You are here: / / Hearing Officer’s Failure to Ascertain Why a Witness Called by the...

Hearing Officer’s Failure to Ascertain Why a Witness Called by the Inmate Refused to Testify Required Annulment of the Disciplinary Determination

The Third Department determined the inmate-petitioner’s disciplinary determination must be annulled because the inmate was effectively denied his right to call a witness:

… [T]he determination must be annulled because petitioner was denied his right to call a witness … . After petitioner requested that his cellmate at the time of the cell search be called to testify, the Hearing Officer sent two correction officers to retrieve him; the officers returned and merely reported that the prospective witness had refused to testify because “he didn’t want to come out.” One of the officers signed a witness refusal to testify form that provided no reason for the refusal and indicated that the prospective witness had refused to sign the form. As the Hearing Officer made no attempt to verify the witness’s refusal or ascertain his reasons for refusing to testify, despite petitioner’s repeated requests, petitioner’s right to call witnesses was violated … . Matter of Figueroa v Prack, 2015 NY Slip Op 06846, 3rd Dept 9-17-15

 

You might also like
COUNTY COURT DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISMISS AN INDICTMENT ON THE GROUND THE PEOPLE HAD LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE INDICTMENT AT THE TIME HE PLED GUILTY TO A PRIOR INDICTMENT (CPL 40.40); PETITIONER’S REMEDY IS DIRECT APPEAL, NOT THE INSTANT ARTICLE 78 PETITION SEEKING PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS (THIRD DEPT).
An “Intimate Relationship” Within the Meaning of Family Court Act 812 Does Not Necessarily Involve Sexual Intimacy
FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE PARTICULAR MACY’S STORE AT WHICH THE SKIRT WHICH CAUGHT FIRE WAS PURCHASED DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF MACY’S, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).
Family Members Failed to Raise a Question of Fact About Whether Care-Provider Exercised Undue Influence Over Decedent
Bond Resolution for Upgrades to School District Buildings Does Not Constitute a School-District Debt—Petitioner Did Not Have Standing to Challenge School District’s Environmental Impact Determination
30-Day Time-Limit for Bringing Article 78 Proceeding Pursuant to Public Health Law Runs from Date of Determination, Not Date of Written Notice of Determination
CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED BAKED GOODS UNDER A DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DESIGN SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND A PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT EXPLAINED.

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

Plaintiff Barred from Recovery Against Special Employer by Exclusivity Provisions... Under the Facts, the Prosecutor Was Not Obligated to Present Exculpatory Evidence...