You are here: / / Behavior Did Not Warrant Removal from Hearing

Behavior Did Not Warrant Removal from Hearing

In annulling the determination because the inmate’s behavior did not warrant his removal from the hearing, the Third Department wrote:

It is well settled that “[a]n inmate has a fundamental right to be present during a prison disciplinary hearing unless he or she is excluded for reasons of institutional safety or correctional goals” … . Here, petitioner objected to the continuation of the hearing after the prior Hearing Officer’s recusal.  It appears that the Hearing Officer became frustrated with petitioner’s unwillingness to move forward and warned him that he could be removed. Petitioner then ceased objecting, entered his pleas of not guilty to the charges and stated that he wished to put “a lot” on the record.  However, he then twice asked a question that the Hearing Officer apparently deemed irrelevant, and was abruptly removed from the hearing.  Under these circumstances, we do not find that petitioner’s conduct rose to the level of disruption that warranted excluding him from the remainder of the hearing… . Matter of German v Fischer, 515746, 3rd Dept 7-25-13

 

You might also like
IN THIS HOSTILE-WORK-ENVIRONMENT ACTION UNDER 42 USC 1983 AND THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, SOME OF THE DEFENDANTS, ALL CITY EMPLOYEES, WERE DEEMED PROTECTED FROM SUIT BY QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AS A MATTER OF LAW; WITH RESPECT TO THE EMPLOYEE WHO ALLEGEDLY MADE SEXUALLY INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS TO PLAINTIFF, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WAS APPLICABLE (THIRD DEPT).
THE FINDINGS LEADING TO THE TERMINATION OF PETITIONER WERE CONCLUSORY AND DID NOT ALLOW MEANINGFUL REVIEW; PETITIONER’S SUPERVISOR, WHO BROUGHT THE MISCONDUCT CHARGES, CHOSE THE HEARING OFFICER AND TESTIFIED AT THE HEARING, SHOULD RECUSE HERSELF FROM FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON REMITTAL (THIRD DEPT).
Failure to Provide Meaningful Employee Assistance in Preparing for the Hearing Was a Constitutional, Not Merely Regulatory, Violation Requiring Expungement—Criteria Discussed in Some Depth
ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT).
Plaintiff’s Decedent Fell to His Death in a Gorge on Property Owned by Cornell University—Questions of Fact Re: Whether Plaintiff’s Decedent Was “Hiking” within the Meaning of the General Obligations Law (which Would Relieve the University of Liability) and Whether the Dangerous Condition Was Open and Obvious
FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA RENDERED THE PLEA INVALID.
CLAIM DID NOT MEET THE SPECIFICITY REQUIREMENTS OF COURT OF CLAIMS ACT 11 AND WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL VOUCHED FOR THE CREDIBILITY OF THE VICTIM, DID NOT OBJECT WHEN THE PROSECUTOR VOUCHED FOR THE CREDIBILITY OF THE VICTIM, AND ALLOWED EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CRIMES TO COME IN DESPITE A SANDOVAL RULING KEEPING IT OUT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD 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

Criteria for Expungement Explained No Liability for Third Party Attack Inside Apartment Building; No Evidence Defendant...