You are here: / / “Clearly Specious” Reason for Fellow Inmate’s Refusal...

“Clearly Specious” Reason for Fellow Inmate’s Refusal to Testify Warranted Further Inquiry

The Third Department determined the hearing officer was obligated to inquire into an inmate’s (Douglas’) refusal to testify at petitioner’s hearing because the reason for the refusal was obviously specious:

As a general rule, “no violation of the right to call witnesses will be found when there was no prior assent to testify, but the reason for the refusal appears in the record” … . Further inquiry is nonetheless required, however, where the reason given by the witness for refusing to testify is “clearly specious” … . Here, Douglas’ claim to have no relevant knowledge is belied by the record evidence, which demonstrates that he was aware of the interactions between petitioner and the officer and, moreover, suggests that he was involved in the conspiracy against the officer. Therefore, because the hearing evidence “cast[] doubt on the authenticity of the reasons given” for Douglas’ refusal to testify, the Hearing Officer erred in accepting his alleged lack of knowledge at face value and conducting no additional inquiry … . Inasmuch as the determination is otherwise supported by substantial evidence and the Hearing Officer articulated “a good-faith reason for the denial [of Douglas as a witness] . . ., this amounts to a regulatory violation requiring that the matter be remitted for a new hearing” … . Matter of Jackson v Prack, 2015 NY Slip Op 02527, 3rd Dept 3-26-15

 

You might also like
No Cause of Action Based Upon “Vicious Propensities” When Plaintiff Knocked Down by Playful Dog
Board’s Determination Business Was Claimant’s “Employer” Reversed
EMPLOYEE’S ESTATE ENTITLED TO THE AMOUNT OF THE SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE AWARD THAT ACCRUED UP UNTIL THE EMPLOYEE’S DEATH, NOT THE ENTIRE SLU AWARD (THIRD DEPT).
NO CHILD SUPPORT OR MAINTENANCE ORDER WAS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME HUSBAND MOVED TO REDUCE HIS OBLIGATION BECAUSE OF A LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT, THE CHILD SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT, WHICH WAS NOT MERGED INTO THE DIVORCE DECREE, CONTROLLED, HUSBAND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS INVALID (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED CONTINUOUS SEASONAL USE OF A TRAIL WHICH CROSSED OVER ONTO PLAINTIFF’S LAND (TO GO AROUND TWO OBSTACLES) FOR 20 YEARS, DEFENDANT HAD A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT OVER THE TWO CROSS-OVER PORTIONS OF THE TRAIL (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ALTERING OR ERECTING A STRUCTURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE METHOD OR MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
NEW YORK DOES NOT HAVE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER A MICHIGAN MANUFACTURER OF ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAV’S) PURCHASED BY SUNY STONY BROOK FOR THE DELIVERY OF MEDICAL SUPPLIES IN MADAGASCAR; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT IN AN AREA IN WHICH FALLING OBJECTS COULD BE ANTICIPATED, SO THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A BOARD INTENTIONALLY THROWN INTO THE EXCAVATED AREA WHERE HE WAS WORKING; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED (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

Recorded Conversation In Which Defendant Did Not Respond to Statements by Victim... Fall of a Heavy Rail from a Two- To Three-Foot Stack Was an Elevation-Related...