You are here: / / RAISED FIST DID NOT SUPPORT AN INTERFERENCE-WITH-AN-EMPLOYEE CHARGE 3RD...

RAISED FIST DID NOT SUPPORT AN INTERFERENCE-WITH-AN-EMPLOYEE CHARGE 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department determined a raised fist was sufficient to support the “creating a disturbance” charge, but not the “interference with an employee” charge:

… [A]s to the charge of interfering with an employee, while the evidence establishes that prison staff were alarmed by petitioner’s gesture resulting in additional staff reporting to the mess hall, we agree with petitioner that these facts, standing alone, do not constitute substantial evidence to support the finding that petitioner “physically or verbally obstruct[ed] or interfere[d] with an employee,” and, therefore, the determination should be annulled to that extent… . While the normal duties of the prison staff were presumably interrupted or redirected when they responded to the incident in the mess hall, this, in our view, is not the type of conduct that the at-issue rule was designed to prevent … . Matter of Taylor v Lee, 2017 NY Slip Op 05903, 3rd Dept 7-27-17

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (RAISED FIST DID NOT SUPPORT AN INTERFERENCE-WITH-AN-EMPLOYEE CHARGE 3RD DEPT)

You might also like
Denial of Request that Judge Recuse Himself Must Be Addressed On Direct Appeal, Not Via an Article 78 Proceeding
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PARTIAL PERFORMANCE TOOK ORAL AGREEMENT OUT OF THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS.
PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A BASEBALL DURING TRYOUTS CONDUCTED IN THE GYMNASIUM DUE TO WEATHER.
Psychological Injury Related to Threat of Violence Compensable
MINOR INACCURACIES WILL NOT PREVENT CHARACTERIZATION OF AN ARTICLE ABOUT A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING AS FAIR AND TRUE.
DISQUALIFICATION OF ATTORNEY APPROPRIATE TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.
THE MARIJUANA REGULATION AND TAXATION ACT (MRTA) APPLIES TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT A SUPPRESSION HEARING AND PRECLUDES A FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH A VEHICLE BASED SOLELY ON THE ODOR OF MARIJUANA; THEREFORE THE STATUTE APPLIES HERE WHERE, ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH WAS PRE-ENACTMENT, THE SUPPRESSION HEARING WAS POST-ENACTMENT (THIRD DEPT).
PROOF OF OCCASIONAL DRUG USE IN THE REMOTE PAST AND REFERRALS FOR ALLEGED DRUG USE IN PRISON SEVERAL YEARS AGO WAS INSUFFICIENT TO WARRANT THE ASSESSMENT OF 15 POINTS FOR A HISTORY OF DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE (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

ALTHOUGH THE SEIZED SUBSTANCE TESTED NEGATIVE FOR MARIJUANA, THE SUPERVISOR’S... THE PROOF OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR LOST EARNINGS WAS INSUFFICIENT AS A...