You are here: / / Hearsay Not Assessed for Reliability—Determination Annulled
,

Hearsay Not Assessed for Reliability—Determination Annulled

The Third Department annulled a determination that was based upon hearsay which had not been assessed for reliability:

While hearsay evidence may constitute substantial evidence to support a determination of guilt, it must be sufficiently detailed to allow the Hearing Officer to independently assess its reliability and credibility … .   The basis for the charges here were written and oral statements by inmates implicating petitioner as the thief.  There is no indication, however, that those statements were independently reviewed by the Hearing Officer, who based his determination solely upon the misbehavior report and testimony of the correction lieutenant who authored it.  Matter of Carrasquillo…, 515970, 3rd Dept 9-19-13

 

You might also like
Defendant Who Pled to All Charges Without a Plea Bargain Could Not Be Required to Waive Appeal
Procedure for Testing Adequacy of Causes of Action in Article 78 Petition; Criteria for Bad Faith Abolishment of Position
CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED NEWSPAPERS, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) DID NOT INCLUDE THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE AND WAS THEREFORE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (THIRD DEPT).
Question of Fact About Whether Golfer, Who Was Injured When the Golf Cart He Was Driving Tipped Over, Was Subject to More than the Normal Hazards Associated with Golfing
Sales Rep Was an Employee Entitled to Unemployment Insurance Benefits
THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED WHETHER A PRIOR ELBOW INJURY ADDED TO THE SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE (SLU) ASSOCIATED WITH THE SUBSEQUENT SHOULDER INJURY; THE BOARD DEPARTED FROM PRECEDENT WITHOUT EXPLANATION (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, WHO IS DEFENDANT’S SON, FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN ATTEMPTING TO INSPECT A DAMAGED CHIMNEY ON DEFENDANT’S RENTAL PROPERTY, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR A VOLUNTEER, WHETHER THE INSPECTION WAS COVERED BY THE LABOR LAW, AND WHETHER DEFENDANT SUPERVISED PLAINTIFF’S WORK PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6), 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Insufficient Justification for Removing Inmate from Hearing Four-Year Rent-Overcharge Statute of Limitations Does Not Apply Where There...