You are here: / / PETITIONER, WHO WAS URINATING WHEN A FEMALE CORRECTION OFFICER PASSED HIS...

PETITIONER, WHO WAS URINATING WHEN A FEMALE CORRECTION OFFICER PASSED HIS CELL, WAS NOT GUILTY OF LEWD CONDUCT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the determination, held that the petitioner did not engage in lewd conduct merely by urinating in his cell:

… [T]he Attorney General concedes, and we agree, that substantial evidence does not support that part of the determination finding petitioner guilty of engaging in lewd conduct… . The female correction officer testified that, while petitioner continued to urinate when she passed his cell, he made no gestures and did not expose his genitals to her … . Matter of Burroughs v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 06168, Third Dept 9-19-18

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (PETITIONER, WHO WAS URINATING WHEN A FEMALE CORRECTION OFFICER PASSED HIS CELL, WAS NOT GUILTY OF LEWD CONDUCT (THIRD DEPT))/LEWD CONDUCT (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES), PETITIONER, WHO WAS URINATING WHEN A FEMALE CORRECTION OFFICER PASSED HIS CELL, WAS NOT GUILTY OF LEWD CONDUCT (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
HOUSEKEEPER WAS EMPLOYEE OF CLEANING REFERRAL AGENCY.
AT THE TIME OF THE JUVENILE’S ADMISSION TO POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY THE JUDGE DID NOT INFORM HIM OR HIS MOTHER OF THE EXACT NATURE OF HIS “PLACEMENT OUTSIDE THE HOME OR ITS POSSIBLE DURATION” AS REQUIRED BY FAMILY COURT ACT SECTION 3213(1); ORDER REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
ARTICLE 10 PROCEEDINGS ARE CIVIL IN NATURE, HOWEVER THE COURT ANALYZED WHETHER RESPONDENT COULD REPRESENT HIMSELF AND WHETHER HE WAS AFFORDED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE USING THE CRIMINAL LAW STANDARDS (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO SIMULTANEOUSLY RECEIVE AN AWARD FOR A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE AND A PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY CLASSIFICATION (THIRD DEPT).
FATHER PAID CHILD SUPPORT PRIOR TO SENTENCING FOR WILLFUL FAILURE TO PAY, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED THE ORDER OF COMMITMENT.
CERTAIN FOIL REQUESTS RE: THE TRAINING AND PROCEDURES OF THE BOARD OF PAROLE PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (THRID DEPT).
THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK REQUIRED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) WHEN IT APPROVED THE DEVELOPMENT WHICH INCLUDED APARTMENTS AND A COSTCO RETAIL FACILITY; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANNULLED THE APPROVAL AS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (THIRD DEPT).
THE RECORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PARENTS COULD NOT COMMUNICATE ABOUT THE NEEDS OF THE CHILD AND THEREFORE DID NOT SUPPORT AWARDING SOLE CUSTODY TO FATHER; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE LEFT IT UP TO THE PARTIES TO CRAFT A PARENTING-TIME SCHEDULE; A CHILD’S TESTIMONY IN A LINCOLN HEARING HAS NO INDEPENDENT EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND MUST BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL (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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE INADEQUATE HEIGHT OF A GUARDRAIL ALONG THE STAIRWELL... PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE GAS COMPANY’S LIABILITY...