You are here: / / VIOLATION OF A DIRECTIVE BY THE PRISON DID NOT WARRANT ANNULMENT OF THE...

VIOLATION OF A DIRECTIVE BY THE PRISON DID NOT WARRANT ANNULMENT OF THE DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, found that petitioner’s disciplinary determination should no have been annulled based upon a violation of a directive by the prison. Petitioner was found guilty of possessing a weapon and tampering with property:

​

… [T]he violation of former Directive No. 4910 (V) (C) (2) did not entitle petitioner to the annulment of the determination of guilt. Former Directive No. 4910 (V) (C) (2) provided that “[t]he search of a [s]pecial [h]ousing [u]nit cell shall be conducted with the inmate removed from the cell for the duration of the search. The inmate shall be placed in a vacant cell and not allowed to carry anything. If a vacant cell is not available, the inmate is to be taken to the far end of the tier and held for the duration of the search.” It is uncontested that, here, petitioner was placed in a recreation area — and not in a vacant cell or at the far end of the tier — while his cell was searched.

Although the placement of petitioner in the recreation area violated former Directive No. 4910 (V) (C) (2), we reject petitioner’s contention that the proper remedy is annulment. Not all administrative violations invalidate agency actions, and the proper remedy for an administrative violation must take into account the purpose of the regulation that was violated… . Here, a plain reading of former Directive No. 4910 (V) (C) (2) establishes that the provision is intended to promote institutional safety rather than to protect an inmate’s interests in regard to the search of his or her cell. Accordingly, we perceive no reason that petitioner would automatically be entitled to suppression of any evidence recovered from a search due to a violation of a directive that was not intended to protect his rights in regard to that search. Moreover, petitioner does not allege that his placement in the recreation area somehow prejudiced him … . Matter of Tenney v Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 08794, Third Dept 12-14-17

 

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) VIOLATION OF A DIRECTIVE BY THE PRISON DID NOT WARRANT ANNULMENT OF THE DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION (THIRD DEPT)

You might also like
THE HOME-BUILDER’S CONTRACT WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, THE HOMEOWNERS’ BREACH OF CONTRACT COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND HOWEVER; CONTRACTOR ENTITLED TO RECOVER IN QUANTUM MERUIT IF, UPON REMITTAL, IT IS DETERMINED THE CONTRACTOR’S BREACH, IF ANY, WAS NOT SUBSTANTIAL (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT WAS STRUCK BY A VEHICLE WHILE HE WAS RIDING HIS BICYCLE TO WORK (USUALLY NOT COMPENSABLE), HIS INJURY WAS FOUND COMPENSABLE BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE (WCLJ) UNDER THE “SPECIAL ERRAND” EXCEPTION; BECAUSE THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD DID NOT ADDRESS THAT ISSUE, THE MATTER WAS REMITTED (THIRD DEPT). ​
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE ON BEHALF OF THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS; THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY DID NOT KNOWINGLY CONSENT AND DID NOT MAINTAIN CONTROL OVER THE PROSECUTION; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DEFAULTED ON A MATERIAL TERM OF AN INSTALLMENT LAND SALE CONTRACT, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OR CANCELLATION AND RETENTION OF THE SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENTS WHICH PLAINTIFF HAD MADE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO CONTINUED POSSESSION (THIRD DEPT).
A DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH A CLASS A FELONY CANNOT WAIVE INDICTMENT AND PLEAD TO A SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION PURSUANT TO CPL 195.10 (THIRD DEPT).
Corporate Officer Personally Liable for Outstanding Sales and Use Taxes
MATTER REMITTED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH TO DETERMINE WHETHER BONE SURGERY TO REPAIR CANCER-RELATED DAMAGE TO PETITIONER’S JAW IS COVERED UNDER MEDICAID, IF THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DSS REGULATIONS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S GUIDELINES, THE REGULATIONS CONTROL (THIRD DEPT).
DISNEY WAS DEDUCTING ROYALTY PAYMENTS MADE BY AFFILIATES WHICH DID NOT PAY NEW YORK TAXES; THE TAX LAW WAS DESIGNED TO PLUG THAT “LOOPHOLE” AND THE DEDUCTIONS WERE PROPERLY DISALLOWED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT WAS NOT FULLY INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS HE WAS GIVING UP BY PLEADING... ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A LOADING DOCK WHILE WAITING TO SIGN IN TO WORK...