You are here: / / AUTHORIZATION TO OPEN PETITIONER’S MAIL WAS INVALID.

AUTHORIZATION TO OPEN PETITIONER’S MAIL WAS INVALID.

The Third Department determined the authorization purporting to allow the opening of petitioner’s mail was invalid:

Petitioner argues that his mail was opened in violation of established mail watch procedures. Specifically, petitioner contends that the “express written authorization” that permitted facility personnel to open, inspect or read his outgoing correspondence (7 NYCRR 720.3 [3] [e]) failed to “set forth the specific facts forming the basis for the action” (7 NYCRR 720.3 [e] [1]) and, as such, the subject authorization was invalid. Upon reviewing the document at issue, we agree. Accordingly, the determination of guilt must be annulled … . Matter of Ramos v Annucci, 2016 NY Slip Op 05601, 3rd Dept 7-21-16

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (AUTHORIZATION TO OPEN PETITIONER’S MAIL WAS INVALID)/INMATES (AUTHORIZATION TO OPEN PETITIONER’S MAIL WAS INVALID)/MAIL (INMATES, AUTHORIZATION TO OPEN PETITIONER’S MAIL WAS INVALID)

You might also like
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CHILDREN SHOULD RECEIVE COVID VACCINATIONS; THE CHILDREN AND THEIR FATHER ALLEGEDLY WANTED THE VACCINE, MOTHER OBJECTED (THIRD DEPT).
THE COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS INFORMED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL OF A PLEA OFFER WHICH WAS MORE LENIENT THAN THE OFFER TO WHICH HE PLED (THIRD DEPT).
“Strangulation” Conviction Affirmed
Petitioner-Teacher Never Consented to an “Out of Area” Assignment—Therefore She Was Entitled to Seniority in Her Teaching Area, Despite Her Assignment to Another Area
DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT OVER PLAINTIFF’S LAND; PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE THE DAMAGES ELEMENT OF TRESPASS (THIRD DEPT).
LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THE SUBSTANCE REFERENCED IN THE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS COCAINE, INDICTMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
IN THIS TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, THE COUNTY MUST PROVE IT COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1125; EVEN THOUGH THE COUNTY PROVED IT MAILED THE NOTICE AND THE LETTERS WERE NOT RETURNED, PLAINTIFFS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE COUNTY COMPLIED WITH RPAPL 1125 BY OTHER PROOF INDICATING NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED (THIRD DEPT).
THE UNEXPLAINED FAILURE TO SEE A VEHICLE BEFORE COLLIDING WITH IT, WITHOUT MORE, DOES NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE; THE EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (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

TESTIMONY OF DNA EXPERT, WHICH WAS BASED ON DATA COLLECTED BY NON-TESTIFYING... MOTION TO DISMISS PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED.