You are here: / / Petitioner Denied Right to Assistance of Counsel—Dismissal and Expungement O...
,

Petitioner Denied Right to Assistance of Counsel—Dismissal and Expungement Ordered

The Third Department determined the inmate was denied his right to “seek and receive the assistance of attorneys” requiring dismissal and expungement:

Petitioner here sought to discuss the disciplinary proceedings with retained counsel, but prison officials prohibited personal and telephonic contact between the two prior to the disciplinary hearing.  To be sure, inmates do not “have a right to either retained or appointed counsel in disciplinary proceedings” … .  They remain, however, entitled to “a reasonable opportunity to seek and receive the assistance of attorneys” with regard to issues of concern to them … .  Petitioner was deprived of such an opportunity, which amounted to unjustifiable interference with his right to “marshal the facts and prepare a defense” under the circumstances of this case and requires dismissal of the remaining charge and expungement from his institutional record … .  Matter of Jeckel v NYS Dept of Corr, 515391, 3rd Dept 11-27-13

ATTORNEYS, RIGHT TO COUNSEL

You might also like
Question of Fact Re: Implied Easement for Pipeline to Pond
FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
COURT IMPROPERLY REQUIRED DEFENDANT TO WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL, DEFENDANT’S PLEA WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A PLEA BARGAIN.
AN APPEAL FROM A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DECISION WHICH IS INTERLOCUTORY IN NATURE MUST BE DISMISSED; THE DECISION MAY BE REVIEWED IN AN APPEAL FROM THE FINAL DETERMINATION (THIRD DEPT).
Company Exercised Sufficient Control Over “Agents” to Justify Finding They Were Employees
Jury Should Not Have Been Allowed to Hear Defendant’s Refusal to Waive His Right to Remain Silent and His Invocation of His Right to Counsel
MOTHER FAILED TO FIRST USE LESS DRASTIC CHILD-SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS, MOTION TO HOLD FATHER IN CIVIL CONTEMPT PROPERLY DENIED.
FAMILY COURT’S FAILURE TO CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY BEFORE ALLOWING FATHER TO PROCEED PRO SE REQUIRED REVERSAL, DESPITE FATHER’S BEING REPRESENTED WHEN THE HEARING CONTINUED (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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CHILD’S ATTORNEY HAD STANDING TO OBJECT TO THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S... PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH PLAINTIFF...