You are here: / / RECORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PETITIONER KNOWINGLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE...

RECORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PETITIONER KNOWINGLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department annulled and expunged the misbehavior determination because the record did not reflect the petitioner’s knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to be present at the hearing:

“[A]n inmate has a fundamental right to be present at his or her disciplinary hearing and, in order for an inmate to make a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of that right, he or she must be informed of that right and of the consequences of failing to appear at the hearing” … . Here, while there was testimony at the continuation of the hearing that the correction officers assigned to transport petitioner advised him that the hearing would continue in his absence, a videotape of the interaction between petitioner and the officers that resulted in his refusal to attend the hearing reveals no such advisement. Notably, the correction officer did not elaborate on the reason for petitioner’s refusal, and the Hearing Officer did not inquire … . Although the record also contains a written form, signed by one of the correction officers assigned to transport petitioner to the hearing, attesting to the fact that petitioner was aware of the consequences of his refusal, petitioner did not sign the form and there is no indication on the form or anywhere else in the record as to the steps taken to either “ascertain the legitimacy of petitioner’s refusal or to inform him of . . . the consequences of his failure to [attend]” …  to assert that petitioner forfeited his right to be present is unavailing because the hearing was not nearing completion at the time of the refusal. In light of the foregoing, we cannot conclude that petitioner knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily relinquished his right to attend the hearing … . Matter of Micolo v Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 05893, 3rd Dept 7-27-17

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS (INMATES) (RECORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PETITIONER KNOWINGLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED 3RD DEPT)

You might also like
Juvenile Delinquency Adjudications Can Not Be Considered in the Criminal History Categories of a Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI)—However the Adjudications Can Be Considered When Deciding Whether to Depart from the Recommended Risk Level
FATHER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT TERMINATING HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS ON THE GROUND HIS 18-YEAR-OLD CHILD HAD ABANDONED HIM (THIRD DEPT).
SUIT ALLEGING TOWN AND COUNTY NEGLIGENTLY ISSUED PERMITS FOR A FESTIVAL WITHOUT MAKING SURE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WERE ADEQUATE DISMISSED ON GOVERNMENTAL-IMMUNITY GROUNDS.
CHILD’S TESTIMONY ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE NOT CORROBORATED, SEXUAL ABUSE ADJUDICATION REVERSED.
Motion to Dismiss In Which Documentary Evidence Was Submitted—Court’s Role Is to Determine Whether Plaintiff Has a Cause of Action, Not Whether Plaintiff Has Stated a Cause of Action—Although the Complaint Alleged Interference With a Competitive Bidding Process Involving Public Entities, the Case Fit an Exception to the Rule that Competitive Bidding Issues Be Determined in an Article 78 Proceeding—It Was Alleged a Private Party (Defendant) Interfered with the Competitive Bidding Process
SCHOOL DISTRICT’S UNILATERALLY CONTRACTING WITH AN OUTSIDE AGENCY FOR A PREKINDERGARTEN PROGRAM WAS NOT AN IMPROPER PRACTICE UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW (TAYLOR LAW).
THE TERM ‘AUTOMATIC OVERRIDE’ DOES NOT MANDATE THAT AN OFFENDER WITH A PRIOR SEX-CRIME FELONY BE CLASSIFIED A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER, BOTH COUNTY COURT AND DEFENSE COUNSEL MISUNDERSTOOD THE TERM (THIRD DEPT). ​
Court May Impliedly Vacate Note of Issue by Directing Discovery

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR PLAINTIFF’S... THE TRUST AGREEMENT INDICATED THE DECEDENT INTENDED A CHARITABLE GIFT BE MADE...