You are here: / / HEARING OFFICER FAILED TO MAKE A MEANINGFUL INQUIRY INTO INMATE WITNESS’S...

HEARING OFFICER FAILED TO MAKE A MEANINGFUL INQUIRY INTO INMATE WITNESS’S ALLEGATION HE WAS COERCED INTO REFUSING TO TESTIFY.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, determined: (1) an inmate's statement that he/she does not wish to be involved or does not want to testify is sufficient to protect the inmate's right to call the witness; and (2) the hearing officer's failure to inquire into an inmate witness's allegation of he was coerced into refusing to testify required reversal:

… [W]hen there is a “claim of coercion, . . . the Hearing Officer ha[s] a duty to inquire further into [the] refusal to testify” … . Whether such an inquiry will require an in-person or telephone interview of the refusing inmate by the hearing officer or may instead proceed through the intermediary of a suitably briefed correction officer will depend on the circumstances surrounding the allegation.

Here, the hearing officer failed to make a meaningful inquiry, either personally or through a correction officer, into the allegation of coercion by the refusing inmate witness. Matter of Cortorreal v Annucci, 2016 NY Slip Op 06943, CtApp 10-25-16

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (HEARING OFFICER FAILED TO MAKE A MEANINGFUL INQUIRY INTO INMATE WITNESS'S ALLEGATION HE WAS COERCED INTO REFUSING TO TESTIFY)

You might also like
THE COUNTY HAD IN REM JURISDICTION IN THIS TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING AND MADE ADEQUATE ATTEMPTS TO NOTIFY THE NECESSARY PARTIES (CT APP).
RE: FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL: A PREREQUISITE FOR CORAM NOBIS RELIEF IS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
DEFENDANT’S HAND UNDER HIS HOODIE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE ELEMENT OF ROBBERY FIRST WHICH REQUIRES THE DISPLAY OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE A FIREARM.
PLAINTIFF WIRED $300,000 TO AN ACCOUNT IN DEFENDANT BANK WHICH HAD BEEN SET UP BY A FRAUDSTER TO DEFRAUD PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PLEAD A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH DEFENDANT BANK WHICH IS REQUIRED BEFORE A DUTY (OWED TO PLAINTIFF) TO ENFORCE ITS ANTI-FRAUD PROCEDURES ARISES; THE COMPLAINT THEREFORE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (CT APP).
THE APPELLATE DIVISION’S VACATION OF DEFENDANT’S FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION WAS AFFIRMED; THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE THE “RELISHING THE INFLICTION OF EXTREME PAIN” ELEMENT (CT APP).
THE BREACH OF CONTRACT (FIRE INSURANCE POLICY) CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT DID NOT GIVE NOTICE OF THE CLAIM THE CONTRACT SHOULD BE REFORMED BASED UPON MUTUAL MISTAKE; THEREFORE THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CONFORM THE PLEADINGS TO THE PROOF AND THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE ENDORSEMENT REQUIRING A SPRINKLER SYSTEM ON THE INSURED PREMISES WAS INCLUDED IN THE POLICY BY MUTUAL MISTAKE (CT APP).
FIDUCIARY EXCEPTION TO THE USUAL BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD ACTION DID NOT APPLY, FIDUCIARIES WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND DID NOT STAND TO BENEFIT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE DOCUMENTS.
EVEN WHERE THE CLASS HAS NOT BEEN CERTIFIED, CPLR 908 REQUIRES THE PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS BE GIVEN NOTICE OF THE SETTLEMENT OR DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION (CT APP).

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

STATEMENTS ALLEGING MAFIA INVOLVEMENT IN A STRIP CLUB WERE NOT “OF AND... PLAINTIFF SUING SHERIFF FOR FAILURE TO KEEP HIM SAFE FROM ASSAULT IN JAIL (1)...