You are here: / / THE RESPONDENT CORRECTION OFFICER PARTICIPATED IN A GANG ASSAULT ON AN...
,

THE RESPONDENT CORRECTION OFFICER PARTICIPATED IN A GANG ASSAULT ON AN INMATE WHICH RESULTED IN THE INMATE’S DEATH; THE CORRECTION OFFICER WAS ACQUITTED OF CRIMINAL CHARGES; THE NY STATE POLICE BROUGHT THIS PROCEEDING SEEKING AN “EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER” (ERPO) WHICH PROHIBITS RESPONDENT FROM POSSESSING FIREARMS; SUPREME COURT DENIED THE PETITION; THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT GRANTED IT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should have issued an “extreme risk protection order” (ERPO) which preclude the respondent correction officer from possessing firearms. The respondent was involved in a gang assault on an inmate which caused the inmates death. The respondent had been acquitted of the related criminal charges:

… [T]he burden was on petitioner [the New York State Police] under the circumstances here to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that respondent posed “a substantial risk of physical harm to other persons as manifested by homicidal or other violent behavior by which others are placed in reasonable fear of serious physical harm” (Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39 [a] [2]; see CPLR 6343 [2]). Petitioner met that burden by establishing that respondent actively participated in the assault of a restrained incarcerated individual by grabbing the victim by the chest and holding him down while other officers kicked the victim in the abdomen and groin (see CPLR 6342 [2] [a]). Indeed, that conduct is particularly egregious in this case because “DOCCS regulations require correction officers to exercise ‘[t]he greatest caution and conservative judgment’ in determining whether physical force against an inmate is necessary” ( … 7 NYCRR 251-1.2 [a]), inasmuch as “[c]orrection officers are tasked with the formidable and critical responsibility of protecting the safety of inmates and coworkers while maintaining order in correctional facilities” (id. at 385). Respondent adduced no evidence to the contrary at the hearing. * * *

We therefore reverse the order, reinstate the application, grant the application insofar as it seeks the issuance of a final ERPO, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings pursuant to CPLR 6343 (3). Matter of New York State Police v Galliher, 2026 NY Slip Op 02510, Fourth Dept 4-24-26

Practice Point: The “Extreme Risk Protection Act” (CPLR 6343) provides a mechanism to prohibit the possession of firearms. Here a correction officer participated in a gang assault on an inmate which resulted in the inmate’s death. The correction officer was acquitted of criminal charges and could therefore possess firearms. The NY State Police brought this proceeding for a “final extreme risk protection order” (ERPO) prohibiting the correction officer from possessing firearms.

 

You might also like
THE CRITERIA FOR IMPOSING THE MAXIMUM RESTITUTION SURCHARGE OF 10% WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT).
Court’s Erroneous Ruling that Defendant Did Not Have Standing to Contest a Search Was Followed by Defendant’s Entering a Guilty Plea—Because Defendant May Not Have Pled Guilty Had the Suppression Motion Been Held and Suppression Granted, the Matter Was Remitted for a Suppression Hearing (After Defendant Had Completed His Sentence)
DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM WHEN HIS SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION WAS CHANGED, MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT).
Guilty Plea Waives All Nonjurisdictional Pre-Trial and Trial Defects.
Falling Off X-Ray Table Raised Question of Fact
DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE NEAR A SUSPECTED DRUG HOUSE IN A HIGH CRIME AREA GAVE RISE TO ONLY A GROUNDED SUSPICION; THE ATTEMPT TO STOP THE CAR IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE SEIZED EVIDENCE AND THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA, WHICH ENCOMPASSED AN UNRELATED OFFENSE, WAS VACATED IN ITS ENTIRETY (FOURTH DEPT).
THE FIRST, THIRD AND FOURTH DEPARTMENTS HAVE HELD THAT THE VIOLATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION 12 NYCRR 23-4.2 (K) WILL NOT SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE IT IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HAS HELD THE VIOLATION OF THAT SAME PROVISION SUPPORTS A LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE ASSESSMENT OF POINTS ON A GROUND OF WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT NOTIFIED VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (FOURTH 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT COULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH OF... MOTHER ASKED TO REPRESENT HERSELF IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING AND THEN DEFAULTED;...