You are here: / / PRISON’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIRECTIVE...

PRISON’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIRECTIVE RE OPENING INMATES’ MAIL REQUIRED ANNULMENT OF THE MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department annulled the misbehavior determination because there was no proof the superintendent provided written permission to open petitioner’s mail as required by a Department of Corrections directive. All the disciplinary rule violations stemmed from the contents of the mail:

Petitioner’s sole claim is that the Superintendent did not provide written authorization pursuant to Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Directive No. 4422 (III) (B) (9) (see 7 NYCRR 720.3 [e]) for opening the outgoing correspondence that led to the investigation implicating him as the sender. Significantly, such correspondence provided the basis for all of the disciplinary rule violations of which petitioner was found guilty. The directive at issue specifically provides that “[o]utgoing correspondence . . . shall not be opened, inspected, or read without express written authorization from the facility superintendent” … . It further states that “[s]uch written authorization shall set forth the specific facts forming the basis for the action” … . Here, there was no proof presented that the Superintendent issued a written authorization supported by specific facts permitting the correction official to open the correspondence. Rather, the record suggests that the authorization was verbal, as no written instrument was ever produced and the Superintendent did not testify at the hearing. Under these circumstances, the determination of guilt must be annulled … . Matter of Sudler v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 04629, Third Dept 6-21-18

​DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (PRISON’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIRECTIVE RE OPENING INMATES’ MAIL REQUIRED ANNULMENT OF THE MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION (THIRD DEPT))/MAIL (DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES), PRISON’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIRECTIVE RE OPENING INMATES’ MAIL REQUIRED ANNULMENT OF THE MISBEHAVIOR DETERMINATION (THIRD DEPT)

You might also like
“But For” Causation Element of Tortious Interference with Contract and Prospective Business Relationship Not Present—Notwithstanding the Actions of the Defendants, there Was Evidence the Contract Was Cancelled for Financial Reasons
CLAIMANT’S TERMINATION FROM HER EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY BASED UPON TWO DRIVING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE CONVICTIONS DID NOT PRECLUDE HER FROM RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
SUBSTITUTE TEACHER WAS NOT GIVEN REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF FUTURE EMPLOYMENT AS REQUIRED BY THE LABOR LAW, UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER, A COURT OFFICER, SLIPPED AND FELL ON A WET FLOOR IN THE COURTHOUSE; THE FALL WAS AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER ALLEGED EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION BASED LARGELY ON THE EMPLOYER’S REFUSAL TO ACCOMMODATE PETITIONER’S DISABILITIES BY ALLOWING HER TO WORK REMOTELY FROM HOME; THE EMPLOYER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT FACTUAL INFORMATION TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).
THE STATEMENTS MADE ABOUT PLAINTIFF WERE PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE; PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE STATEMENTS WERE MOTIVATED SOLELY BY MALICE; THE DEFAMATION ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
In the Absence of Prejudice to Defendants, It Was Not Error to Allow Evidence of a Theory of Liability Not Explicitly Referenced in the Complaint and Bill of Particulars
FATHER DENIED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE DEED WAS DELIVERED... DEFENDANT OFFERED TWO NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATIONS FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION...