You are here: / / Refusing to Provide Relevant Information to an Inmate Required Annulment...

Refusing to Provide Relevant Information to an Inmate Required Annulment of the Determination.

In a prison disciplinary proceeding, the hearing officer’s refusal to provide the inmate with the instructions for the operation of the machine which was used to test his urine for the presence of drugs required annulment of the determination the prisoner had used a controlled substance.  Matter of Marshall vs Fischer, 2012-01538, Index No. 6260/11 Second Dept. 2-13-13

 

You might also like
NO ONE MOVED TO QUASH THE NONJUDICIAL SUBPOENA SERVED ON A NONPARTY; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE MOTION TO COMPEL THE NONPARTY’S APPEARANCE AT A DEPOSITION (SECOND DEPT).
Denial of Mother’s Request to Relocate Reversed, Factors Described
VERDICT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE WAS NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE THAT THE DOG BIT PLAINTIFF’S FACE WHILE ATTEMPTING TO BITE THE FOOD IN PLAINTIFF’S HAND AND EVIDENCE THAT THE DOG ONLY BECAME RAMBUNCTIOUS AROUND FOOD SUPPORTED THE JURY’S CONCLUSION THAT THE DOG HAD NOT EXHIBITED VICIOUS PROPENSITIES (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD THE BURDEN TO PROVE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; DEFENDANT FAILED TO ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE WAS TRAVELLING TOO FAST AND WHETHER HE KEPT A PROPER LOOKOUT FOR PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH A JUDGE HAS THE DISCRETION TO PROHIBIT A PARTY FROM BRINGING ANY FURTHER PETITIONS FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION, HERE FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION; FATHER HAD NEVER FILED FRIVOLOUS PETITIONS OR FILED PETITIONS OUT OF ILL WILL OR SPITE (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48; THE 60-DAY TIME LIMIT ONLY APPLIES TO THE DIRECTION TO SUBMIT A JUDGMENT “ON NOTICE” (SECOND DEPT).
THE CONDITION ATTACHED TO THE SUBDIVISION OF A LOT AND THE SALE OF ONE PARCEL BENEFITTED BOTH THE BUYER AND THE SELLER; THEREFORE THE BUYER ALONE COULD NOT WAIVE THE CONDITION WHEN IT COULD NOT BE MET; THE BUYER’S ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROCESS SERVER WAS AWARE DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS IN THE MILITARY; THE “AFFIX AND MAIL” METHOD OF SERVICE DID NOT OBTAIN JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SORA Hearing—Insufficient Proof of Drug or Alcohol Abuse Settlement Without Insurer’s Consent.