Hand v. Gutwein

113 A.D.3d 975, 978 N.Y.2d 913
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 23, 2014
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 113 A.D.3d 975 (Hand v. Gutwein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hand v. Gutwein, 113 A.D.3d 975, 978 N.Y.2d 913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

We affirm. In situations where an inmate is improperly denied the right to call a witness at a disciplinary hearing, the appropriate remedy of remittal or expungement depends upon whether the situation constitutes a regulatory or constitutional [976]*976violation (see Matter of Alvarez v Goord, 30 AD3d 118, 121 [2006]). “[W]hile [a] hearing officer’s actual outright denial of a witness without a stated good-faith reason, or lack of any effort to obtain a requested witness’s testimony, constitutes a clear constitutional violation [requiring expungement,] [mjost other situations constitute regulatory violations [requiring a new hearing]” (Matter of Moulton v Fischer, 100 AD3d 1131, 1131 [2012], lv dismissed 20 NY3d 1021 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Here, because the Hearing Officer stated a good-faith basis for the denial of the witnesses, the error was not of constitutional dimension (see e.g. Matter of Buari v Fischer, 70 AD3d 1147, 1148 [2010]; Matter of Alvarez v Goord, 30 AD3d at 121). Moreover, “[r]emittal for a rehearing rather than expungement is generally permissible where, as here, substantial evidence otherwise supports the determination” (Matter of Deboue v Fischer, 108 AD3d 818, 819 n [2013]). Accordingly, we find that under the circumstances herein, Supreme Court correctly remitted the matter for a new hearing rather than order expungement (see Matter of Morris-Hill v Fischer, 104 AD3d 978, 978-979 [2013]; Matter of Gross v Yelich, 101 AD3d 1298, 1298 [2012]; Matter of Alvarez v Goord, 30 AD3d at 121).

Rose, J.P., Stein, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Matter of Getfield v. Annucci
2019 NY Slip Op 4523 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Humphrey v. Venettozzi
149 A.D.3d 1435 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Harriott v. Koenigsmann
149 A.D.3d 1440 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Mosley v. Annucci
146 A.D.3d 1054 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of McFarlane v. Annucci
145 A.D.3d 1312 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Jackson v. Prack
126 A.D.3d 1243 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Hand v. Greene
118 A.D.3d 1245 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
113 A.D.3d 975, 978 N.Y.2d 913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hand-v-gutwein-nyappdiv-2014.