You are here: / / HEARING OFFICER’S FAILURE TO GATHER EVIDENCE REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER...
,

HEARING OFFICER’S FAILURE TO GATHER EVIDENCE REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF A FAIR HEARING, DETERMINATION ANNULLED.

The Second Department determined several failures to gather proof requested by the inmate (petitioner) deprived petitioner of a fair disciplinary hearing. The determination was annulled and the violation expunged. The hearing officer, inter alia: (1) failed to retrieve a document which could have supported the petitioner’s claim he was not served with the proper disciplinary papers; (2) failed to ascertain the identity of the confidential informant who claimed a weapon was in petitioner’s cell; and (3) failed to ask a witness (petitioner claimed the witness planted the weapon) relevant questions posed by the petitioner:

Considering all of these circumstances, the petitioner did not receive a fair hearing … . While a prison inmate facing a disciplinary hearing is not entitled to the same level of due process as a criminal defendant, there are minimum standards that must be met … . Here, since the petitioner did not receive a fair hearing, the minimum due process standard was not met … . Matter of Harvey v Prack, 2016 NY Slip Op 06497, 2nd Dept 10-5-16

 

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (HEARING OFFICER’S FAILURE TO GATHER EVIDENCE REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF A FAIR HEARING, DETERMINATION ANNULLED)/EVIDENCE (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, INMATES, (HEARING OFFICER’S FAILURE TO GATHER EVIDENCE REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF A FAIR HEARING, DETERMINATION ANNULLED)

You might also like
Release Null and Void Under the General Obligations Law–Plaintiff Paid a Fee to Participate in the Basketball Game In Which He Was Injured
Store Not Required to Continuously Mop Up Tracked-In Rain
PROBATE PETITION PROPERLY DISMISSED; WITNESSES DID NOT READ ATTESTATION CLAUSE, EVIDENCE SOME WILL PAGES MISSING AT TIME OF EXECUTION.
HIGHWAY LAW ALLOWING AN UNUSED PUBLIC EASEMENT TO BE DECLARED ABANDONED DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE MUNICIPALITY OWNS A FEE INTEREST IN THE ROADBED.
IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT DID NOT ELIMINATE ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF CAN PROVE THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Link Specific Monetary Loss to Acts or Omissions of the Attorneys Required Dismissal
WIFE NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON A LATE LUMP SUM PAYMENT, HUSBAND NOT ENTITLED TO RECOUP OVERPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE (SECOND DEPT).
Labor Law 241(6) Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed/Power Washing Was Integral to the Painting Process and Was Not “Routine Maintenance”

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

15-YEAR PERIOD DURING WHICH DEFENDANT DID NOT REOFFEND IS A GROUND FOR A DOWNWARD... COURT FAILED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER FATHER WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, CONSENT...