You are here: / / HEARING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER INTO INMATE’S REFUSAL...

HEARING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER INTO INMATE’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY IN PETITIONER’S HEARING, NEW HEARING ORDERED.

The Third Department determined petitioner was entitled to a new hearing. An inmate petitioner wished to call as a witness refused to testify, giving a reason which was on its face untrue. In that circumstance, the hearing officer was obligated to inquire further into the reason for the inmate’s refusal:

During the disciplinary hearing, petitioner requested the testimony of the other inmate who was present in the room at the time of the incident. The Hearing Officer contacted that inmate, who refused to testify and executed a refusal form stating, “I know nothing.” This statement, however, is belied by evidence in the record. According to the unusual incident report, the potential inmate witness informed correction officers that petitioner “stabbed [the victim] with the weapon that was found in the garbage can.” Notably, the Hearing Officer specifically referenced the witness’s account of the incident in his statement of the evidence that he relied on in making the determination of guilt. Inasmuch as evidence in the record “casts doubt on the authenticity of the reason[] given” for the witness’s refusal … , and there is nothing in the record indicating that the Hearing Officer made any further inquiry, we find that petitioner’s right to call witnesses was violated … . Insofar as the Hearing Officer articulated a good-faith reason for the denial of the witness, “this amounts to a regulatory violation requiring that the matter be remitted for a new hearing” … . Matter of Peterson v Annucci, 2016 NY Slip Op 05681, 3rd Dept 7-28-16

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (HEARING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER INTO INMATE’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY IN PETITIONER’S HEARING, NEW HEARING ORDERED)/INMATES (HEARING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER INTO INMATE’S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY IN PETITIONER’S DISCIPLINARY HEARING, NEW HEARING ORDERED)

You might also like
Keeping Animals In Cages On the Same Lot as Petitioner’s Home, as Part of the Operation of a Business, Constituted a “Home Occupation” Requiring Approval by the Zoning Board
FAMILY COURT’S RELIGION-BASED DIRECTIVES IN THIS CUSTODY CASE WERE NOT WITHIN THE “BEST INTERESTS OF A CHILD” CATEGORIES OUTLINED IN THE SEMINAL CASE, ALDOUS V ALDOUS, AND WERE THEREFORE VACATED (THIRD DEPT). ​
IF PLAINTIFF, A FOREMAN, HAD THE AUTHORITY TO STOP WORK BECAUSE OF RAIN, THEN HIS CONTINUING TO WORK MAY HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; IF PLAINTIFF HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED TO WORK IN THE RAIN, THEN THE WET PLYWOOD MAY HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICTING OR ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE ON THESE ISSUES, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
THE ABSENCE OF BODY-WORN CAMERA FOOTAGE OF THE INCIDENT WAS NEVER EXPLAINED; THE CORRECTION OFFICER’S VERSION OF EVENTS WAS CONTRADICTED BY PETITIONER AND THREE WITNESSES; THEREFORE THE TESTIMONY OF THE CORRECTION OFFICER, WHICH WAS CREDITED BY THE HEARING OFFICER, LACKED SUFFICIENT INDICIA OF RELIABILITY TO SATISFY THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD (THIRD DEPT).
No Contest Clause Was Not Triggered by Offering Will for Probate or Questioning Actions of Named Executor(s)
THE ACTION CONTESTING THE AMENDMENT TO THE BY-LAWS OF A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION WHICH OWNS RECREATIONAL LAND AND COLLECTS DUES FROM LOT OWNERS MUST BE BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING, NOT AN ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT; THE ACTION IS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT).
AFTER THE INITIAL INVESTIGATION AT THE SCENE AND AFTER DEFENDANT WAS HANDCUFFED AND SEATED IN THE BACK OF THE POLICE CAR, THE OFFICER ASKED DEFENDANT “WHAT HAPPENED?”; DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CLUTTER AT A DAY CARE CENTER WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND WHETHER A BICYCLE RIDDEN BY A THREE-YEAR-OLD WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY THE OPERATOR OF THE DAY CARE CENTER (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

PROTECTIVE SWEEP WHICH UNCOVERED METH LAB NOT JUSTIFIED; MIRANDIZED STATEMENTS... CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS, NOT INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS, IS LIABLE...