Matter of Tolliver v. Fischer

125 A.D.3d 1023, 2 N.Y.S.3d 694, 2015 NY Slip Op 00931, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 959
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 5, 2015
Docket518816
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 125 A.D.3d 1023 (Matter of Tolliver v. Fischer) 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
Matter of Tolliver v. Fischer, 125 A.D.3d 1023, 2 N.Y.S.3d 694, 2015 NY Slip Op 00931, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 959 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered April 11, 2014 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination finding him guilty of violating two prison disciplinary rules. Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Because we are precluded from conducting a meaningful review due to transcription errors, we reverse (see Matter of Tolliver v Fischer, 105 AD3d 1239, 1239 [2013]). Sections of the transcript of the disciplinary hearing are clearly out of order, as noted by the nonchronological dates recited by the Hearing Officer. Portions of questioning of at least two witnesses appear to be missing, although the extent of the missing information is unclear. Petitioner was permitted to read what was described as a three-page statement into the record, but his recitation is cut off mid-sentence at the bottom of a page; the Hearing Officer cited this statement as evidence that he relied *1024 upon in rendering his decision. Although expungement is not required here, the failure to properly record the entire hearing, including potentially significant evidence, requires annulment and remittal for a new hearing (see id. at 1239-1240; Matter of La Van v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 47 AD3d 1153, 1153 [2008]; Matter of Douglas v Goord, 24 AD3d 922, 923 [2005]).

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Egan Jr. and Devine, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs, petition granted, determination annulled and matter remitted to respondent for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision. [Prior Case History: 2014 NY Slip Op 30793(U).]

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

Related

Matter of Perez v. Annucci
2020 NY Slip Op 05634 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Walker v. Annucci
2018 NY Slip Op 8814 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Hubbard v. Annucci
2017 NY Slip Op 7036 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
PHILLIPS, JASON v. ANNUCCI, ANTHONY
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
Matter of Phillips v. Annucci
2017 NY Slip Op 3661 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Sims v. Russo
148 A.D.3d 1409 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Legeros v. Annucci
147 A.D.3d 1175 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 A.D.3d 1023, 2 N.Y.S.3d 694, 2015 NY Slip Op 00931, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-tolliver-v-fischer-nyappdiv-2015.