” on Feb. 8, 2006. Months earlier, in the fall of 2005, LaMotta had appointed a female employee (known as “Employee A” in the report) to be a permanent assistant principal at PS/MS 280. But he was having second thoughts and considered rescinding her appointment, he told DiBartolomeo.

DiBartolomeo discussed the situation with Employee A, and “came to believe that the relationship between LaMotta and Employee A extended beyond that of a friendship,” the report says. DiBartolomeo then “advised Employee A that what she was describing could be characterized as sexual harassment and that she was within her rights to file appropriate charges,” according to the report.

When DiBartolomeo told LaMotta the situation was being investigated, the principal said he’d already signed a letter that approved her for the assistant principal position, indicating that he thought the situation was resolved. But the investigation was already in motion.

And, according to the report, on Feb. 8, 2006, the day LaMotta first spoke with DiBartolomeo, Employee A received a letter from LaMotta saying he was “no longer satisfied with her job performance” and that he was going to speak with his supervisors about the assistant principal job.

Employee A told investigators she had engaged in an affair with LaMotta from 2003 to 2005. She said the relationship ended sometime in 2005. During the 2005-2006 school year, after the relationship had ended, Employee A said LaMotta began to harass her and asked her to either resign or transfer. She refused to do so.

Another unnamed employee at the school corroborated much of what Employee A told investigators and said at least 30 PS/MS 280 faculty members had expressed their belief that LaMotta and Employee A were “having an inappropriate sexual relationship.”

Employee A also provided a taped conversation from February 2006 that confirmed three things for investigators: that “there was an inappropriate intimate relationship between LaMotta and Employee A”; that LaMotta had made decisions based upon personal biases, rather than “objective, professional standards”; and that LaMotta had an interest in Employee A’s personal relationships.

Twice in the spring of 2006, LaMotta denied to investigators that he had had an intimate relationship with Employee A and said they had never met in a social setting outside of school functions. He said their telephone conversations were strictly school related.

During the course of the investigation, however, new allegations emerged. One female employee, referred to as “Employee B” in the report, said LaMotta repeatedly propositioned her, touched her inappropriately and made lewd comments.

Another PS/MS 280 female employee stepped forward to say LaMotta had made inappropriate sexual advances toward her that eventually caused her to quit.

Reached by phone at his home this week, LaMotta said he had not seen the investigator’s report and couldn’t comment on its findings. When asked if he attempted to have Employee A’s assistant principal appointment halted, he said he “didn’t try to deny anybody anything.” He wouldn’t comment on whether he had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with any employees at his former school and said he retired because he was four years past retirement age at the time.

LaMotta, who became principal at the school in 1991, hired a lawyer shortly after his removal in 2007. When investigators attempted to interview LaMotta about the other allegations later in the spring of 2007, he refused, on advice from his lawyers. On June 25, 2007, LaMotta e-mailed his resignation to superiors.

Feinberg said LaMotta is officially retired and that his name has been placed on an “ineligible” list, meaning he can no longer work for the DOE.