You are here: / / INMATE’S REQUESTS FOR UNIDENTIFIED WITNESSES IMPROPERLY DENIED.

INMATE’S REQUESTS FOR UNIDENTIFIED WITNESSES IMPROPERLY DENIED.

The Third Department determined some of petitioner’s requests for testimony from unidentified witnesses to the underlying incident were improperly denied. The hearing officer should have checked logs before denying the request for an unidentified corrections officer alleged to have been present. And petitioner’s request for testimony from unidentified inmates who allegedly were delayed by the incident should not have been denied simply because of the number of potential inmate witnesses (50):

​

Petitioner requested the testimony of a correction officer that he believed was present with the sergeant during the incident. Petitioner did not know the name of the witness, but gave the Hearing Officer a description and requested that the Hearing Officer review the logbooks to identify the witness. The Hearing Officer denied the witness, based upon the testimony of the sergeant that he was alone during the incident with petitioner. Inasmuch as the record does not reflect that the Hearing Officer reviewed the logbooks or made any other effort to identify the witness, we cannot say that a diligent effort was made to locate the witness … . …

​

Petitioner also requested the testimony of 50 unidentified inmates who, according to the misbehavior report and hearing testimony, were delayed in returning to their cells from breakfast because of the incident involving petitioner. A correction officer testified that, because of the incident, she was unable to release those inmates to return to petitioner’s cellblock for approximately five to seven minutes. The Hearing Officer denied petitioner’s request, stating that he was not going to call 50 witnesses. We disagree with respondents’ contention that the requested testimony was irrelevant because the inmates did not witness the incident involving petitioner, inasmuch as their testimony was relevant to the charge of interfering with staff. In our view, petitioner was improperly denied the right to call a reasonable number of these witnesses, who were all housed on the same cellblock and should have been easily identifiable. Although calling all 50 witnesses would be impractical and unnecessary, the requested testimony was not irrelevant or redundant, and the Hearing Officer’s blanket denial of these witnesses was therefore improper … . Matter of Harriott v Koenigsmann, 2017 NY Slip Op 03240, 3rd Dept 4-27-1

 

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (INMATE’S REQUESTS FOR UNIDENTIFIED WITNESSES IMPROPERLY DENIED)

You might also like
Employer Policy Re: Firing of Employees Injured in Preventable Accidents Was Discriminatory
BECAUSE THE CRIMES INVOLVED ARE NOT “REGISTRABLE OFFENSES” AND NOTHING IN DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL HISTORY WERE SEX OFFENSES, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE IMPOSED SPECIALIZED SEXUAL OFFENDER CONDITIONS UPON DEFENDANT’S PROBATION (THIRD DEPT).
DOCUMENTS SOUGHT BY PETITIONER WERE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE BASED UPON THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT AND THE INTER-, INTRA-AGENCY COMMUNICATION EXEMPTIONS (THIRD DEPT).
HERE THE RESITITUTION FOR THE VICTIM’S OUT-OF-POCKET MEDICAL EXPENSES WAS VACATED BECAUSE THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE A RECORD SUPPORTING THE AMOUNT AWARDED (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT HAVE A JUSTIFIABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE 90-DAY DEMAND TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
THE PROSECUTOR REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MURDER TRIAL ARGUING THAT THE JUDGE’S PRECLUSION OF EVIDENCE MADE THE PROSECUTION IMPOSSIBLE; IN THE PROSECUTOR’S ABSENCE AT TRIAL, THE JUDGE DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT PURSUANT TO CPL 290.10; THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT; WRIT OF PROHIBITION GRANTED (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). ​
DESPITE MOTHER’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SEVERAL DIRECTIONS BY THE COURT THAT SHE RETURN TO NEW YORK WITH THE CHILDREN, FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED CUSTODY IN THE ABSENCE OF A FULL HEARING (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

SENTENCE NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE PLEA AGREEMENT MUST BE VACATED AS THE RESULT... EXCLUSION OF INJURY FROM ASSAULT CONTROLLED, NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING...