You are here: / / HEARING OFFICER’S REFUSAL TO CALL A REQUESTED WITNESS REQUIRED ANNULMENT...

HEARING OFFICER’S REFUSAL TO CALL A REQUESTED WITNESS REQUIRED ANNULMENT OF THE DETERMINATION.

The Third Department determined the hearing officer’s refusal to call a witness requested by the inmate required annulment:

Petitioner contends, among other things, that he was improperly denied the right to call as a witness an inmate who allegedly overheard a conversation between petitioner and the author of the misbehavior report establishing that the author lied about seeing petitioner place drugs on the food tray. According to petitioner, during this conversation the correction officer admitted that he reported that he saw petitioner put the drugs in the food tray in order to “cover his ass” after being advised to do so by another correction officer. At the hearing, petitioner maintained that the verbal exchange between the two officers revealing that the author was advised to make this misrepresentation was captured on a videotape of the area outside the observation room. When the videotape was played at the hearing, however, the audio was not working. Consequently, the only evidence that could potentially corroborate petitioner’s defense was the testimony of the other inmate.  Matter of McFarlane v Annucci, 2016 NY Slip Op 08432, 3rd Dept 12-15-16

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (HEARING OFFICER’S REFUSAL TO CALL A REQUESTED WITNESS REQUIRED ANNULMENT OF THE DETERMINATION)

You might also like
FATHER PROPERLY FOUND TO HAVE SEVERELY ABUSED ALL THE CHILDREN IN THE HOME; DESPITE THE WORDING OF THE SEVERE ABUSE STATUTE, WHICH USES THE TERM “PARENT,” THE COVERAGE OF THE STATUTE IS NOT LIMITED TO BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN (THIRD DEPT).
Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel Precluded Plaintiff from Taking a Position Contrary to the Position Plaintiff Took In Two Prior Successful Actions
THE RECORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS SIGNED IN OPEN COURT, A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT (THIRD DEPT).
THE ACTION CONTESTING THE AMENDMENT TO THE BY-LAWS OF A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION WHICH OWNS RECREATIONAL LAND AND COLLECTS DUES FROM LOT OWNERS MUST BE BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, NOT AN ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT; THE ACTION IS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, WHO IS FIVE FOOT SEVEN, WAS INJURED WHEN A SIX FOOT HIGH STACK OF SCAFFOLDS PARTIALLY FELL ON HIM, THE HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL WAS DEEMED DE MINIMUS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
HEARING OFFICER IMPROPERLY LIMITED THE NUMBER OF WITNESS PETITIONER COULD CALL, NEW HEARING REQUIRED.
CPLR 205 (A), WHICH ALLOWS AN ACTION TO BE REFILED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF DISMISSAL, DOES NOT APPLY TO MOTIONS; THE DEFENDANTS WERE AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER WHICH STAYED THE PROCEEDINGS FOR FURTHER SUBMISSIONS AND THEREFORE COULD APPEAL THE ORDER (THIRD DEPT).
IF THE PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF DEFENDANT’S LOCATION OUT-OF-STATE AND DID NOT EXERCISE “DUE DILIGENCE” IN SECURING HER RETURN TO NEW YORK THE SPEEDY TRIAL CLOCK WOULD NOT STOP RUNNING BASED SOLELY ON HER ABSENCE; HEARING REQUIRED (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

FAILURE TO VERIFY THAT TWO WITNESSES REFUSED TO TESTIFY REQUIRED A NEW HEAR... FACULTY MEMBERS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST...