You are here: / / FLAWED EVIDENCE REQUIRED ANNULMENT OF SMUGGLING CHARGES.

FLAWED EVIDENCE REQUIRED ANNULMENT OF SMUGGLING CHARGES.

The Third Department determined problems with the recording of a conversation and other evidentiary failures required annulment of the smuggling charges:

The tape-recorded conversation that was read into the record during the hearing is replete with inaudible portions rendering it impossible to ascertain if, in fact, petitioner was a participant in the smuggling plan … . Moreover, the investigator who authored the misbehavior report did not identify the coded language allegedly used during the telephone conversation that led him to believe that petitioner was involved in such a plan … . The confidential information considered by the Hearing Officer in camera — which only calls the accuracy of the conversation read into the record at the hearing into further doubt — does not remedy these deficiencies. Thus, the determination must be partially annulled. Matter of McGriff v Venettozzi, 2017 NY Slip Op 00530, 3rd Dept 1-26-17

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (FLAWED EVIDENCE REQUIRED ANNULMENT OF SMUGGLING CHARGES)

You might also like
Motor-Route Newspaper Carriers Were Employees, Not Independent Contractors
Work-Related Call to Coworker Which Triggered Harassment by Coworker’s Husband Was Proper Basis for Workers’ Compensation Benefits
NEW LAW THAT WENT INTO EFFECT WHEN THE CLAIM WAS BEING RECONSIDERED SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED, CLAIMS MAY NO LONGER BE DENIED ON THE FACTUAL FINDING THAT THE STRESS EXPERIENCED BY CLAIMANT IS NOT GREATER THAN THAT WHICH USUALLY OCCURS IN THE WORK ENVIRONMENT, POLICE OFFICER CLAIMED ANXIETY AND PHOBIAS RELATED TO THE SIGHT OF BLOOD (THIRD DEPT).
Courts Should Not Defer to Zoning Board of Appeals’ Determination of a Purely Legal Question (the Meaning of a Town Code Provision)
CLAIMANT DEMONSTRATED HE HAD NOT REMOVED HIMSELF FROM THE LABOR MARKET WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE; CLAIMANT WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS FROM THE TIME HE DEMONSTRATED ATTACHMENT TO THE WORKFORCE (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS IN A PRISON AS A VISITOR WHEN THERE WAS A CANINE ALERT TO DRUGS ON HER PERSON, THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE SUCH THAT ANY QUESTIONING SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRECEDED BY THE MIRANDA WARNINGS; A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD NOT HAVE FELT FREE TO LEAVE; BECAUSE THEY WERE CLOSE IN TIME, BOTH HER ORAL STATEMENT AND HER POST-MIRANDA WRITTEN STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
FIRING A SHOTGUN THROUGH A SCREEN DOOR INTO THE DRIVEWAY WHEN THE CHILD WAS NOT HOME DOES NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLECT (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM THE PRESUMPTIVE RISK LEVEL BUT COUNTY COURT DID NOT RULE ON IT; MATTER REMITTED FOR FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS (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 INQUIRE INTO WITNESS’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY REQUIRED A NEW H... FAMILY COURT’S REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE THIRD DEPT’S REVERSAL...