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
SORA Court’s Failure to Issue Written Findings Required Remittal
Tortious Interference with Contract.
RESPONDENT DID NOT CONSTRUCTIVELY DENY PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST BY EXTENDING ITS SELF-IMPOSED DEADLINES FOR RESPONDING TO THE REQUEST (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE BOARD FAILED TO ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN ITS DECISION TO DENY COVERAGE OF MEDICAL BILLS ON THE GROUND THEY WERE NOT CAUSALLY RELATED TO CLAIMANT’S MEDICAL CONDITION, MAKING APPELLATE REVIEW IMPOSSIBLE; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
AFTER SKIING ALL DAY AND RETURNING THE EQUIPMENT, CLAIMANT SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE AND SNOW IN A PARKING LOT; THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY; THE COURT NOTED THAT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, HERE AN INCIDENT REPORT, MAY BE CONSIDERED ON A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IF IT DUPLICATES NON-HEARSAY (THIRD DEPT). ​
MECHANIC WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF USED CAR SELLER.
ACCEPTING THE ALLEGATIONS AS TRUE FOR PURPOSES OF A MOTION TO DISMISS, INSURANCE AGENT AND HIS EMPLOYERS OWED PLAINTIFF, THE BENEFICIARY OF DECEDENT’S LIFE INSURANCE POLICY, A DUTY OF CARE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE POLICY, RELATIONSHIP WAS CLOSE TO PRIVITY (THIRD DEPT).
Disciplinary Actions by SUNY School Did Not Violate Student’s Due Process Rights 

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

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...