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
PETITIONERS, WHO HELD CATERED EVENTS, INCLUDING WEDDINGS, AT THEIR FARM, COMMITTED AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE WHEN THEY REFUSED TO ALLOW RESPONDENTS’ SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AT THE FARM.
BUSINESS PURSUITS EXCLUSION IN THE HOMEOWNER’S INSURANCE POLICY DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE FIRE WOULD HAVE OCCURRED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS, A RESPITE HOME FOR ELDERLY AND SPECIAL NEEDS ADULTS, THREE OF THE RESIDENTS DIED IN THE FIRE STARTED BY CHILDREN PLAYING IN THE GARAGE (THIRD DEPT)
ATTORNEY’S FEE PROPERLY REDUCED BASED UPON FAILURE TO FULLY FILL OUT THE RELEVANT FORM.
Elements of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Prima Facie Tort Described
To Maintain Standing to Bring a Derivative Action Against a Not-for-Profit Corporation At Least Five Percent of the Members Must Be Plaintiffs at All Times As the Suit Progresses
FAMILY COURT ALLOWED MOTHER TO TESTIFY BY TELEPHONE WITHOUT WARNING HER A NOTARY SHOULD BE PRESENT SO SHE COULD BE SWORN AND THEN, SUA SPONTE, REJECTED MOTHER’S TESTIMONY BECAUSE IT WAS NOT SWORN; NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE ROAD LEADING TO PETITIONER’S PROPERTY WAS PROPERLY CERTIFIED “ABANDONED” SUCH THAT THE MUNICIPALITY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS MAINTENANCE; AND PETITIONER STATED AN EQUAL-PROTECTION CLAIM UNDER 42 USC 1983 (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...