You are here: / / HEARING OFFICER DID NOT PROVIDE PETITIONER WITH WRITTEN NOTICE OF HER DENIAL...

HEARING OFFICER DID NOT PROVIDE PETITIONER WITH WRITTEN NOTICE OF HER DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S REQUEST THAT A WITNESS TESTIFY, PETITIONER ENTITLED TO A NEW HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

Third Department determined petitioner was entitled to a new hearing because the hearing officer failed to provide him with written notice of her denial of the inmate’s request that a witness testify:

​

At the start of the hearing, petitioner indicated three times that he wanted to call inmate X as a witness, and also informed the Hearing Officer that he wished to call six inmates who were housed in his dorm. The Hearing Officer adjourned the hearing to interview the inmates requested and, when the hearing resumed, she informed petitioner that the six inmates housed in his dorm had refused to testify, briefly mentioning the various reasons given and that they had signed refusal forms. The Hearing Officer, however, did not mention whether she had also spoken to inmate X and, if so, what he had said regarding his prior agreement to testify. No other reference was made to inmate X at the hearing and the hearing thereafter concluded without inmate X’s testimony.

Despite the fact that the hearing transcript is devoid of any indication of the Hearing Officer’s efforts to obtain inmate X’s testimony, the record contains a refusal form completed by the Hearing Officer indicating that she personally interviewed inmate X during the pendency of the hearing and that he refused to testify because he did not “want to be involved.” This record evidence establishes the Hearing Officer’s personal efforts to secure inmate X’s testimony and ascertain a sufficient reason for his refusal … . It is equally apparent that the Hearing Officer effectively made a determination to deny petitioner’s request to call this witness for this reason. However, we find that her failure to provide any written notice to petitioner concerning her effective denial of his request amounts to a regulatory violation requiring the matter to be remitted for a new hearing … . Matter of Blades v Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 06581, Third Dept 9-21-17

 

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (HEARING OFFICER DID NOT PROVIDE PETITIONER WITH WRITTEN NOTICE OF HER DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S REQUEST THAT A WITNESS TESTIFY, PETITIONER ENTITLED TO A NEW HEARING (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
THE NEW YORK STATE AND LOCAL RETIRMENT SYSTEM DID NOT REBUT THE “WORLD TRADE CENTER PRESUMPTION” THAT PETITIONER’S DEPRESSION WAS AGGRAVATED BY HIS EXPERIENCES ON 9-11; PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
THE EXTENDED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO CIVIL RIGHTS CAUSES OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 42 USC 1983; THE DUTY TO REPORT CHILD ABUSE UNDER THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW APPLIES ONLY TO “PERSONS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE” FOR THE CARE OF THE CHILD, WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE TEACHERS (THIRD DEPT).
HOMEOWNERS’ REBUTTED THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE TAX ASSESSMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY WAS VALID 3RD DEPT.
Slander Per Se Complaint Not Based Upon “Serious Crime” (Trespass) ​
Valid State Purpose (Conserving Drinking Water) Did Not Relieve State of Liability Re: Breach of an Agreement to Provide a Certain Amount of Water to a Hydroelectric Power Provider
BEFORE HEARSAY CAN BE RELIED UPON BY THE COURT FOR A SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT, THE PEOPLE MUST ESTABLISH A FOUNDATION SUPPORTING THE RELIABILITY OF THE HEARSAY (THIRD DEPT).
RESTRICTIONS ON PARTICIPATION IN HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS BY TRANSFER STUDENTS UPHELD.
FAMILY COURT’S REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE THIRD DEPT’S REVERSAL OF THE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS REQUIRED NEW HEARING IN FRONT OF A DIFFERENT JUDGE.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

HABEAS CORPUS IS NOT A VEHICLE FOR RELIEF FOR ISSUES WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED... DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND HE HAD A RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE TIME HIS STATEMENTS...