You are here: / / NO EFFORT WAS MADE TO DETERMINE WHY PETITIONER’S WITNESS WOULD NOT...

NO EFFORT WAS MADE TO DETERMINE WHY PETITIONER’S WITNESS WOULD NOT TESTIFY, DETERMINATION ANNULLED.

The Third Department annulled the determination because no effort was made to determine why petitioner's cellmate refused to testify at the hearing:

Petitioner contends, among other things, that he was improperly denied the right to have his cellmate, who allegedly overheard the correction officer threaten him, testify at the hearing. Petitioner requested the cellmate as a witness at the hearing. A correction officer approached the cellmate about testifying, but he apparently refused and would neither sign a refusal form nor state the reason for his refusal. It does not appear that the Hearing Officer communicated directly with the cellmate, but rather related this information to petitioner based upon the contents of the refusal form. Notably, the correction officer who completed the refusal form did not testify at the hearing.

This Court has acknowledged that “[a] deprivation of the inmate's right to present witnesses will be found when there has been no inquiry at all into the reason for the witness's refusal, without regard to whether the inmate previously agreed to testify” … . No such inquiry was made by the Hearing Officer here, and respondent has essentially conceded this much. Thus, while respondent maintains that this is a regulatory violation for which remittal is appropriate, we find that the circumstances presented give rise to a constitutional violation for which expungement is the proper remedy … . Matter of Tevault v Prack, 2016 NY Slip Op 01533, 3rd Dept 3-3-16

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (NO EFFORT MADE TO DETERMINED WHY PETITIONER'S WITNESS WOULD NOT TESTIFY, DETERMINATION ANNULLED)

You might also like
Driver of Street Sweeper Which Struck Plaintiff’s Car Entitled to Statutory Immunity
THE OMISSION OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE OFFENSE FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION WAS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND ANY ERRORS WERE FORFEITED BY THE GUILTY PLEA (THIRD DEPT).
IN THE FACE OF AN ALLEGATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ORDERED DEFENSE COUNSEL TO PROVIDE STATEMENTS FROM THE JOINTLY REPRESENTED DEFENDANTS CONSENTING TO THE REPRESENTATION.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP EXISTED WHICH WOULD SUPPORT THE INSURANCE MALPRACTICE ACTION.
Juror Had Personal/Professional Relationships with Two Prosecution Witnesses—For Cause Challenge Should Have Been Granted
Motion to Resettle Explained
NEW YORK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RULED AN INCONVENIENT FORUM FOR THIS VISITATION/CONTACT ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).
TRANSFER OF ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT TO A LOWER PAYING JOB WAS NOT DISCIPLINE UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW AND DID NOT CONSTITUTE A DUE PROCESS VIOLATION (THIRD DEPT).