You are here: / / THERE WERE PARALLEL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS STEMMING FROM PETITIONER’S...
, , ,

THERE WERE PARALLEL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS STEMMING FROM PETITIONER’S ALLEGED ABUSE OF A PSYCHIATRIC PATIENT; THE ARBITRATOR’S FINDING THAT PETITIONER DID NOT ABUSE THE PATIENT WAS ENTITLED TO PRECLUSIVE EFFECT IN THE PARALLEL PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the determination of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in this employment disciplinary matter, determined the prior finding by the arbitrator in a parallel proceeding that petitioner did not abuse the psychiatric patient was entitled to preclusive effect:

Petitioner’s sole contention on appeal is that the ALJ erred in not giving preclusive effect to the arbitrator’s determination that petitioner’s conduct did not constitute physical abuse. We agree. “The underlying purpose of the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel is to prevent repetitious litigation of disputes which are essentially the same” … . … [R]espondent contends that the issue decided by the arbitrator was not the identical issue before the ALJ. …

Respondent’s “Report of Investigation Determination” and OMH’s [Office of Mental Health’s] notice of discipline were issued four days apart and both referenced the same case number and charged petitioner with physically abusing the service recipient. Although neither the notice of discipline nor the arbitrator’s decision specifically cite the relevant portion of the Social Services Law associated with physical abuse, the arbitrator specifically took notice of said provision at the disciplinary hearing … . … [T]he arbitrator and the ALJ both reviewed the same videos of the underlying incident and petitioner’s interview. Although the arbitrator and the ALJ both agreed that petitioner pushed the service recipient’s head down into the restraint bed, the arbitrator concluded that petitioner was “cradling the neck of [the service recipient] at that time” such that his conduct did not constitute physical abuse. … [T]his was the same factual issue the ALJ later confronted. Matter of Anonymous v New York State Justice Ctr. for the Protection of People with Special Needs, 2021 NY Slip Op 03510, Third Dept 6-2-21

 

You might also like
INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON UNDER AN ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY THEORY 3RD DEPT.
ALTHOUGH THE PLANS FOR THE EXPANSION OF A HOSPITAL WERE NOT YET FINALIZED, IT WAS CLEAR THAT SUCH AN EXPANSION WAS AN ANTICIPATED RESULT OF THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE; THEREFORE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) PROHIBITION OF “SEGMENTATION” REQUIRED CONSIDERATION OF THE EXPANSION AS PART OF THE “HARD LOOK” AT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ZONING CHANGE (THIRD DEPT).
FAILURE TO WARN CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF’S CLOTHES CAUGHT FIRE WHEN SHE STOOD NEAR A PROPANE HEATER, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE WARNING WAS ADEQUATE AND WHETHER FAILURE TO WARN WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE (THIRD DEPT).
THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S (DOH’S) UPDATED GUIDELINES WHICH PROHIBIT PHYSCIANS WHO TREAT CANCER PATIENTS FROM DISPENSING MEDICATIONS WHICH ADDRESS THE SIDE EFFECTS OF CANCER TREATMENTS ARE “IRRATIONAL” (THIRD DEPT). ​
FAILURE TO INQUIRE INTO WITNESS’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY REQUIRED A NEW HEARING.
CRITERIA FOR EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE EXPLAINED, INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT ORDER REVERSED.
PETITIONER WAS INITIALLY APPROVED FOR PAROLE, BUT AFTER THE VICTIM IMPACT HEARING A RESCISSION HEARING WAS HELD AND PAROLE WAS RESCINDED; THE RESCISSION WAS PROPERLY BASED UPON VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS SUPPLYING INFORMATION WHICH WAS NOT “NEW” BUT WHICH WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY KNOWN TO THE PAROLE BOARD (THIRD DEPT).
Jury’s Finding that the Defendant Was Negligent but that the Negligence Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Accident Was Against the Weight of the Evidence—Motion to Set Aside the Verdict Should Have Been Granted—New Trial Ordered

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

PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH... THE FIRST NOTICE OF CLAIM DEMANDED ONLY AN EXTENSION OF THE CONTRACTUAL TIME-LIMIT...