You are here: / / THERE WAS NO GOOD REASON TO DENY PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A WITNESS,...

THERE WAS NO GOOD REASON TO DENY PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A WITNESS, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED.

The Third Department determined the hearing officer improperly and without good cause refused to call a witness requested by the petitioner. The determination was therefore annulled and expunged:

Among petitioner’s many contentions is that he was improperly denied his right to call certain witnesses at the hearing. Notably, his defense that he did not act in the manner alleged in the misbehavior report was very much dependent on the testimony of witnesses, correction officers and inmates alike, who were present in the mess hall and who may have observed his actions. In this regard, petitioner asserts that he was improperly denied the right to call the correction officer who was stationed in the gas booth overseeing the mess hall at the time of the incident. The Hearing Officer denied this witness on the basis that “the staff in the gas booth have the entire messhalls . . . to watch and would not be expected to know the details of each incident.” Petitioner objected, stating at the hearing that “the guy in the gas booth would be able to honestly see this incident and give the perfect testimony . . . of what transpired because he’s the guy that controls the gas and if it was a bigger incident tha[n] what it was he’d have to drop the gas.” …

Respondent, however, urges that remittal for a new hearing is the appropriate remedy. Under the particular circumstances presented here, we disagree. Although the Hearing Officer articulated a reason for the denial, the legitimacy of that reason is suspect given that the gas booth officer was in the mess hall for the very purpose of watching the activities of the inmates and responding to problems. There is no support in the record for the Hearing Officer’s baseless conclusion that the officer on duty did not have knowledge of the incident involving petitioner. Matter of Balkum v Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 01741, 3rd Dept 3-9-17

 

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (THERE WAS NO GOOD REASON TO DENY PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A WITNESS, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED)

You might also like
EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE AWARD OF SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN TO THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER, MATTER REMITTED FOR FURTHER INQUIRY ABOUT A LEVEL ONE SEX OFFENDER IN THE HOME, INFORMATION FIRST LEARNED IN A LINCOLN HEARING CANNOT BE RELIED UPON WITHOUT FURTHER INVESTIGATION (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT DID NOT REMOVE HIMSELF FROM EXPOSURE TO HARMFUL NOISE FOR THREE MONTHS PRIOR TO APPLYING FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION FOR HEARING LOSS, CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED.
FAILURE TO ALLEGE AN OVERT ACT IN THE CONSPIRACY COUNT REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE COUNT AS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (THIRD DEPT).
Claimant Who Cannot Afford Child Care Is Unavailable for Work and Is Not Entitled to Unemployment Insurance Benefits
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM HARASSMENT AND BULLYING BY FELLOW STUDENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE MIRANDA WARNINGS WERE READ TO DEFENDANT BEFORE HE WAS QUESTIONED; GUILTY PLEA VACATED; THERE WAS NO PROOF DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE PLED GUILTY IF SUPPRESSION HAD BEEN GRANTED, THEREFORE THE HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS WAS NOT APPLICABLE (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF, A YOUTH HOCKEY PLAYER INJURED BY A TIPPING BENCH IN THE LOCKER ROOM, WAS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE COACH OR HIS FATHER IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION (THIRD DEPT). ​
Fraud Does Not Require Proof of a “Nefarious Motive”—Fact that Respondent Knew that the Spouses of Three Signatories Signed the Petition on the Signatories’ Behalf Invalidated the Petition, Despite the Fact that There Were a Sufficient Number of Valid Signatures

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

WRONGFUL DEATH VERDICT AWARDING ZERO DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PARENTAL GUIDANCE NOT... ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF INJURED BY CO-WORKER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S...