Tumminia v. Selsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tumminia v. Selsky

303 A.D.2d 1006, 756 N.Y.S.2d 805, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3009

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 21, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 1006 (Tumminia v. Selsky) 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

Tumminia v. Selsky, 303 A.D.2d 1006, 756 N.Y.S.2d 805, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3009 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—CPLR article 78 proceeding transferred to this Court by an order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Corning, J.), entered September 19, 2002, seeking to annul a determination after a Tier III hearing.

It is hereby ordered that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously annulled on the law without costs, the petition is granted in part and the matter is remitted to respondent for a new hearing.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination directing that he be placed in administrative segregation (see 7 NYCRR 301.4 [b]). Respondent concedes that petitioner was denied his right to call witnesses at the Tier III hearing pursuant to 7 NYCRR 254.5 (a) based on the Hearing Officer’s failure to ascertain why several inmates had refused to testify (see Matter of Dawes v Selsky, 286 AD2d 806, 808 [2001]; Matter of Johnson v Goord, 247 AD2d 801, 802 [1998]). We therefore annul the determination, grant the petition in part and remit the matter to respondent for a new hearing (see Matter of Rondon v Selsky, 274 AD2d 713, 714 [2000]; Matter of Blake v Coughlin, 189 AD2d 1016, 1017-1018 [1993]). In view of our determination, we do not address petitioner’s remaining contentions. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Wisner, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

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

—CPLR article 78 proceeding transferred to this Court by an order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Corning, J.), entered September 19, 2002, seeking to annul a determination after a Tier III hearing.

It is hereby ordered that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously annulled on the law without costs, the petition is granted in part and the matter is remitted to respondent for a new hearing.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination directing that he be placed in administrative segregation (see 7 NYCRR 301.4 [b]). Respondent concedes that petitioner was denied his right to call witnesses at the Tier III hearing pursuant to 7 NYCRR 254.5 (a) based on the Hearing Officer’s failure to ascertain why several inmates had refused to testify (see Matter of Dawes v Selsky, 286 AD2d 806, 808 [2001]; Matter of Johnson v Goord, 247 AD2d 801, 802 [1998]). We therefore annul the determination, grant the petition in part and remit the matter to respondent for a new hearing (see Matter of Rondon v Selsky, 274 AD2d 713, 714 [2000]; Matter of Blake v Coughlin, 189 AD2d 1016, 1017-1018 [1993]). In view of our determination, we do not address petitioner’s remaining contentions. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Wisner, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 1006, 756 N.Y.S.2d 805, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tumminia-v-selsky-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack