You are here: / / HEARING OFFICER’S REFUSAL WITHOUT EXPLANATION TO CALL A WITNESS ...

HEARING OFFICER’S REFUSAL WITHOUT EXPLANATION TO CALL A WITNESS TO THE INCIDENT REQUIRED ANNULMENT AND EXPUNGEMENT.

The Third Department, annulling the misbehavior determination, found the hearing officer’s refusal without explanation to call a witness to the confrontation between petitioner and guards to be a constitutional violation:

​

“An inmate has a right to call witnesses at a disciplinary hearing so long as the testimony is not immaterial or redundant and poses no threat to institutional safety or correctional goals”… . This report indicated that, without provocation, petitioner punched the officer conducting the frisk in the eye. Petitioner maintained that he did not assault either officer, that the officer conducting the frisk was the aggressor, grabbing petitioner’s genitals during the frisk and punching him, and that both officers attacked him in retaliation for him filing a grievance against a fellow officer. The requested witness submitted a memorandum to his superior on the day of the incident stating that he observed the frisk, that petitioner turned off the wall and that a struggle ensued with the correction officer. According to the memorandum, the officer called for a response team and, by the time the team arrived, both petitioner and the officer involved in the altercation were inside of petitioner’s cell and out of his sight. Following the initial request for this witness at the hearing, the Hearing Officer stated that he would address the request later. Petitioner clearly requested testimony from this witness a second time and the Hearing Officer did not respond. The Hearing Officer subsequently closed the hearing without calling the witness and without providing a reason for not calling him.  Matter of Reyes v Keyser, 2017 NY Slip Op 04007, 3rd Dept 5-18-17

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (HEARING OFFICER’S REFUSAL WITHOUT EXPLANATION TO CALL A WITNESS TO THE INCIDENT REQUIRED ANNULMENT AND EXPUNGEMENT)

You might also like
Self-Insured Employer Not Entitled to Offset Workers’ Compensation Benefits by the Amount Claimant Received in a Third-Party Settlement
Supreme Court’s Annulment of Regulation Permitting Out-Of-Competition Drug Testing of Harness Racehorses Reversed
CLAIMANT’S TERMINATION FROM HER EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY BASED UPON TWO DRIVING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE CONVICTIONS DID NOT PRECLUDE HER FROM RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS TIMELY AND JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
Immunity for Land Owners Allowing Use of Land by Snowmobilers
If the Action Challenging Governmental Action Could Have Been Brought in an Article 78 Proceeding, No Matter How the Action Is Labelled, the Four-Month Statute of Limitations Applies
IF A DEBT IS ACCELERATED, THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR RECOVERY OF THE DEBT IS TRIGGERED; IF THE DEBT IS NOT ACCELERATED, THE INSTALLMENTS DUE WITHIN THE SIX YEARS PRIOR TO COMMENCING SUIT ARE RECOVERABLE (THIRD DEPT).
THE CONCEPTS OF ‘OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE’ AND ‘HARMLESS ERROR’ DISCUSSED IN DEPTH; THE MAJORITY FOUND THE EVIDENCE OVERWHELMING AND THE ERROR HARMLESS; THE CONCURRENCE FOUND THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT OVERWHELMING BUT FOUND THE ERROR HARMLESS UNDER A DIFFERENT ANALYSIS; THE DISSENT FOUND THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT OVERWHELMING AND THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND AS A RESULT OF A SUPPRESSED STATEMENT, THE EVIDENCE... AUNT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION, AWARDING ADDITIONAL VISITATION...