You are here: / / NO PROOF INMATE WAS PROPERLY INFORMED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS NOT ATTENDING...

NO PROOF INMATE WAS PROPERLY INFORMED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS NOT ATTENDING THE HEARING AT THE TIME OF HIS PURPORTED REFUSAL TO ATTEND, DETERMINATION ANNULLED.

The Third Department annulled the determination because there was no proof the proper information was provided to the inmate at the time the inmate purported refused to attend the hearing:

… [T]he only indication in the record that petitioner refused to attend the hearing is the form signed by the Hearing Officer and an employee witness attesting that petitioner refused to attend the hearing. Although the form includes instructions to inform an inmate about the nature of the hearing, the charges against him or her and the fact that the hearing will be conducted in the refusing inmate’s absence, the record reflects no information regarding the steps taken to ascertain the legitimacy of petitioner’s refusal or to inform him of his right to attend the hearing and the consequences of his failure to do so … . Matter of Wilson v Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 01617, 3rd Dept 3-2-17

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (NO PROOF INMATE WAS PROPERLY INFORMED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS NOT ATTENDING THE HEARING AT THE TIME OF HIS PURPORTED REFUSAL TO ATTEND, DETERMINATION ANNULLED)

You might also like
Facts Admitted In Guilty Plea Have Subsequently Been Found Insufficient to Constitute the Offense (Possession of Child Pornography)—Yet Vacation of the Conviction Not Warranted
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ALLOWED DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION TO SERVE A 10-MONTHS-LATE ANSWER, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; IN ADDITION, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AS TIME-BARRED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIIRD DEPT).
COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED RESTITUTION, WHICH WAS NOT MENTIONED IN DEFENDANT’S COOPERATION AGREEMENT, WITHOUT FIRST GIVING DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA (THIRD DEPT).
THE LABOR LAW’S EXCLUSION OF FARM WORKERS FROM THE DEFINITION OF ‘EMPLOYEES’ ENTITLED TO ORGANIZE AND BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY VIOLATES THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION AS A MATTER OF LAW (THIRD DEPT).
“Agreement to Agree” Insufficient to Sever a Joint Tenancy
UPON DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT, PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ATTORNEY’S FEES AND DAMAGES FOR LIBEL PER SE AND ABUSE OF PROCESS WERE PROPER, HOWEVER THE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND VIOLATION OF PRIVACY CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT VIABLE, AND SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE ORDER OF PROTECTION.
Interest Paid In Advance Should Not Be Deducted from the Face Amount of the Loan When Determining Interest Rate—Law of Usury Does Not Apply to Interest After the Maturity of the Note (Late Payments)
No Investment Tax Credit for Company which Delivered Natural Gas, as Opposed to Processing or Manufacturing a Product

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

ANOMALY IN GUIDELINES MAY RESULT IN AN OVERESTIMATION OF THE CHILD-PORNOGRAPHY-BASED... TERMINATION OF TEACHER BASED ON HER SUBMISSION OF INACCURATE TIME SHEETS, UNDER...