You are here: / / PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A WITNESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, NEW...

PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A WITNESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the petitioner was entitled to a new hearing because the witness he requested could have provided relevant information. The request should not have been denied by the hearing officer:

 

… [P]etitioner was improperly denied a witness. The Hearing Officer denied petitioner’s request to question a correction officer who searched the empty cell on the day prior to that upon which petitioner was alleged to have thrown the bottle, and petitioner claimed that the officer could confirm that the bottle was already in the empty cell. Contrary to the Hearing Officer’s conclusion, the testimony of this correction officer regarding whether the bottle was already in the empty cell would not have been irrelevant. Matter of Castillo v Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 07922, Third Dept 11-9-17

 

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A WITNESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A VALID EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY (THIRD DEPT).
Homeowner Not Liable for Construction-Related Death—Criteria for Homeowner’s Exemption and Supervisory Control by Homeowner Described in Some Depth
Sentencing Court’s Reference to a Fine for Driving While Intoxicated as “Mandatory” Required Remittal for Resentencing
COUNSEL FOR A CIVILLY COMMITTED SEX OFFENDER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTEND MEETINGS ABOUT APPROPRIATE TREATMENT FOR THE SEX OFFENDER 3RD DEPT.
LOST PENSION BENEFITS AS DAMAGES IN THIS SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE WERE PROPERLY CALCULATED USING THE TOTAL OFFSET METHOD (THIRD DEPT).
Claimant-Interpreter Properly Found to Be an Employee, Not an Independent Contractor
CLAIMANT PROPERLY DENIED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS DURING FIRST SEVEN WEEKS OF A STRIKE, ALTERNATIVE WORK SITE AVAILABLE (THIRD DEPT).
Reimbursement Cuts for Profit-Making Nursing Homes Did Not Violate Takings or Equal Protection Clauses

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

SIGN ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY SAYING THE DEFENDANT “SCREWED US BEWARE”... WHISTLEBLOWER CAUSE OF ACTION WAS TIMELY UNDER THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE AND...