You are here: / / HEARING OFFICER IMPROPERLY LIMITED THE NUMBER OF WITNESS PETITIONER COULD...

HEARING OFFICER IMPROPERLY LIMITED THE NUMBER OF WITNESS PETITIONER COULD CALL, NEW HEARING REQUIRED.

The Third Department determined the hearing officer improperly limited the number of witnesses petitioner could call for the hearing. a new hearing was required:

Prior to the hearing, petitioner gave his assistant a list of 13 potential inmate witnesses who might testify. At the hearing, it appears that he wished to have some of these witnesses testify, but the content of their proposed testimony was never ascertained by the Hearing Officer. Instead, the Hearing Officer limited the number of witnesses to three, stating that he was not going to allow redundant testimony. Significantly, however, the Hearing Officer never explained the reason that the testimony would be redundant and this is not clear from the record. Under these circumstances, we find that the denial of the remaining inmate witnesses was error… . Matter of Payton v Annucci, 2016 NY Slip Op 03791, 3rd Dept 5-12-16

DISCIPLINARY  HEARINGS (INMATES) (HEARING OFFICER IMPROPERLY LIMITED THE NUMBER OF WITNESS PETITIONER COULD CALL, NEW HEARING REQUIRED)

/by
You might also like
Sufficient Evidence Supported Finding that Sole Shareholder, Who Did Not Oversee the Day to Day Operations of a Corporation, Was a “Responsible Person” Who Could Be Held Personally Liable for the Failure to Pay Corporate Sales and Use Taxes
INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN JOB-RELATED STRESS AND STROKE.
No Question of Fact Raised About Whether Buyer Was a Bona Fide Purchaser
DISCOVERY OF THE COMPLETE DATABASE SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE TYPE OF CLOTHES WHICH CAUGHT FIRE WAS APPROPRIATE, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER PRECLUDED BY DISINGENUOUS BEHAVIOR WHICH PREJUDICED CODEFENDANTS (THIRD DEPT).
THE WIFE’S TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE ARREARS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALCULATED FROM THE DATE OF THE WIFE’S APPLICATION FOR MAINTENANCE, NOT THE PRIOR DATE WHEN SHE BECAME UNEMPLOYED (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE SERVICE OF PROCESS REQUIREMENTS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (SERVICE UPON THE SECRETARY OF STATE) (THIRD DEPT).
UBER DRIVERS ARE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A FLOOR MAT NINE-SIXTEENTHS OF AN INCH THICK CREATED A TRIPPING HAZARD IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

HEARING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE AN ADEQUATE EFFORT TO FIND WITNESSES, NEW HEARING... QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER TENANT ENTITLED TO RESCIND LEASE BECAUSE CERTIFICATE...