You are here: / / A CORRECTION LAW PROVISION INSULATED THE PETITIONER-INMATE FROM DISCIPLINE...
,

A CORRECTION LAW PROVISION INSULATED THE PETITIONER-INMATE FROM DISCIPLINE FOR SENDING A LETTER REQUESTING AN INSTITUTIONAL POLICY CHANGE REGARDING VENDORS WHICH SUPPLY PACKAGES TO PRISONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner-inmate should not have been disciplined for a letter to vendors which supply packages to prisons. Petitioner was opposed to a pilot program awarding eight vendors the exclusive right to supply packages to prisons. Petitioner sent a letter urging excluded vendors to “fight back” and was disciplined under a provision of the Institutional Rules of Conduct which prohibits inmates from soliciting goods or services from businesses. The Second Department held that the letter was subject a Correction Law provision which prohibits discipline for requests for policy changes:

… [B]ecause the letter did not solicit goods or services from any business, the record does not support the hearing officer’s determination that rule 103.20 (7 NYCRR 270.2[B][4][ii]) was violated. Moreover, even if construed to violate the rule, the petitioner’s conduct was insulated from discipline by Correction Law § 138, which provides that “[i]nmates shall not be disciplined for making written . . . requests involving a change of institutional conditions, policies, rules, regulations, or laws affecting an institution” (Correction Law § 138[4]). The petitioner’s December 15, 2017, letter was a “request[ ] involving a change of institutional . . . policies” (id. ) in that he invited certain organizations adversely affected by the DOCCS’s [NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision’s] new policy to undertake action in opposition to that new policy. The respondents thus disciplined the petitioner in contravention of Correction Law § 138(4). Matter of Miller v Annucci, 2020 NY Slip Op 04167, Second Dept 7-22-20

 

You might also like
At Will Employee Can Not Use “Fraudulent Inducement” Theory Re: Acceptance-of-Employment Offer.
FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS OF DELIVERY OR MAILING OF THE SUMMONS IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT WHICH DEPRIVES THE COURT OF JURISDICTION OVER THE SERVED PARTY (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; BUT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT DRIVER’S CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH A FRYE HEARING WAS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEERING IS AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY, THE BIOMECHANICAL ENGINEER’S TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE; NO FOUNDATION WAS LAID FOR THE ENGINEER’S TESTIMONY; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
A COMPRESSOR ROLLING OFF A PALLET JACK ONTO PLAINTIFF’S ANKLE WAS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED ACCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1), REGULATION-VIOLATION RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, CRITERIA FOR LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT A TOWN POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS INJURED UNDERGOING A PHYSICAL FITNESS TEST AS A CANDIDATE FOR A COUNTY SWAT TEAM WAS A SPECIAL EMPLOYEE OF THE COUNTY SUCH THAT THE POLICE OFFICER’S ONLY REMEDY WAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (SECOND DEPT).
OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SLANTED FLOOR OF THE IN-GROUND POOL WAS NOT A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WAY THE POOL WAS BUILT, THE LANDLORDS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DIVING ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PRINCIPAL OFFICE OF A FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AS LISTED ON THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS, IS THE CONTROLLING LOCATION FOR VENUE PURPOSES.

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

THE PROOF DID NOT SUPPORT SURROGATE’S COURT’S FINDING THAT THERE... MOTION TO AMEND THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT TO ADD AN APPARENTLY MISNAMED PARTY...