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
Two-to-Five-Foot Fall from Edge of Roof to Scaffolding Supported Labor Law 240 (1) Cause of Action
EVIDENCE OF ABUSE OR NEGLECT OF ANOTHER CHILD IS ADMISSIBLE IN A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING; ALTHOUGH CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES RECORDS REGARDING NEGLECT ARE HEARSAY, THE HEARSAY IS ADMSSSIBLE IF CORROBORATED (THIRD DEPT).
Indictment Count Did Not State an Offense; Jurisdictional Defect Can Not Be Cured by Amendment
THE SENTENCE AGREED TO IN THE PLEA BARGAIN AND IMPOSED BY THE COURT WAS ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT WAS LESS THAN STATUTORILY REQUIRED; THE SENTENCE WAS VACATED AND THE MATTER REMITTED TO GIVE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA (THIRD DEPT).
Husband’s Dissipation of His Separate Property Was a Factor in Increasing Wife’s Maintenance and Equitable Distribution
THE EXISTENCE OF A VIDEOTAPE OF THE ALLEGED MISBEHAVIOR-INCIDENT, REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER, SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED BY THE HEARING OFFICER, NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
POLICE DISCIPLINE PROPERLY CONTROLLED BY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, DESPITE STATUTORY PROVISION PLACING DISCIPLINE IN THE HANDS OF THE COMMISSIONER.
RESPONDENT THREATENED SELF HARM AND WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW; THE JUDGE DECLINED TO ISSUE A TEMPORARY “EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER” (ERPO) AND SET THE MATTER DOWN FOR A HEARING; SUBSEQUENTLY THE JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, CANCELED THE HEARING AND DISMISSED THE PETITION, ACTIONS FOR WHICH THE JUDGE HAD NO AUTHORITY; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (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

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...