From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sorrentino v. Fischer

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
May 16, 2013
106 A.D.3d 1309 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-05-16

In the Matter of Patrick SORRENTINO, Petitioner, v. Brian FISCHER, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

Patrick Sorrentino, Beacon, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Jonathan D. Hitsous of counsel), for respondent.


Patrick Sorrentino, Beacon, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Jonathan D. Hitsous of counsel), for respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County), to review a determination of respondentwhich found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

After a correction officer found heroin in petitioner's room, he was found guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. His administrative appeal was unsuccessful, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We annul. Petitioner requested the testimony of three witnesses who shared a room with him. The Hearing Officer stated that inmate refusal forms for all three had been signed by the employee assistant, but not by the inmates, and that no explanations were given for their refusal to testify. Because the record does not contain any reason for the witnesses' refusal or indicate that the Hearing Officer attempted to verify their refusal, petitioner's regulatory right to call witnesses has been violated ( see7 NYCRR 254.5[a]; Matter of Barnes v. LeFevre, 69 N.Y.2d 649, 650, 511 N.Y.S.2d 591, 503 N.E.2d 1022 [1986];Matter of Pitts v. Fischer, 98 A.D.3d 762, 762, 948 N.Y.S.2d 923 [2012] ). Accordingly, we must annul the determination and remit for a new hearing ( see Matter of Abdur–Raheem v. Prack, 98 A.D.3d 1152, 1153, 950 N.Y.S.2d 800 [2012];Matter of Pitts v. Fischer, 98 A.D.3d at 762–763, 948 N.Y.S.2d 923).

ADJUDGED that the determination is annulled, without costs, and matter remitted to respondent for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision.

ROSE, J.P., LAHTINEN, McCARTHY and EGAN JR., JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sorrentino v. Fischer

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
May 16, 2013
106 A.D.3d 1309 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Sorrentino v. Fischer

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Patrick SORRENTINO, Petitioner, v. Brian FISCHER, as…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: May 16, 2013

Citations

106 A.D.3d 1309 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
964 N.Y.S.2d 918
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3533

Citing Cases

Sorrentino v. Fischer

In the Matter of Patrick SORRENTINO, Appellant, v. Brian FISCHER, etc., Respondent.Reported below, 106 A.D.3d…

Figueroa v. Prack

One of the officers signed a witness refusal to testify form that provided no reason for the refusal and…