You are here: / / Inmate’s “Employee Assistant” Did Not Provide Meaningful Assistance in Pr...

Inmate’s “Employee Assistant” Did Not Provide Meaningful Assistance in Preparation of Inmate’s Defense

In annulling the determination, the Third Department held that the inmate’s employee assistant did not provide meaningful assistance in the preparation of the inmate’s defense:

We agree with petitioner that meaningful employee assistance was not provided in accordance with 7 NYCRR 251-4.2 in order for him to prepare a defense. Although petitioner requested that 19 potential inmate witnesses be interviewed, the record reveals no effort by  the employee  assistant to interview the potential inmate  witnesses, who  were  not only identified but, according to the misbehavior report, were present during the alleged incident. The employee assistant should have interviewed the witnesses and reported back to petitioner with the results of those efforts (see 7 NYCRR 251-4.2); moreover, the Hearing Officer made no attempt to remedy the inadequacies when petitioner raised the issue at the administrative hearing… . Matter of Canty v Fischer, 515267, 3rd Dept, 6-13-13

 

You might also like
THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD HAD PREVIOUSLY HELD THAT, IN A HEARING-LOSS CASE, THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE AUDIOGRAM (HEARING TEST) WITH THE INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION RECORD PRECLUDES CONSIDERATION OF THE EXPERT EVIDENCE; THE AUDIOGRAM WAS NOT INCLUDED HERE AND THE BOARD DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS DEPARTURE FROM PRECEDENT (BY CREDITING THE EXPERT EVIDENCE); DETERMINATION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
PETITIONER’S EMPIRE ZONE CERTIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVOKED.
HERE THERE WAS NO INDICATION THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS SIGNED IN OPEN COURT, A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT (THIRD DEPT). ​
Jury Should Not Have Been Allowed to Hear Defendant’s Refusal to Waive His Right to Remain Silent and His Invocation of His Right to Counsel
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO INVESTIGATE FOUR WITNESSES WHO MAY HAVE CALLED INTO QUESTION THE EYEWITNESS’S ABILITY TO SEE THE SHOOTING AND THE DEFENDANT’S WHEREABOUTS AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
Claimant, Who Worked Pursuant to a Consulting Agreement, Was Not an Employee
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT TO INSTALL SOLAR PANELS, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS ACCOUNT STATED CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON INVOICES SENT TO DEFENDANT FOR THE SOLAR PANELS (THIRD DEPT).
“Constructive Possession” Theory Applied to Weapon Deemed to Have Been Discarded by Defendant During a Police Pursuit

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

“Safety Consultant” Liable for Failure to Maintain Safe Work Site Evidence of Loss Based Upon Interference with Property Owner’s Ability to...