Saez v. Fischer
This text of 113 A.D.3d 961 (Saez 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.
Opinion
We annul. We agree with petitioner’s contention, and respondent concedes, that the Hearing Officer erred in failing to ascertain why a requested inmate had refused to testify. Although the inmate assistant signed the form indicating that the requested inmate refused to testify, no explanation was given for such refusal. Moreover, the Hearing Officer made no attempt to verify the basis for the refusal, despite petitioner’s repeated requests for the inmate’s testimony (see Matter of Abdur-Raheem v Prack, 98 AD3d 1152, 1153 [2012]). Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, we find that, under the circumstances [962]*962herein, this was a regulatory, not constitutional, violation of his right to call witnesses. Accordingly, the determination must be annulled and the matter remitted for a new hearing (see Matter of Dickerson v Fischer, 105 AD3d 1232, 1232 [2013]; compare Matter of Barnes v LeFevre, 69 NY2d 649, 650 [1986]).
Peters, P.J., Stein, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is annulled, without costs, and matter remitted to respondent for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
113 A.D.3d 961, 978 N.Y.2d 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saez-v-fischer-nyappdiv-2014.