You are here: / / PRISON’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIRECTIVE...

PRISON’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIRECTIVE RE OPENING INMATES’ MAIL REQUIRED ANNULMENT OF THE MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department annulled the misbehavior determination because there was no proof the superintendent provided written permission to open petitioner’s mail as required by a Department of Corrections directive. All the disciplinary rule violations stemmed from the contents of the mail:

Petitioner’s sole claim is that the Superintendent did not provide written authorization pursuant to Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Directive No. 4422 (III) (B) (9) (see 7 NYCRR 720.3 [e]) for opening the outgoing correspondence that led to the investigation implicating him as the sender. Significantly, such correspondence provided the basis for all of the disciplinary rule violations of which petitioner was found guilty. The directive at issue specifically provides that “[o]utgoing correspondence . . . shall not be opened, inspected, or read without express written authorization from the facility superintendent” … . It further states that “[s]uch written authorization shall set forth the specific facts forming the basis for the action” … . Here, there was no proof presented that the Superintendent issued a written authorization supported by specific facts permitting the correction official to open the correspondence. Rather, the record suggests that the authorization was verbal, as no written instrument was ever produced and the Superintendent did not testify at the hearing. Under these circumstances, the determination of guilt must be annulled … . Matter of Sudler v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 04629, Third Dept 6-21-18

​DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (PRISON’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIRECTIVE RE OPENING INMATES’ MAIL REQUIRED ANNULMENT OF THE MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION (THIRD DEPT))/MAIL (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES), PRISON’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIRECTIVE RE OPENING INMATES’ MAIL REQUIRED ANNULMENT OF THE MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION (THIRD DEPT)

You might also like
Hearing Officer’s Refusal to Provide Requested Documents Required Annulment
CLAIMANT, A POLICE OFFICER WHO WORKED AT A VEHICLE CHECKPOINT FOR TRAFFIC TO AND FROM GROUND ZERO AFTER THE WORLD TRADE CENTER WAS DESTROYED, PARTICIPATED IN THE CLEANUP WITHIN THE MEANING OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW SECTION 28; THEREFORE HIS CLAIM (BASED UPON TOXIN-RELATED INJURY) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY (THIRD DEPT).
MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH NON-JUDICIAL SUBPOENAS PROPERLY GRANTED, ANY OBJECTIONS WOULD HAVE TO AWAIT THE ACTUAL QUESTIONING AT THE HEARING.
DEFENDANT SUBMITTED EVIDENCE RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS ENTERED VOLUNTARILY AND WHETHER HE RECEIVED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
Validity of Easement for Access to Lake Affirmed
THE CASEWORKER WAS PART OF THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IN THIS “COURSE OF SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A CHILD” PROSECUTION; THE PEOPLE WERE THEREFORE DEEMED TO HAVE HAD CONTROL OVER OR TO HAVE BEEN IN POSSESSION OF THE CASWORKER’S NOTES; THE NOTES INCLUDED BRADY MATERIAL WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE DEFENSE BEFORE TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S SON WAS INJURED WHEN A UTILITY VEHICLE DRIVEN ON PRIVATE PROPERTY BY DEFENDANTS’ 14-YEAR-OLD SON OVERTURNED, THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WAS NOT BEING DRIVEN ON A PUBLIC ROAD, HOWEVER THE NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).
REGULATION LIMITING BRIEFS TO EIGHT PAGES IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND THE LONGER BRIEF WAS NOT AN ADEQUATE GROUND FOR REJECTING THE EMPLOYER’S APPLICATION AND APPEAL (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 PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE DEED WAS DELIVERED... DEFENDANT OFFERED TWO NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATIONS FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION...