You are here: / / THE RECORD DID NOT INDICATE THE HEARING OFFICER ASSESSED THE RELIABILITY...
,

THE RECORD DID NOT INDICATE THE HEARING OFFICER ASSESSED THE RELIABILITY OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION; MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, annulling the misbehavior determination, found that record did not reflect that the hearing officer took the necessary steps to confirm the reliability of confidential information:

Although the Hearing Officer indicates that he relied upon and independently assessed confidential testimony, neither the hearing transcript nor the witness interview notice form reflects that any confidential testimony was taken during the hearing or that any confidential documents were reviewed. As to the relevant statement from the confidential informant, “[a] disciplinary determination may be based upon hearsay confidential information provided that it is sufficiently detailed and probative for the Hearing Officer to make an independent assessment of the informant’s reliability” … .

Here, the author of the misbehavior report simply testified with regard to the confidential informant that he had received information from the confidential informant in the past and deemed the current information accurate. Other than this general and conclusory testimony, no further details regarding the basis for the information or the results of the author’s investigation into the incident were provided. Moreover, evidence at the hearing contradicted the confidential information. Specifically, the inmate who petitioner allegedly sent to the visit room to pick up drugs had not, according to the visit room log, been to the visit room in over three weeks prior to the alleged incident. In view of the foregoing, neither the testimony or evidence at the hearing was sufficiently detailed or probative for the Hearing Officer to assess the reliability or credibility of the confidential informant. Matter of Brown v Annucci, 2020 NY Slip Op 02343, Third Dept 4-23-20

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFFS BREACHED THE CONTRACT TO PURCHASE THE HOME BUILT BY DEFENDANTS BY CLEARLY INDICATING THEY COULD NOT GO THROUGH WITH THE PURCHASE (ANTICIPATORY REPUDIATION); HOWEVER, DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO THE FULL AMOUNT PLAINTIFFS HAD ALREADY PAID DEFENDANTS, OVER $220,000, AS DAMAGES FOR THE BREACH, DAMAGES TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
Failure to Personally Serve Petitions for Tax Assessment Reductions as Required by the Real Property Tax Law Mandated Dismissal of the Petitions
THE DECLARATORY RULING BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (PSC) WAS FINAL AND THEREFORE WAS A PROPER SUBJECT OF AN ARTICLE 78 PETITION (THIRD DEPT).
Reversible Error to Allow Cross-Examination of Defendant About an Unrelated Prior Crime
Waiver of Appeal Not Sufficient
PLAINTIFF’S USE OF AN AREA AS A WALKWAY WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED 3RD DEPT.
PART-TIME ATTORNEY WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF SOLO PRACTITIONER.
Board’s Determination Business Was Claimant’s “Employer” Reversed

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FINDING THAT CLAIMANT MADE A WILLFUL FALSE STATEMENT TO OBTAIN UNEMPLOYMENT... ALTHOUGH PETITIONER WAS ADJUDICATED A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER AFTER HIS RELEASE...