You are here: / / NO PROOF INMATE WAS PROPERLY INFORMED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS NOT ATTENDING...

NO PROOF INMATE WAS PROPERLY INFORMED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS NOT ATTENDING THE HEARING AT THE TIME OF HIS PURPORTED REFUSAL TO ATTEND, DETERMINATION ANNULLED.

The Third Department annulled the determination because there was no proof the proper information was provided to the inmate at the time the inmate purported refused to attend the hearing:

… [T]he only indication in the record that petitioner refused to attend the hearing is the form signed by the Hearing Officer and an employee witness attesting that petitioner refused to attend the hearing. Although the form includes instructions to inform an inmate about the nature of the hearing, the charges against him or her and the fact that the hearing will be conducted in the refusing inmate’s absence, the record reflects no information regarding the steps taken to ascertain the legitimacy of petitioner’s refusal or to inform him of his right to attend the hearing and the consequences of his failure to do so … . Matter of Wilson v Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 01617, 3rd Dept 3-2-17

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (NO PROOF INMATE WAS PROPERLY INFORMED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS NOT ATTENDING THE HEARING AT THE TIME OF HIS PURPORTED REFUSAL TO ATTEND, DETERMINATION ANNULLED)

You might also like
THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO ADJOURNMENTS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION ALLEGING INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IN THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT MOVE TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
HEARSAY NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE RELIABLE, DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEP
UNDER THE STIPULATED FACTS, THE DEFENDANT’S TRAGIC ERROR, MISTAKING THE VICTIM FOR A DEER, DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE, NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
DOCTOR’S REPORTING PLAINTIFFS’ CHILD’S INJURIES TO CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES IS PROTECTED BY THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY PROVISION IN THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW, PLAINTIFFS’ DEFAMATION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
Safety Regulation Asserted to Be the Basis of the Labor Law 241 (6) Cause of Action Did Not Apply to the Defect Which Caused the Injury
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT-CONTRACTOR LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM AND WHETHER THERE WAS AN INTERVENING, SUPERSEDING CAUSE OF THE INJURY, CRITERIA FOR BOTH EXPLAINED.
FAMILY COURT’S RULING THAT A MASSACHUSETTS COURT WAS THE MORE CONVENIENT FORUM FOR THIS CUSTODY MATTER WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY EXPLICIT REFERENCE TO THE STATUTORY FACTORS OR ANY TESTIMONY OR SUBMISSIONS BY THE PARTIES; THE RECORD WAS THEREFORE INSUFFICIENT FOR APPELLATE REVIEW AND THE MATTER WAS REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
THE SURETY BOND, A CONTRACT, WAS UNAMBIGUOUS AND MADE NO MENTION OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; THE SURETY THEREFORE WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; THE ARGUMENT THAT CPLR 5001 MAKES PAYMENT OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST MANDATORY WAS REJECTED (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

ANOMALY IN GUIDELINES MAY RESULT IN AN OVERESTIMATION OF THE CHILD-PORNOGRAPHY-BASED... TERMINATION OF TEACHER BASED ON HER SUBMISSION OF INACCURATE TIME SHEETS, UNDER...